Você está na página 1de 22

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

In pursuance of Article II, Sections 12 and 15 of the 1987 Philippine


Constitution, and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitioner The Lasallian
Coalition for the Rule of Law submits to the Supreme Court this petition,
assailing the validity and legality of the amendment to the Family Code
allowing same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by same-sex
partners, and transmitted a copy thereof to the Clerk of the Supreme Court,
without prejudice to the reservations made by the Republic of the Philippines,
as represented by the Office of the Solicitor General.

1
QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I.
Whether or not the Family code as amended is violative of Sec. 12 Article II
of the 1987 Constitution with regard to the meaning of “sanctity of family
life”

II.
Whether or not the Family code as amended allowing same-sex marriage
violates the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual
cooperation is the basic end of marriage

III.
Whether or not the Family code as amended allowing adoption of children
by same-sex partners violates Article I of the Presidential Decree No. 603
also known as The Child and Youth Welfare Code

IV.
Whether or not the Family code as amended allowing same-sex marriage
violates the right to health enshrined under Sec. 15 of Article II of the 1987
Constitution

V.
Whether or not the Family code as amended is violative of the Natural Law
and Divine Law

2
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

Same-sex marriage and adoption of children by same-sex partners


should be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court due to five main
reasons, namely: (1) it violates the sanctity of family life; (2) it violates the
universal principle that procreation is the basic end of marriage (3) it violates
the principle of the best interest of the child, (4) it violates the constitutional
right to health and lastly (5) it is violative of the Natural Law and Divine Law.

Same sex marriage should be declared unconstitutional as the


definition provided in the Act is an obliteration of the conventional definition
of marriage violating the sacredness of the family as an inviolable basic social
autonomous institution.

The primary function of the family is to ensure the continuation of


society, both biologically through procreation, and socially
through socialization. Given these functions, the nature of one's role in the
family changes over time. From the perspective of children, the family instills
a sense of orientation: The family functions to locate children socially, and
plays a major role in their socialization. From the point of view of the parents,
the family's primary purpose is procreation: The family functions to produce
and socialize children. In some cultures marriage imposes upon women the
obligation to bear children.

The Act should also be declared unconstitutional as it violates the


principle of the best interest of the child. As studies have proven, there are
detrimental effects of same-sex parenting on the psychological well-being of
children leading to more prevalent emotional problems.

Further, there is vagueness in the Act, also allowing adoption of


children by same sex couples, as it is inconsistent with the best interest of the
child as being always the paramount consideration. There are issues faced by
the same-sex adoption which include that of the parental authority if in case
the partners separate from one another and compliance to the parental
agreement over the child they have adopted. These issues are not yet settled
up to this day and in lieu of this, the Philippines may have to deal with the
same issues unsolved.

The Act violates the right to health as is comprised in the Constitution.


From the statistics of the effects of relationship and sexual behavior and
practices of same sex couples, it can be inferred how same sex intimacies be
detrimental to one’s health.

3
Finally, the Same Sex Marriage Act is unconstitutional in that it
contradicts the principle that “marriage is not just any relationship between
human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed
by natural law. Natural law’s most elementary precept is that good is to be
done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided. By his natural reason, man can
perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or
purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means
that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose. Any situation which
institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates
natural law and the objective norm of morality. Being rooted in human nature,
natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race,
equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always.”

PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES

4
I. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE VIOLATES THE SANCTITY OF
FAMILY LIFE.

The Amended Family Code now defines marriage as a special


contract of permanent union between two consenting adults entered
into in accordance with the law for the establishment of conjugal and
family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social
institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed
by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage
settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within
the limits provided by the Family Code.

In the image of God we are created, and in that image we must


live upon. God created woman to live with man, and man has the duty
to protect, love, and cherish the woman. The Constitution is the
fundamental law that provides for the basic principle and policies
that shall govern the State. Its institution and enactment is with
respect to morals and good customs.

