LIBR that same sex marriage be legalized in the Philippines.

Affirmative | First Speaker

5 – minute Speech:

Honorable adjudicators, co – speakers from the opposing side, ladies and gentlemen,
good evening.

As we all know, the issue of the legalization of same sex marriage in the Philippines
remains to be unresolved. We in the affirmative strongly believe that forwarding same
sex marriage in the Philippines is valid and therefore, be legalized.

As the first affirmative speaker, I’ll discuss the constitutionality and fundamental right to
marry. The 2nd affirmative speaker will discuss _______________________________,
while the 3rd affirmative speaker will discuss _______________________________.

No one, even the state, has the power to deprive anyone of his or her fundamental right.
Ladies and gentlemen, your honors, the right to marry is a fundamental right held by
everyone. It is one of the most cherished and basic rights of any person. The honorable
court affirmed this in Republic vs. Manalo. It is an associational right founded on the
universally recognized liberty of every human being to associate with anyone being his
or her heart so chooses without any interference from the state. In Republic vs. Abios,
the honorable court ruled that it is not within the power of the state to dictate on the kind
of life that a couple chooses to live. Any attempt to regulate their lifestyle would raise
serious constitutional questions.

The affirmative submits that the prohibition on same sex marriage, your honors,
deprives same sex couples of the right to privacy, right to found a family, right to rear
children, right of association, and other basic rights. These are fatal to the law’s
constitutionality. The recognition of the fundamental right to marry should be protected.
In Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC, the honorable court ruled that it is this court’s
constitutional mandate to protect their people of the government infringement of their
fundamental rights as highlighted under article 8 section 1 of the 1987 constitution.

The 1987 constitution never envision marriage as being between a man and a woman.
There is absolutely no language in the 1987 constitution or any of our public’s previous
constitutions that imposes a gender restriction in order for Filipinos to marry. The
constitution never discriminated same sex couples textually, only the statutes do.
In imposing a limitation to marry not contemplated by the constitution is not valid. In all
cases, the constitution shall prevail being the supreme law of the land.

When the constitution says that no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws
and that the state values the dignity of every human person, the constitution requires
any couple regardless of their sex or gender to be recognized as having the right to
marry because any couple needs marriage to serve as the foundation of their family.
To borrow a foreign jurisprudence, Justice Kennedy said in the case of Obergefell vs.
Hodges, marriage transforms strangers into relatives, binding families and societies
together. Unfortunately, same sex couples are forced to live the rest of their lives as
legal strangers. That being said is the infringement on their constitutional right to marry.

Your honors, the prohibition on same sex marriage denies the fundamental right to
marry. Without the right to marry, people are denied the freedom to choose their status
losing access to legal rights and obligations. Ladies and gentlemen, no one is vested
with a right to deprive someone of the right inherent to every human being. And with
that, I open this debate.

Note:

Any law that infringes on the right to marry triggers strict scrutiny. In White Light
Corporation vs. City of Manila, a law under strict scrutiny is unconstitutional unless it
can be shown that (1) it is justified by a compelling state interest, (2) it employs less
intrusive means to protect such interest and (3) the means chosen is narrowly tailored.

The 1987 constitution never envision marriage as being between a man and a woman.
There is absolutely no language in the 1987 constitution or any of our public’s previous
constitutions that imposes a gender restriction in order for Filipinos to marry. In
imposing a limitation to marry not contemplated by the constitution is not valid. In all
cases, the constitution shall prevail being the supreme law of the land.

Neccesity –

Positive Side

1. Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with most evidence strongly

supporting biological causation.
2. It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular. Therefore, denying these marriages
is a form of minority discrimination.
3. Legalizing same sex marriage will be a big help for orphanages since same sex
partners cannot pro-create which would probably brought them to adopting orphans.
4. The only thing that should matter in marriage is love.
5. The same financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages apply to same-
sex marriages.

Family Code –

Falcis, in 2015, filed a 31-page Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition against provisions
of the Family Code of the Philippines. He asked the SC to declare as unconstitutional
Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code, which was issued as Executive Order 209 by
President Corazon Aquino in 1987.
Article 1. Marriage is a special contact of permanent union between a man and a
woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family
life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature,
consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except
that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the
limits provided by this Code.

Article 2. No marriage shall be valid unless these essential requisites are present: (1)
Legal capacity of the contacting parties who must be male and a female

He claimed that the two provisions deprive LGBTs of their right to due process and to
equal protection, the right to decisional and marital privacy, and the right to found a
family "in accordance with their religious or irreligious convictions."

Questions:

Good evening, Counsel. Just a mere yes or no.

1. Counsel, are you familiar with the 1987 constitution?

2. You are aware of the Equal Protection Clause under section 1, article 3 of the
1987 constitution?
3. It provides that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws, right?
4. Now, do you agree with me that the right to marry is a fundamental right of every
Filipino citizen?
5. Do you agree that the infringement of the right to marry is unconstitutional?
6. Are you familiar with the Family Code of the Philippines?
7. Since we share the same position that depriving someone the right to marry
unconstitutional, you also agree with me that Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code
contradict the constitution?
8. Do you know that without the right to marry, people are denied to choose their
status?
9. Do you know that without marriage, people can’t establish a conjugal right?
10. Do you agree with me that this being said is a mere deprivation of an inherent
right, therefore unconstitutional?