Falcis III v. Civil Registrar-General | |
---|---|
Court | Supreme Court of the Philippines en banc |
Full case name | |
Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III v. Civil Registrar-General [note 1] | |
Decided | September 3, 2019 |
Citation | 861 Phil. 388 |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | None, Supreme Court was first instance [1] |
Questions presented | |
Constitutionality of the portions of Article 1 and 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and whether said articles violate the equal protection and due process provisions of the 1987 Constitution, (both in Article III, Section 1), and religious freedom (Article III, Section 5) of the petitioner. | |
Holding | |
Ponente | Marvic Leonen, joined by Antonio Carpio, Presbitero Velasco Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlas Bernabe, Marvic Leonen, Samuel Martires, Noel Tijam, Andres Reyes Jr., Alexander Gesmundo |
The petition was dismissed for bringing no actual controversy. Falcis III found guilty of indirect contempt of court and ordered to pay a fine of ₱5,000 for hurting the case of his clients by not first filing a marriage petition on their behalf, which, when rejected, would have created an actual controversy. [1] | |
Concurrence | Francis Jardeleza, joined by Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa [2] |
Concurrence | Diosdado Peralta |
Laws applied | |
1987 Constitution, Article III Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. 386) | |
Keywords | |
Same-sex marriage |
Falcis III v. Civil Registrar-General, 861 Phil. 388 (2019), was a case which arose out of a petition filed by Filipino lawyer Jesus Falcis III before the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The Court promulgated its ruling on September 3, 2019.
The high court was asked about the constitutionality of the provision of the Family Code of the Philippines defining marriage as "between a man and a woman".
The petition was filed by Atty. Jesus Falcis III in 2015.
In March 2018, the Supreme Court of the Philippines approved the scheduling of a same-sex marriage petition that seeks to invalidate Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code. [3]
During the second week of June 2018, the Supreme Court announced that they will hear arguments in a case seeking the invalidation of the Family Code's provisions prohibiting same-sex marriage. [4] The news of the historic oral arguments was also reported by the international media. Duterte also expressed his support for same-sex marriage to be legalized in the Philippines. [5]
On June 19, 2018, oral arguments commenced with the following arguments made: whether or not the petition is properly the subject of the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, whether or not the right to marry and the right to choose whom to marry are cognates of the right to life and liberty, whether or not the limitation of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is a valid exercise of police power, whether or not limiting civil marriages to opposite-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause, whether or not denying same-sex couples the right to marry amounts to a denial of their right to life and/or liberty without due process of law, whether or not sex-based conceptions of marriage violate religious freedom, whether or not a determination that Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code are unconstitutional must necessarily carry with it the conclusion that Articles 46(4) and 55(6) of the Family Code (i.e.: homosexuality and lesbianism as grounds for annulment and legal separation) are also unconstitutional, and whether or not the parties are entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) under Jose Calida argued against the case. [6] The second session of arguments took place on June 26, 2018. [7]
Supreme Court justices queried Falcis III on what injury was inflicted on him due to the implementation of the Family Code but it was learned during the oral arguments that Falcis III was a single man did not apply for a marriage for himself which meant he was never denied one. Falcis III was told that his concern should have been raised in a lower court, particularly a regional trial court first. [8]
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on September 3, 2019, for "lack of standing" and for "failing to raise an actual, justiciable controversy" and stated that it could only base a decision on actual facts and "real adversarial presentations" [9] noting that Falcis III cannot claim injury since he is not seeking marriage for himself or has presented an actual case. [10] The high court however added that the 1987 Constitution in "plain text" imposes no restriction on same-sex marriage. [8] The Supreme Court suggested in its ruling that Congress should address the issue.
The petitioners were also cited for indirect contempt with the high court reasoning that "[t]o forget [the bare rudiments of court procedure and decorum] – or worse, to purport to know them, but really, only to exploit them by way of propaganda – and then, to jump headlong into the taxing endeavor of constitutional litigation is a contemptuous betrayal of the high standards of the legal profession." [11]
Falcis III described the decision as a "temporary setback" and has already considered the fact that oral arguments were held regarding his case as a victory "for the opportunity to educate the public" about the issue of same sex marriage in the country. [8]
Two days after the first arguments occurred, the presidential palace of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte stated that it was "too soon for same-sex marriage in the Philippines", causing outrage from various human rights organizations. [12] Additionally, Senate President Tito Sotto, an ally of Duterte, commented: "Same sex union, no problem. Marriage? Debatable," saying that he will vote in favor of same-sex civil unions, a turnaround from previous pronouncements in 2016 and 2017 where he was against both same-sex civil unions and same-sex marriage. [13]
Roman Catholic bishops praised the dismissal of the petition interpreting the high court's decision as a defense for the "sanctity of marriage". [14]
The Supreme Court (Filipino: Kataas-taasang Hukuman; colloquially referred to as the Korte Suprema, is the highest court in the Philippines. The Supreme Court was established by the Second Philippine Commission on June 11, 1901 through the enactment of its Act No. 136, an Act which abolished the Real Audiencia de Manila, the predecessor of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of Virginia is the highest court in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It primarily hears direct appeals in civil cases from the trial-level city and county circuit courts, as well as the criminal law, family law and administrative law cases that are initially appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia. Established in 1779 as the Supreme Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of Virginia is one of the oldest continuously active judicial bodies in the United States.
Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court decided that construing a marriage statute to restrict marriage licenses to persons of the opposite sex "does not offend" the U.S. Constitution. Baker appealed the decision, and on October 10, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question".
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. The procedures of the Court are governed by the U.S. Constitution, various federal statutes, and its own internal rules. Since 1869, the Court has consisted of one chief justice and eight associate justices. Justices are nominated by the president, and with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the U.S. Senate, appointed to the Court by the president. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office.
Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591, 207 P.3d 48 (2009), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court. It resulted from lawsuits that challenged the voters' adoption of Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, which amended the Constitution of California to outlaw same-sex marriage. Several gay couples and governmental entities filed the lawsuits in California state trial courts. The Supreme Court of California agreed to hear appeals in three of the cases and consolidated them so they would be considered and decided. The supreme court heard oral argument in the cases in San Francisco on March 5, 2009. Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar stated that the cases will set precedent in California because "no previous case had presented the question of whether [a ballot] initiative could be used to take away fundamental rights".
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Louisiana since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. The court held that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, invalidating Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling clarified conflicting court rulings on whether state officials are obligated to license same-sex marriages. Governor Bobby Jindal confirmed on June 28 that Louisiana would comply with the ruling once the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its decision in a Louisiana case, which the Fifth Circuit did on July 1. Jindal then said the state would not comply with the ruling until the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana reversed its judgment, which it did on July 2. All parishes now issue marriage licenses in accordance with federal law.
India does not recognise same-sex marriage, civil unions or other forms of partnerships, but provides some limited legal recognition to cohabiting same-sex couples in the form of live-in relationships. Several same-sex couples have married in traditional Hindu ceremonies since the late 1980s; however, these marriages are not registered with the state and couples do not enjoy all the same rights and benefits as married opposite-sex couples. The Supreme Court of India in August 2022 provided social security rights to those in same-sex live-in relationships while also recognising same-sex couples as being part of a "family unit".
Neri Javier Colmenares is a Filipino legislator, human rights lawyer and activist. He was an associate of the Asian Law Centre at Melbourne Law School when he was completing his Ph.D. in law on "The Writ of Amparo and the International Criminal Court." He also lectured at the University of Melbourne on International Human Rights Law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Maria Lourdes "Meilou" Aranal-Sereno is a Filipina lawyer and judge who served as de facto chief justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines from 2012 until 2018.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, officially recorded as Republic Act No. 10175, is a law in the Philippines that was approved by President Benigno Aquino III on September 12, 2012. It aims to address legal issues concerning online interactions and the Internet in the Philippines. Among the cybercrime offenses included in the bill are cybersquatting, cybersex, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data and libel.
Tanco v. Haslam was the lead case in the dispute of same-sex marriage in Tennessee. A U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize the marriages of the plaintiffs, three same-sex couples. The court found the equal protection analysis used in Bourke v. Beshear, a case dealing with a comparable Kentucky statute "especially persuasive." On April 25, 2014, that injunction was stayed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Tanco was appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the district court and upheld Tennessee's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions on November 6.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with equal rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617 (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs.
The political positions of Rodrigo Duterte, the 16th President of the Philippines, have been difficult to define coherently into what some analysts have attempted to package as "Dutertism" or "Dutertismo" due to numerous policy shifts during his presidency.
Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case which ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employees could not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
The quo warranto petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno, filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, led to the landmark case Republic v. Sereno, which nullified Maria Lourdes Sereno's appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, finding that she never lawfully held the office due to a lack of integrity for failing to file certain required financial documents. As a result, she was ousted from the Supreme Court as Chief Justice. The Court handed down its ruling on May 11, 2018. The case began with a filing before the House of Representatives of an impeachment demand, the accusations in which Solicitor General Jose Calida used as the factual basis for his quo warranto petition.
Navtej Singh Johar &Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice (2018) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex.
Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 738 (2019), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the presumption of prejudice for Sixth Amendment purposes applies regardless of whether a defendant has waived the right to appeal.
Disini v. Secretary of Justice, 727 Phil. 28 (2014), is a landmark ruling of the Supreme Court of the Philippines handed down on February 18, 2014. When the Congress of the Philippines passed the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 the bill was immediately controversial, especially its strict penalties for the new crime of "cyberlibel", an upgraded form of the already existing criminal libel charge found in the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
The Philippines does not legally recognize same-sex unions, either in the form of marriage or civil unions. The Family Code of the Philippines defines only recognizes marriages between "a man and a woman". The 1987 Constitution itself does not mention the legality of same-sex unions or has explicit restrictions on marriage that would bare same-sex partners to enter into such arrangement.