This petition before the Honorable Court is one for certiorari


assailing the constitutionality of the Amended Family Code allowing
1) same sex marriage, 2) adoption of children 3) building a family,
the same being violative of several provisions of the Constitu tion. It
provides that:

“The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall


protect and strengthen the family as a basic social autonomous
institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the
unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of
the parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the
development of moral character shall receive the support of the
Government.” 1

The Constitution expressly provides that the State recognizes


the sanctity of family life. It can also be inferred that the Government
has the duty to protect the same.

The sanctity of family life, which the State has the duty to
protect, is destroyed by the enactment of the Amended of the Family
Code. When the said law allows same-sex couples to build a family
it abolishes the true essence of the composition of family.

It also provides that:

1
1987 Phil. Constitution Art. II, Sec.12.

5
“The state recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of
the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively
promote its total development.”2

This provision of the Constitution states that the family is


recognized by the state as the foundation of the nation, the family is
the basic institution in our society. The state shall promote and
strengthen the development of the family in the society.

A family is a basic social unit composed of parents and their


children. And parents are composed of a father and mother both
providing the needs of the children but with unique role.

The father plays an important role in the rearing of their


children as they set example to them. Numerous studies show that
children whose fathers are more involved with them has better
advantage socially and economically than those who have not.
Maureen Black, PhD, a researcher and professor of pediatrics at the University
ofMaryland School of Medicine says that they found that fathers who are
involved with their children have children with fewer problems. With
respect to the mother, studies also shows that the role of the m other
has great impact with the child’s developmental skills. 3

Allowing same-sex couples to build a family is detrimental to


the child’s welfare. A child may be exposed to a culture not
favourably for his best interest. It will not be congruous with society
and this might produce unwanted psychological effects. Allowing
such marriages will make a morally wrong into a civil right, the
same-sex marriage violates the sanctity of the family life.

The sanctity of family life is at verge of deterioration if such


be not prevented as it derogates from the true essence of the same.
This is not to deprive the aspiration of the building a family but it
is more of the protection of its sanctity and the effect it will set
forth to the interest of the generations yet to come.

In the provisions of Section 12 of Article II of the 1987


Constitution the word “sanctity”, which means “holiness” or being
in union with God was used. The word describes something as
belonging or pertaining to the Divine. Thus, Section 12 Article II of
the 1987 Constitution makes a straightforward acknowledgment of
the family as something directly related to the Creator. Indeed, one
of the members of the Constitutional Commission, Fr. Joaquin
Bernas, S.J., notes that this provision “clearly reflects a Catholic
2
1987 Phil. Constitution Art. XV, Sec. 1.
3
Hoffman, Lois Wladis. “The Effects of the Mother's Employment on the Family and the Child.”
Parenthood in America. Online. 23 Nov. 2016.

6
approach to the problem,” at least in so far as “advocacy of the
provision was borne principally by Bishop Bacani and Commissioner
Bernardo Villegas, a stalwart Catholic layman.” Since, on the other
hand, an appeal to church would be complicated by the same
Constitution’s declared neutrality on “religious profession and
worship” (Art. 3 Sec. 5), some effort must be made to understand the
provision from a more secular standpoint.

II. SAME SEX MARRIAGE VIOLATES THE UNIVERSAL


PRINCIPLE THAT PROCREATION IS THE BASIC END OF
MARRIAGE

Somerville argued that in every society there is an inherently


procreative relationship between men and women, that includes a
commitment to share their lives with each other, and if children come to be,
to rear those children together.

Other relationships are sometimes called “marriage” but these are


different types of relationship. Two or more individuals may form a
relationship for the sake of raising children -for example, two sisters or several
religious persons. But neither of these relationships should be described as
marriages. Two people of the same sex may perform sexual acts on each other,
may have friendship and may also be dedicated to raising children together
but this is not the same type of community as marriage.

