Negative Side

Where the Philippine Constitution and the 1949 Civil Code of the Philippines were silent
on what constitutes marriage, the Family Code promulgated by then President Corazon
Aquino under her legislative powers defined marriage as a union between a man and a
woman.

The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. Changes, such as the
decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have
worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of
marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not
weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a
Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.
(Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14556, 26 June 2015 of US Supreme Court)

When the US Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples may exercise the
fundamental right to marry in all States and that there is no lawful basis for a State to
refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the
ground of its same-sex character, a Petition of Certiorari and Prohibition filed before
the Philippine Supreme Court, seeking the nullification of Articles 1 and 2 of the Family
Code, takes center stage in the controversy.

Religious or moral neutrality is assumed in the rulings of the Court. Indeed, it is not the
role of the judicial branch to decide on the rightness or wrongness of the law as written.
Judges are tasked to interpret the law according to its intent and spirit, and uphold its
application in the cases that come before them.

The morality issue is one for the legislators. They pass into law what they deem to be
right according to whatever moral standard they assume.

However, this petition seeks to expand the role of the judiciary, an encroachment into
the legislative function, making them unrepresentative legislators.

No doubt, it is disguised as a question of constitutionality, but moral and religious

commitments are at the core of this appeal.

Marriage itself is and has always been a religious institution, as well as a societal one.
Clear testimony to this fact is the officiating ministers in weddings. The idea of society
and government being unreligious is a relatively new innovation in the history of the
world.

Added testimony is that the LGBT lobby is not satisfied with the mere legal recognition
of same-sex unions as marriage, but the accompanying, inseparable demand that
churches and ministers comply as well in officiating their weddings, which threatens yet
another constitutional doctrine of separation between church and state.

A huge weakness in any of these appeals is the claim that the LGBT community is
prevented from having a relationship.

However, there is no prohibition against having a life-long same-sex relationship. A

relationship does not equal a right to government benefits and state recognition. No
one is denying them freedom to associate.

What dignity does not include is the right to redefine an institution that has existed for
thousands of years.

Moreover, no one is legally excluding values. The LGBT side is demanding more than
merely acceptance of values. They are asking that their voluntary same-sex
relationships, which they are perfectly free to engage in, be granted the same status and
benefits as marriage. More accurately, same-sex marriage is an invention.

Speculating as to why the Civil Code did not define or limit marriage between a man and
a woman can easily be remedied by looking into the cognizance of the time. We will
quote Chief Justice Roberts of the US Supreme Court: As the majority acknowledges,
marriage has existed for millennia and across civilizations. For all those millennia,
across all those civilizations, marriage referred to only one relationship: the union of a
man and a woman. As the Court explained two Terms ago, until recent years,. . .
marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people
as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout
the history of civilization.

This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical
coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery,
disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world historyand
certainly, not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians.

It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived
by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong
relationship.

To say that because it is not defined or limited in this way is a weak argument from
silence. Just because it doesnt say not to, it does not necessarily follow that it permits
it.
Are homosexuals unduly deprived of liberty? No one has taken any liberty from the
LGBT community, rather, you want to invent new liberties and new rights, and redefine
an institution that is by necessity and natural law limited.

What rights did you have that you now do not because of the definition of marriage?
What equal protection did you have that now you do not? Everyone has the right to
marry, provided that they marry the opposite sex.

The States interest is to ensure the propagation of future generations. As stipulated in

Art XV, Section 1: The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the
nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total
development.

A family is a group of persons united together by ties of marriage and blood.

Restrictively, it is applied to the group formed by the spouses and their children. (Old
Civil Code of the Philippines, 1986) Hence, the privilege of being able to marry is given
to the ones who are able to procreate.

Lest the Affirmative argues on the basis of the exception to infertility, it would be wise to
remember that the exception should not overrule the heart of the provision.

This is an attempt to replicate a context-dependent occurrence in the United States fails

to consider the legal history leading to that decision. SCOTUS ruled on an actual case.
The US Supreme Court agreed to hear four cases, on appeal from the Sixth Circuit, on
whether states may constitutionally ban same-sex marriages or refuse to recognize such
marriages legally performed in another state.

This element is lacking in the petition. Even if every citizen petitioned the Supreme
Court, that still would not make it their job.

Petitioning a body of unelected, non-representative government officials to legitimize

your dignity is repulsive. That is not the behavior of a Republic. Engage in public
discourse, persuade people. But do not circumvent the system simply to get your way.

There was no direct injury on the petitioner. No one is stopping you, Mr. Falcis, from
marrying a woman. As the Court said, whether you love her is irrelevant to them. If
you want the benefits, you would do it. The petition exposes the motivation that
ultimately, this is praying for a validation of a certain lifestyle, and the silencing of all
opposition.
Opportunity and rights are not the same for all people and even that is not
unconstitutional. This may be pertinent.

You have the opportunity to marry, but you dont have the right to marry anyone you
want. The state must protect its own interest in this special contract.

This is why there are rules against incest, polygamy, and bestiality, and it is perfectly
justified and constitutional for the state to do so. It is not a simple agreement between
two, but an institution between two people plus the state, with the objective to ensure
the future generation is protected.

Unless the nature of separation of powers has changed, the Supreme Court does not
redefine, nor does it legislate. The importance of this doctrine is well laid down by
Perfecto V. Fernandez when he said: Separation of Powers is not adhered to in
Constitutional Law solely by virtue of its force as doctrine. Surely it is doctrine, but it is
also more. Because it provides the structure for Limited Government, and the Power
interrelationships indispensable to a Free and Independent Judiciary, it is a basic
institutional safeguard of Democracy and Civil Liberty. It is, indeed, the cornerstone in
the constitutional edifice. For as put in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man,
without the separation of powers, there is no Constitution.