The Supreme Court has issued guidelines for the oral arguments on June 19 regarding the petition challenging the validity of provisions of the Family Code limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

The oral arguments will take up a petition originally filed by lawyer Jesus Nicardo Falcis III on May 18, 2015, seeking the lifting of the prohibitions on same-sex marriage for being unconstitutional.

Named as respondents in the case were the Civil Registrar General while the petitioners-in-intervention were Christian Church Inc. Rev. Crescencio Agbayani Jr., Marlon Felipe, and Maria Arlyn Ibanez. Lawyer Fernando Perito is the intervenor.

Falcis filed the case shortly after some states in the US allowed the union of same-sex couples.

A pending bill at the House of Representatives is considering the possibility of recognizing “civil unions,” regardless of sexual orientation.

In May 2016, the government, through then solicitor general Florin Hilbay, formally opposed Falcis’ petition, claiming that it is an “intrinsically flawed” and “ill-timed suit.”

In a three-page SC en banc advisory, the high court gave each of the parties 20 minutes to argue their case before the SC en banc.

After each presentation, the justices will be given the “privilege to ask any question on any relevant matter or require submission of any document necessary for an enlightened resolution of this case.”

In his petition, Falcis sought to nullify Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code as well as Articles 46 (4) and 55 (6) of the same law. Articles 1 and 2 limit marriages between man and woman while Articles 46 (4) and 55 (6) cite lesbianism or homosexuality as grounds for annulment and legal separation.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued Falcis’ petition fails to demonstrate an “injury in fact” from the implementation of the Family Code. Injury in fact is the litigant’s “personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of (the law’s) enforcement.”

Falcis is also asking the SC to “prohibit the Civil Registrar-General from enforcing the aforementioned portions of Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code in processing applications for and in issuing marriage licenses against homosexual couples.”

The petitioner argued that such limitations imposed by the Family Code favoring only opposite-sex marriages effectively repealed the 1949 Civil Code, which did not make a distinction.