Marriage is that type of community in which the personal community


and the bodily, sexual relationship are intrinsically oriented to the two-fold
good of personal communion between the spouses, and bearing and raising of
children. It also is important to note that marriage is not a mere means in
relation to bearing and raising children. The union of the spouses is in itself
good and remains good if procreation is not possible. Marriage includes, of
course, a romantic relationship. It is a relationship within which, in most cases,
sexual acts regularly occur, and in which sexual acts enhance the relationship.

In genuine marriage sexual intercourse is not merely an extrinsic


symbol or only a pursuit of pleasure. In sexual intercourse between a man and
a woman (whether married or not), a real bodily union is established. Human
beings are organisms, albeit of a particular type. In most actions, such as
digesting, sensing, walking, talking and so on, individual male or female
organisms are complete units. However, with respect to reproduction, the
male and the female are incomplete. In reproductive activity the bodily parts
of the male and the bodily parts of the female participate in a single action,
coitus, which is oriented to reproduction (though not every act of coitus
actually reproduces), so that the subject of the action is the male and the
female as a unit.' Coitus is a unitary action in which the male and the female
become really biologically one. In marital intercourse, this bodily unity is an

7
aspect of, a constitutive part of, the couple's more comprehensive, marital
communion.

When a couple makes a commitment to each other to share their lives,


in the type of community that would be fulfilled by bearing and raising
children together, then the biological unity realized in sexual intercourse
actualizes or concretizes that community. In sexual intercourse they unite
precisely in that respect in which their community is defined and naturally
fulfilled. That is, they have consented to a procreative-type of union; so their
procreative-type acts embody their community.

Hence the sexual intercourse of spouses is not an extrinsic symbol of


their love, nor a mere means in relation to procreation, but embodies, or
actualizes, their marital communion. In that way the loving sexual intercourse
of husband and wife instantiates a basic human good: the good of marital
union. This sharply contrasts with sex performed solely for pleasure, or for an
illusory experience of a union that is not actualized in the sexual act (in case
they do not become biologically one in their reciprocal sexual acts or have not
committed to a marital union). In each of these cases, the goal of the sexual
act is extrinsic to it; the sexual acts (in these cases) are mere means in relation
to extrinsic ends.4

One of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is "to
procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children
through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage." Constant non-
fulfilment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of
the marriage.5 The marriage being the foundation of the family, as a
basic autonomous social institution, which the State protects, is at
risk by the law legalizing same-sex marriage.

The primary function of the family is to ensure the continuation


of society, both biologically through procreation, and socially
through socialization. Given these functions, the nature of one's role
in the family changes over time. From the perspective of children,
the family instils a sense of orientation: The family functions to
locate children socially, and plays a major role in their socializat ion.
From the point of view of the parents, the family's primary purpose
is procreation: The family functions to produce and socialize
children.

The procreation is the purpose of marriage between a man and


a woman; same-sex couples cannot bear a child nor have a child of
their own. The children who are raised by their biological father and
mother will receive the best and loving care they need while they are
growing. As Somerville says “Opposite-sex marriage establishes as

4
Lee, Patrick, “Marriage, Procreation, and Same-Sex Unions.” The Monist Vol. 91: 422-445
5
Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997.

8
the norm and institutionalizes the inherently procreative relationship
between a man and a woman, and in doing so establishes children’s
rights with respect to links to their biological parents and families.”
Adoptive parents can also be a good and loving parents but it is
different if the one that is raising the child is the biological parents
or the child raised by a man and a woman.

The mother and father each bring something distinctive to the


great task of bearing and raising the children. The child needs both
the model of a responsible and caring female and male figure of the
mother and the father.

III. ADOPTION BY SAME-SEX PARTNERS VIOLATES THE


PRINCIPLE OF BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD

“The Child is one of the most important assets of the nation. Every
effort should be exerted to promote his welfare and enhance his opportunities
for a useful and happy life.
The child is not a mere creature of the State. Hence, his individual traits
and aptitudes should be cultivated to the utmost insofar as they do not
conflict with the general welfare.
The molding of the character of the child starts at home. Consequently,
every member of the family should strive to make the home a wholesome
and harmonious place as its atmosphere and conditions will greatly influence
the child's development.
Attachment to the home and strong family ties should be encouraged
but not to the extent of making the home isolated and exclusive and
unconcerned with the interests of the community and the country.”6
Clearly, the State’s paramount consideration is the best interest of the
child.

