Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Living History

Supreme Court junks with finality petition for same-sex marriage

But in its earlier ruling on the matter, the SC said the Constitution does not restrict marriage on the basis of sex. It stated that the 1987 Constitution, from its “plain text,” “does not define, or restrict, marriage on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.”

The Supreme Court (SC) of the Philippines has junked – with finality – the petition that sought to legalize same-sex marriage in the country.

In a two-page notice issued by the SC last December 10, 2019 (but only made available on January 6, 2020), the SC denied “with finality the said motion for reconsideration as no substantial arguments were presented to warrant the reversal of the questioned decision.”

In October 2015, Atty. Jesus Nicardo Falcis III filed the petition that sought to strike down the prohibitions against same-sex marriage under the Family Code. But the SC dismissed Falcis’ petition “on account of his lack of standing, violating the principle of hierarchy of courts, and failing to raise an actual, justiciable controversy,” SC’s spokesperson Brian Keith Hosaka said in a news conference on September 3, 2019.

But in its earlier ruling on the matter, the SC said the Constitution does not restrict marriage on the basis of sex. It stated that the 1987 Constitution, from its “plain text,” “does not define, or restrict, marriage on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.”

The High Court, nonetheless, had to deny the petition based on Falcis’ lack of standing, violation of the principle of hierarchy of courts, and failure to raise an actual, justiciable controversy.

This time around, the SC stated that “no further pleadings or motions will be entertained,” said SC Clerk of Court Edgar Aricheta.

For the SC, through Associate Justice Marvic Leonen who penned the decision, “same-sex couples may morally claim that they have a right against discrimination for their choice of relationships and that official recognition of their partnerships may, for now, be a matter that should be addressed to Congress.”

Written By

Advertisement
Advertisement

Like Us On Facebook

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

NEWSMAKERS

In general, LGBTQ+ people over 50 are more likely to report fair or poor mental health, activity-limiting disabilities, isolation and lack of companionship than...

Health & Wellness

Cannabis use does not reduce testosterone levels in young men and may even increase its testicular synthesis. However, this increase in hormone levels cannot...

NEWSMAKERS

Bongbong Marcos, the son and namesake of the late dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., claimed that Pride Month "honors the courage of those who...

NEWSMAKERS

Gay dating apps are exposing men to intense pressure to look sexually desirable, fuelling body dissatisfaction and low self-esteem, with some users describing the...

Advertisement