SC justices warn of 'danger' of marriage equality plea for LGBT movement

At least two magistrates of the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday warned a lawyer of the danger his petition seeking marriage equality may bring to the larger lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) movement in the Philippines.

Jesus Nicardo Falcis III, who became a lawyer three years ago, finally saw his day before the SC over a petition he filed to ask for the striking down of legal limits of marriage to heterosexual couples.

But at the outset, he was reminded by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen of the milieu of his historic case: a "cultural hegemony" marked by patriarchy and heteronormativity.

"You realize, of course, that this is a very dangerous case that you brought... because you are now going to put squarely for this court, the Supreme Court of this Republic, an issue which will require a very intimate reading of the provisions of the Constitution," Leonen said.

Falcis' pleading asked the SC to nullify for alleged unconstitutionality Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code, the provisions that state marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and consequently void the ones that allow "lesbianism" and "homosexuality" to be grounds for annulment and legal separation.

Falcis responded in the affirmative when asked if he knew he was fighting a "very powerful heteronormative" culture in the Philippines, a largely Catholic country that remains the only country apart from the Vatican where divorce is illegal.

Leonen warned that if the SC and the public are not ready to accept the nuances of his case, the Court may "commit a mistake, and such a mistake might be permanent in terms of the very everyday intimate relations and the clamor for status of various people" represented by the LGBT movement.

Falcis grilled over procedural issues

Leonen's line of thought was picked up by Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin, who did not mask his frustration on what appeared to be procedural flaws in the lawyer's petition.

Bersamin—as well as Associate Justice Estela Perlas Bernabe—took issue with Falcis' legal standing to bring his case: Falcis is single, has never applied for a marriage license before the Civil Registrar General, and was thus never denied one.

"Why did you come to the Court directly? There is danger, according to Justice Leonen, that you might be losing a very interesting case for the rest of the LGBT community because of this aggressive coming to the court without a careful preparation," he said during his time to question Falcis.

He said Falcis ought to have sought relief from a regional trial court, lower than the SC, at a place where a refusal of a marriage license occurred. This suggestion was echoed by Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza later on in the proceeding.

Jardeleza would also tell Falcis to wait for Congress to decide on a bill allowing same-sex civil unions. Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio also asked Falcis if he could not wait for the bill to be acted upon. To both justices, the young lawyer said that while he has the privilege to wait, other LGBT people might not be so fortunate.

"You're asking us to perform a very ordinary task of correcting somebody's mistake which was not even a mistake because there was no instance where you asked the official to function as such," Bersamin said.

The associate justice said the SC needs "actual case and controversy" to settle, not a "hypothetical situation."

Falcis said he was aware that he is "not as experienced as most other lawyers," a point Bersamin said he understands.

Falcis argued that he was guided by cases on exceptions to the hierarchy of courts when he was preparing his petition, but Bersamin maintained that he should have alleged an interest of his that was adversely affected by the law.

"This is a very good question but it is not the kind of question we would like to settle for you at this time as far as I am concerned," Bersamin said. —JST/BM, GMA News