Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III v. Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 217910 (2019)

In 2015, a citizen of the Philippines filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines as unconstitutional. Articles 1 and 2 specify that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Therefore, in effect, Filipino law does not recognize marriage between same-sex couples. He additionally sought to nullify Articles 46(4) and 55(6) of the Family Code of the Philippines. Article 46(4) states that concealment of homosexuality at the time of marriage constitutes fraud, and Article 55(6) permits an individual to petition for legal separation from their spouse on the grounds of homosexuality. In 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition because it did not present an actual case or controversy. The Court reasoned that these claims were not justiciable because he did not allege sufficient facts that explained how the provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines affected him. In fact, he had never applied for a marriage license, which the Court considered in concluding that he did not suffer from the challenged law. Consequently, the Court found that his status as an open and self-identified homosexual, without tangible harm, does not meet the requirement for legal standing. The Court reserved the ability to revisit the issue if a proper case presents itself. However, the Court also stated that Congress may better address this issue because of its complicated effects on other laws, such as those related to tax, labor, insurance, and property. In addition, he filed a petition-in-intervention in an attempt to allow a same-sex couple, who were denied a marriage license, to intervene in the proceedings in order to offer further arguments. The Court viewed the intervention as an unpersuasive attempt to cure the original petition’s defects, which ultimately failed because a petition-in-intervention cannot create an actual case or controversy when the main petition fails to do so itself. While sympathetic to the petitioner and his cause, the Court upheld the ban on same-sex marriage.

Topics

Geographical location

Keywords

Year

  • 2019

External URL

Court

Type

Jurisdiction