EFECTS OF SAME-SEX PARENTING TO THE CHILD


Proponents of same-sex marriage believe love is all children really
need. Based on that supposition, they conclude it's just as good for children to
be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as by loving parents of the
opposite sex. But that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is naively
simplistic and denies the complex nature and core needs of human beings.

It shouldn't be surprising that studies find children reared by


homosexuals are more likely to engage in homosexual behaviour themselves
since extensive worldwide research reveals homosexuality is primarily
6
Child and Youth Welfare Code art I.

9
environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as
permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major
environmental roles in the development of homosexual behaviour. There's no
question that human sexuality is fluid and pliant. Consider ancient Greece and
Rome—among many early civilizations—where male homosexuality and
bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. That was not so because most of those
men were born with a "gay gene," rather because sexuality is malleable and
socially influenced.

LEGAL ISSUES ON SAME-SEX ADOPTION IN THE US


In the United States, due to the growing need for adoptive homes and
growing numbers of same-sex parent families who want to adopt, gay
discrimination on the part of the agencies and courts has been decreased. In
the state of Florida, lesbian and gay individuals are prohibited to become
adoptive parents. Generally, the state is concerned with the “best interest of
the child”.

Apart from individual adoptions, there are second-parent adoptions


and joint adoptions. Second parent adoptions allow a same-sex partner to
adopt his or her partner’s biological or adoptive child without however
terminating the first legal parents rights while joint adoptions grant the parents
the permission to simultaneously adopt a child.

Children of same-sex parents are given legal security in second- parent


adoptions. They become entitled to financial support, including inheritance
rights, child support and other benefits. Furthermore, second-parent adoptions
protect the rights of the same-sex parent who is the non-biological
parent in that the relationship will be legally recognized if the couple
separates or if the biological or original adoptive parent dies, becomes
incapacitated or becomes imprisoned. However, there are issues faced by the
same-sex adoption.

Black’s law defined parent as the lawful father or the mother of a


person. When a heterosexual, married couple has a child, both parents are
automatically considered to be the child’s legal parents. Even if the couple
divorces, both parents still are the legal parents of the child.

As mentioned above, some states in the US allow gay and lesbian


couples to jointly adopt a child. In other states, one partner can legally adopt
the biological child of the other partner through adoption procedures. A joint
adoption or secondary adoption is important since they allow both parties to
the same-sex partnership to become legal parents of the child.

Relying on an assumption that legal parent status will be inherent


upon the birth or adoption of a child can be a risky move. This legal

10
relationship will exist as a backup form of security if the gay or lesbian
couples decide to travel to a state that does not recognize their same-sex
legal relationship or the automatic parental rights arising out of it. In the
other states that do not allow gay and lesbian adoption, the second parent is
not considered to be a legal parent and has limited rights.

When a same-sex partnership dissolves, the issue of a second parent’s


rights is certain to come up if a child is involved. These problems are
difficult to resolve because of the unique legal nature of gay and lesbian
unions. When heterosexual couples split up, a court will issue a child
custody order if the two parents cannot come to an agreement. When a same-
sex couple splits up, however, the second parent’s rights are much more
uncertain. Many states have settled that a second parent has no
legal rights to raise or make decisions pertaining to the child in the future
even if that second parent has acted and behaved like a parent for the
entirety of the child’s life.

In the worst case scenario, a court will treat a second parent as a


complete stranger to the relationship between the child and the first parent,
giving the first parent the absolute right to dictate all future interactions
between the child and the second parent.

On the other hand, some courts have seen the laws as softer and more
flexible, often allowing a second parent court ordered visitation time after a
finding that the second parent has played an integral role in the child’s life.
The courts making these decisions often call the second parents "de facto
parents," meaning that the person has lived with and raised the child just as
a regular, legal parent would have.

