Polarizing issue Same-sex marriage spurs heated debates among Filipinos, says Solicitor General Jose Calida. “Falcis failed to allege an actual case or controversy and merely argued that his ability to settle down is impaired because of the absence of a legal

Solicitor General Jose Calida yesterday stood pat on his position that same sex marriage should not be permitted in the country because it is unconstitutional.

Calida told the Supreme Court the topic of same-sex marriage provokes impassioned debates and heated discussions in the country.

“This is to be expected. In a democratic country like ours, there is space for people to argue about issues they care about –- in this case, whether the 1987 Constitution allows couples of the same sex to marry.”

He said in his opening statement that he cannot denigrate the struggle of same-sex couples for marriage equality as they can freely speak their minds.

However, he cautioned those who are supportive of same-sex marriage that their emotions and beliefs cannot and should not influence the faithful discharge of his duties as solicitor general of the republic.

He explained that ultimately, the resolution of the issue at hand hinges on how the Philippine Constitution defines marriage.

He, likewise, argued the petition and petition-in-intervention are not proper subjects of the exercise of the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review.

Calida is representing the Civil Registrar General in the petition which was originally filed by lawyer Jesus Niardo Falcis lll on May 18, 2015, seeking the lifting of the prohibitions on same-sex marriage for being unconstitutional.

The Solgen said the court cannot exercise its power of judicial review over Falcis’ petition because it lacks the first two requisites of judicial review.

He said Falcis failed to allege an actual case or controversy and merely argued in his petition that his ability to settle down and have a companion for life “is impaired because of the absence of a legal incentive for homosexuals to seek such relationships.”

But for Calida, such allegations do not amount to an actual or threatened injury required by law.

He explained that even assuming that he suffered some concrete injury, there is still no actual case or controversy to speak of because Falcis had not properly impleaded anyone that would have purportedly caused him such injury.

He has not shown how the Civil Registrar General had wronged him or denied him of anything that would have impaired any of his rights, Calida argued.

It is likewise insignificant to point out that it is the local civil registrar, not the Civil Registrar General, who issues a marriage license to couples who intend to marry in the Philippines, he added.

Falcis sued the wrong party, said Calida:

“The court cannot, likewise, exercise its power of judicial review over the petition-in-intervention filed by the members of the LGBTS Christian Church , Inc. Majestic Finance and Investment Co., Inc. v Tito holds that intervention is not an independent proceeding but a collateral one.

“It then follows that when the main petition is defective, the petition-in-intervention is also flawed. Water cannot rise higher than its source. Plainly stated, since the Falcis petition is dismissible, the petition-in-intervention should also be dismissible.”

Calida said that even if the court reviews the petition of Falcis, a careful examination of their arguments will show that they lacked merit as their contentions do not find any support in the Philippine legal system.

“The Constitution only contemplates opposite-sex marriages. Thus, Article 1 and 2 of the Family Code are constitutional. It is a fundamental principle of constitutional construction that the intent of the framers should be given effect. Their intention could not be any clearer: marriage is the union between man and a woman,” explained Calida.

He also cited the response of Constitutional Commissioner Maria Teresa Nieva to clarify on what marriage meant, she said. “Generally, I think the accepted definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman.”