MANILA - The Supreme Court (SC) has set oral arguments in June on a petition that seeks to allow same-sex marriage in the Philippines.

The high court decided on the matter during its en banc session Tuesday, close to 3 years after the petition was filed in May 2015 by Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III, who described himself in the pleading as "an open and self-identified homosexual.”

The hearing has been set on June 19.

In his petition, Falcis urged the high court to declare as unconstitutional Articles 1 and 2, which "define and limit marriage as between man and woman," of Executive Order (EO) No. 209, also known as The Family Code of the Philippines.

Falcis argued that these provisions violate homosexuals' right "to found a family" as protected under Section 3 (1) of the 1987 Constitution.

Falcis also said these provisions "deprive [him] and other homosexuals the right to liberty without substantive due process of law" and "deny them the equal protection of the laws."

He further argued that the subject provisions cause lesbian and gay Filipinos to be "relegated to 2nd class citizens."

"The 1987 Philippine Constitution does not define marriage solely as between man and woman... The right of individuals, homosexual or heterosexual, to choose the person he or she wants to have a relationship with and consequently have that relationship legally recognized with all concomittant the rights and obligations is a private decision for individuals to make, not the state," the petition read.

Limiting the definition of marriage between man and woman is grave abuse of discretion, argued Falcis, based on the following grounds:

- the 1987 Constitution does not define marriage as between man and woman;
- the Family Code does not require married individuals to procreate or have the ability to procreate;
- homosexuals are not ordinarily impotent, and not prohibited by law to adopt;
- heterosexuals are no better parents than homosexuals;
- gay individuals are human beings who can love another person just like straight individuals; and
- both gay and straight couples can enter into long-term relationships, and have the same chances of breaking up.

Falcis also urged the high court to nullify Articles 46 (4) and 55 (6) of the Family Code "which mention lesbianism or homosexuality as grounds for annulment and legal separation."

"Petitioner has grown up in a society where same-sex relationships [are] impaired because of the law's normative impact. Petitioner's ability to find and enter into long-term monogamous same-sex relationships is impaired because of the absence of a legal incentive for gay individuals to seek such relationship," the petition read.

The petition asked the SC to direct the Civil Registrar-General to stop the enforcement of the questioned provisions against homosexual couples in processing applications for and in issuing marriage licenses.

OSG: FALCIS’ PETITION FAILS ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS

In its comment filed on March 29, 2016, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) sought the dismissal of the petition, arguing that Falcis has no legal standing to question Articles 1, 2, 46 (4), and 55 (6) of the Family Code since he failed to show an “injury in fact” and also failed to show that he represents a class “who may have been injured by the absence of a law recognizing same-sex marriages.”

The OSG also said the petition is a request for an advisory opinion since there is no case or controversy that needs the high court’s intervention.

“Evidently, petitioner makes no attempt to provide any factual anchor for triggering the exercise of the [SC’s] jurisdiction, ‘expanded’ or not, ’traditional’ or otherwise.

“For the [SC] to indulge petitioner would be an ‘attempt at abstraction,” the OSG said.

The OSG also argued that Falcis failed to implead Congress, which should have been a respondent in the case being “an indispensable party in this case because the petition’s cause of action is directed against a legislative policy.” The OSG said that the separation of powers between the judiciary and legislature must be upheld and as a co-equal branch of government, Congress must be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

The OSG pointed out that Falcis committed an error in impleading the Civil Registrar-General in his petition since Falcis did not state how the Civil Registrar-General could have acted in grave abuse of discretion pertaining to applications for a marriage license. The OSG stressed that the petition challenges the Family Code and not any act of the Civil Registrar-General.

Apart from these alleged infirmities, Falcis should have respected the hierarchy of courts and filed his petition before the lower courts, the OSG stressed.

The OSG further said Falcis committed an error in his petition since he did not seek a writ of mandamus which would have compelled the recognition of same-sex marriage in the event the high court ruled in his favor.