If a same-sex relationship does end, it is important that both the legal


and second parent of the child try hard to honor the parenting agreement.
In the beginning, both parents agreed to raise the child without some of
the legal protections afforded by adoption or legal parentage, so they should
try to recognize this point and abide by the agreement. The two parties
should make a concerted effort to resolve their differences before taking
their dispute to the courts. The outcomes of custody battles between same-
sex partners vary greatly and there is no guarantee that it will turn out the way
to the parties expect.”7

For the Philippines, it is a must to resolve issues that may arise with
regard to custody, surname and parental authority. Whose decision
shall prevail in cases of disagreements? Whose surname shall be used by
the child? Who shall have the custody of the child under seven (7) years of
age in case of separation between his or her same- sex parents.

7
http://www.babymed.com

11
EFECTS OF SAME-SEX PARENTING TO THE STATE

Benjamin W. Bull, chief counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, an


Arizona-based Christian legal organization, is a strong proponent of the view
that legalizing same-sex marriage would negatively affect society. "It will so
erode and diminish the meaning of marriage as we know it, that as an
institution which encourages a certain traditional lifestyle choice, it will no
longer exist," Bull says. "When this occurs . . . virtually all sexual behavior
and lifestyle choices become value-neutral." 8
According to Vlahos, the impact of same-sex marriage to society is that
there will be a law that would enforce such new legal and social norms on the
people.9

According to Kurtz, this will “reinforce the idea that traditional


marriages formed for the purpose of having children and providing a healthy
mother-father environment is out, and alternative partnerships such as same-
sex relationships are in. 10

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide the benefits regarding the


upbringing of children and the mutual affection of parents. Its primary purpose
is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by
nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true
marriage.11

The legalization of same-sex marriage would make the State “its


official and active promoter. The State would call on public officials to
officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its
acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses
disapproval.”12

With regard to the private sector,” objecting parents will see their
children exposed to this new “morality,”; businesses offering wedding
services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental
property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.”13

“In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect
Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by

8
Kiefer, Heather Mason. “How Would Same Sex Marriages Affect Society.” Gallup. Online. 3 December
2016.
9
Vlahos, Kelley Beaucar, “The Real Impact of Gay Marriage on Society.” Fox News. Online. 5 December
2016
10
Id.
11
10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed.” TFP Student Action.
Online. 5 December 2016.
12
Id.
13
10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed.” TFP Student Action.
Online. 5 December 2016.

12
condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian
morality.”14

SUSTAINABILITY OF CIVILIZATION

Civilization requires the suppression of natural impulses that would


break down the social order. Civilization thrives only when most
members can be persuaded to behave unnaturally, and when those who
don't follow the rules are censured in a meaningful way.
Why would men submit to rules that deprive them of the chance to
satisfy their natural desire to mate with every attractive female?
Why would women submit to rules that keep them from trying to
mate with the male, just because he already has a wife?
Because civilization provides the best odds for their children to live to
adulthood. So even though civilized individuals can't pursue the most
obviously pleasurable and selfish (i.e., natural) strategies for reproduction, the
fact is that they are far more likely to be successful at reproduction in a
civilized society -- whether they personally like the rules or not.
Civilizations that enforce rules of marriage that give most males and
most females a chance to have children that live to reproduce in their
turn are the civilizations that last the longest. It's such an obvious principle
that few civilizations have even attempted to flout it.
Even if the political system changes, as long as the marriage rules
remain intact, the civilization can go on.15
In June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court declared that two persons of
the same sex have a right to contract it by voting five to four in Obergefell
v. Hodges which redefined the nature and meaning of marriage. In a
published article by to Francisco Tatad, he said that, “A few weeks earlier, in
previously Catholic Ireland, 62 percent of 60 percent of the voters who
turned out in a referendum on “same- sex marriage” voted in favor of the
proposition: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by
two persons without distinction as to their sex.” This, in the view of many,
has no basis in moral law, religion, science or reason. I share this position.
Neither the US judicial ruling nor the Irish vote is a reflection
of an American or Irish national consensus. Although the
distinguished American ethicist and papal biographer George

14
Id.
Card, Orson Scott, “Homosexual “Marriage” and Civilization.” The Ornery American. Online. 5
15

December 2016.

13
Weigel points out that “the marriage battle was lost in the culture
long before foundations of our culture have eroded,” the pro-life
and pro-family movement in the US had been continuously
reporting victory after victory in the United Nations and in many
US states before the Supreme Court cataclysm came. This means that
the majority of the American and the Irish peoples may not be
entirely supportive of same-sex “marriage,” except that a small legal
majority is empowered to give it legal effect.

Throughout human history, marriage has always been


understood as the permanent and exclusive union between one man
and one woman for the propagation of the species. It is a natural
institution, as old as humanity, not a mere legal construct that courts
and Congresses can amend or reconstruct. Polygamy, polyandry,
divorce, adultery may corrupt the dignity of marriage, but nothing
and no one can ever redefine it in the way “same-sex marriage” tries
to do, or does.”

According to Tatad, the US court ruling is an act of judicial


activism. The US court was put in charge of the moral and spiritual life
of the nation and every individual therein, contrary to the self-evident
truths and values upon which the American nation is founded.

“Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said the state is not the source of
truth and morality; it cannot produce truth from its own self by
means of an ideology based on people or race or class or some other
entity; it cannot produce truth via the majority; it is not absolute.”

In the tradition that defines law as an ordinance of reason


promulgated by those in authority for the common good, the court
ruling does not create law but violence. Where Roe v. Wade (1973)
makes abortion, the destruction of the unborn inside the mother’s
womb, a constitutional right of women, and makes the “empty cradle”
a most appropriate symbol of marriage, the same-sex ruling removes
the empty cradle altogether, and replaces it with a question mark, as it
makes every same-sex “marriage” fatherless, motherless and childless.
This is the worst form of population control. Contraception is
population control, abortion is population control, but “same-sex
marriage” is the ultimate.

Our own Supreme Court may have much to learn from this. In
ruling on the constitutionality of the Philippine Reproductive Health
Law, which President B. S. Aquino 3rd railroaded through Congress by
paying off its members, the SC justice who wrote the ponencia declared
that the law was a “population control measure,” but that “population
control” is not unconstitutional, although it is not permitted by the
Constitution, which makes the State the equal protector of the mother
and the unborn from the moment of conception. Through the US ruling,

14
our justices could revisit and relearn the meaning of “population
control.”

Many Americans are obviously dismayed, but even in their


dismay they have reason to be grateful to Justice Anthony Kennedy and
his four other colleagues for not having made same-sex marriage
compulsory on all. Otherwise American men would have been
compelled to marry men only, and women; women only. This would
have ensured deaths without births to every given population, and
helped fulfill the dream of those who would like to see the global
population reduced from seven billion plus to only one billion or
less old people.

For US President Barack Obama, same-sex marriage helps to


make the United States a “more perfect union.” No explanation was
given. But Obama, like Hillary Clinton and notable members of the
British royalty, are foremost exponents of population control.
Ironically, the ruling came within weeks after The New York Times,
America’s newspaper of record and voice of the American liberal
establishment, formally threw in the towel on the long- drawn
controversy over “population control.”

The gay movement has already infiltrated Congress. However,


since there are some congressmen who are silent on this political
conversation, they will not hesitate to propose same-sex legislation
even though it has absolutely no foundation in the culture or the
Constitution. Instead of following the counter-cultural emanations from
the US, the Congress must study the human person and the family
better.

“The family–man, woman and child–is not one lifestyle choice


among many. It is the best means we have yet discovered for nurturing
future generations and enabling children to grow in a matrix of stability
and love. It is where we learn the delicate choreography of relationship
and how to handle the inevitable conflicts within any human group. It
is where we first take the risk of giving and receiving love.

In their widely acclaimed small book, “What is Marriage?”


Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson and Robert T. George, who were also
present at Humanum, point out that the gay marriage debate is not
directly about homosexuality, but about marriage. It is not about whom
to marry, but about what marriage is.

Is marriage a human institution, touched by God, which


permanently and exclusively unites one man and one woman for life
for the begetting and educating of children? If the partners are of same
sex and therefore incapable of procreation, no matter how much
they may “love” each other, their union can never be called a
marriage. The same-sex ruling therefore cannot be called a law, it
15
cannot bind; it is nothing but violence, as Aquinas would put it, even if
it bears the mighty imprint of the highest magistrates of the United
States.”16

IV. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL


RIGHT TO HEALTH.

The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the
people and instill health consciousness among them. 17

While the cases of HIV and AIDS in the Philippines are still low,
we belong to one of only seven countries globally where the number of
new HIV cases has increased by over 25% from year 2001 to 2009.
Studies have shown that a homosexual relationship poses extreme risks
to Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental
disorders and even a shortened life span.

Same-sex relationship is detrimental to one’s health. It is the


duty of the state to promote public awareness about the causes, modes
of transmission, consequences, means of prevention and control of
HIV/AIDS through a comprehensive nationwide educational and
information campaign organized and conducted by the State. Such
campaigns shall promote value formation and employ scientifically
proven approaches, focus on the family as a basic social unit, and be
carried out in all schools and training centers, workplaces, and
communities.18.

V. SAME SEX MARRIAGE VIOLATES THE NATURAL AND


DIVINE LAW

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is


a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.
Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and
pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can
perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the
end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to
transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s
purpose.

16
Tatad, Francisco. “Our human civilization in crisis.” The Manila Times. 28 June 2015.
17
1987 Phil. Constitution. Art.II, Sec.15.
18
Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998 sec 2 (a).

16
Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the
purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of
morality. Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and
immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands
and forbids consistently, everywhere and always.

The church does not condemn the homosexuals; it simply sustains


marriage between heterosexuals. For natural reasons, it is biologically
the union between the male and female for the purposes of procreation.
For practical reasons, marriage is meant to sustain the family in the
partnership that supplies the need of the children. For linguitical and
etymological reasons, marriage came from “matrimunus” (matrimony)
which is the task of the mother. It is only a husband that could transform
a wife into a mother. No matter what union law could give same sex
persons, it cannot be equated to marriage. The very definition of
marriage in the Civil Code points out to what has been naturally
endowed to persons, that only a male and a female are capacitances for
marriage.19

THE LAW VIOLATES THE ASPECT OF FREEDOM OF


RELIGION AS TO THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND
STATE

Passage of the Amended Family Code allowing same-sex


marriage directly affects the church. Hence, it violates the separation
clause of church and state. Notwithstanding the influence of these two
pedestals, it shall be inviolable that they shall be separate in the exercise
of their powers.

It is well founded in our Constitution that the state should not


blend in with the affairs of the church, and vice-versa. One shall not act
when it shall produce a clear derogation of their separation. Its
separation shall be respected. Justice Laurel says:

“xxx the union of church and state is prejudicial, for occasions


might arise when the state will use the church, and the church
the state, as a weapon in the furtherance of their respective ends
and aims. It is almost trite to say now that in this country we
enjoy both religious and civil freedom. All the officers of the
Government, from the highest to the lowest, in taking their oath
to support and defend the Constitution, bind themselves to
recognize and respect the constitutional guarantee of religious
freedom, with its inherent limitations and recognized
implications. It should be stated that what is guaranteed by our
Constitution is religious liberty, not mere toleration.”20
19
Supra note 11.
20
Aglipay vs Ruiz, G.R. No. L-45459, March 13, 1937.

17
When the State allows the marriage between same-sex couple, it
destroys the traditional marriage that the Church and other religious
sect protect. The marriage, now, does not only to pertain to a union
between a man and woman but also between two consenting adults
regardless of their gender. Further, it compels the church to deviate
from their express mandates and beliefs as it shall adhere to the rule of
law.

The provision discriminates them in their freedom to exercise


their religion according to its sentiments.

THE LAW VIOLATES FREEDOM OF RELIGIOS WORSHIP AND


PROFESSION

To be compelled to do something against one’s will is a clear


violation of a person’s freedom. The provision of the Amended Family
Code allowing same-sex marriage violates the exercise of freedom of
religion of those people who are vested with the power to solemnize
marriage. These people will be compelled to unite same-sex couple
which their religion expressly prohibits.

Allowing same-sex marriage violates the right to freely exercise one’s


religion guaranteed by the Constitution which provides:

“Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of


religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination
or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be
required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”21

Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman


controlling power, especially a personal God or gods, a particular system
of faith and worship, a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.22

The freedom of religion has two important clauses, namely: 1) the


establishment clause; and 2) the free exercise clause.

The establishment clause provides that a person has the freedom to


choose whatever religion he shall belong. One is free to establish to live by
the morals he believes in. The state in no way cannot interfere to such
exercise.

The free exercise clause on the other hand is not without limitation. One
who has freely established his religion cannot go beyond the bounds of law.

21
1987 Phil. Constitution. Article III, Sec. 5.
22
Concise Oxford Dictionary 2011

18
As to the exercise of every freedom, one must act in such a way that will
not be detrimental to the rights of others. It was said:

“In the free exercise of such preferred rights, there is to be no


prior restraint although there may be subsequent punishment of any
illegal acts committed during the exercise of such basic rights. The sole
justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of these
basic rights is the existence of a grave and present danger of a character
both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public
morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest, that the
State has a right (and duty) to prevent (Idem, at pp. 560-561).”

The 1987 Constitution expressly provides that the free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed.

Allowing same-sex marriage is contrary to the free exercise of freedom


of those who are with authority to solemnize marriage. In this respect, it is
not the church authorities who exceed the limits of their freedom. It is the
State that curtails the freedom of religion the people who are bound to
solemnize marriage when they are compelled to do so when it is a clear
deviation from their beliefs.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

With all the provisions questioned and contentions argued in this


memorial, The Lasallian Coalition for the Rule of Law respectfully requests
the Supreme Court to declare that the amendment to the Family Code allowing
same-sex marriage in the Philippines be declared unconstitutional as:

19
1. The amendment violates Section 12 of Article II of the 1987
Constitution as it is repugnant of the principle and policy with respect
to the sanctity of family life.

2. The amendment violates Section 12 of Article II of the 1987


Constitution insofar as same-sex marriage impinges upon the
protection of the family as a basic autonomous social institution.

3. The amendment allowing the adoption of children by same-sex


partners violates Article 1 of Presidential Decree No. 603 also known
as “The Child and Youth Welfare Code” as it is repugnant to the best
interest of the child principle.

4. The amendment violates Sec, 15 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution


insofar as same-sex marriage imposes extreme risk on the heath of the
people with regard to their sexual activities and behaviour.

5. The amendment violates Natural and Divine Law which in effect is


likewise violative of Section 12 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution.

SUPREME COURT OF THE REPBULIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

THE SUPREME COURT (EN BANC)


MANILA, PHILIPPINES

20
THE 2016 ATTY. GENEVIEVE GONZALES
MOOT COURT COMPETITION

THE CASE CONCERNING


SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN THE PHILIPPINES

THE LASALLIAN COALITION FOR THE RULE OF LAW


(APPLICANT)

v.

SOLICITOR GENERAL JD1 – SCIENTIA GROUP 2


(RESPONDENT)

---------------------------------------------------
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
----------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CONSTITUTION
CODES AND STATUTES
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
21
BOOKS
ESSAYS, ARTICLES AND JOURNALS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

STATEMENT OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

22