SolGen: Same-sex marriage goes against Constitution, tradition

Solicitor General Jose Calida on Tuesday cited "tradition" and the 1987 Constitution itself when he defended the government's stance against a petition seeking marriage equality in the Philippines.

Apart from procedural issues previously questioned by the justices of the Supreme Court (SC), Calida raised what he claimed was the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution: marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

"The definition of marriage adopted by the drafters of our Constitution is guided by the teachings of history and the recognition of the traditions that underlie our society," Calida said in his opening statement during the resumption of oral arguments on a lawyer's petition for same-sex marriage.

"Marriage, as traditionally conceived in the Philippines, has always been between a man and a woman," he added.

He was arguing against the petition of lawyer Jesus Nicardo Falcis III,  which seeks the striking down of the provisions of the Family Code that limit marriages to unions between heterosexual couples for allegedly being unconstitutional.

Representing the respondent in the case, the Civil Registrar General, Calida said the rights to marry and to choose whom to marry, the cognates of the constitutionally-provided rights to life and liberty bear the "definition of traditional marriage between a man and a woman."

He also said the limitation of civil marriage to heterosexual couples is a "valid exercise of police power," since it deals with the "lawful subject" of the state's interest to "preserve the traditional concept of marriage" in the country.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code, the provisions Falcis has assailed, likewise reflects tradition, Calida said, citing marriage accounts from the pre-Spanish and the Spanish regimes, as well as legal measures from the 1880s to the 1920s.

The government's chief lawyer also said the legal limits of marriage to opposite-sex couples do not violate the equal protection and the due process clause under Philippine law.

In his defense of the validity of the Family Code, Calida said the state's interest in preserving the tradition and history of marriage in the country overrides religious freedom.

"The present definition of marriage under the Family Code is but a reflection of the concept of marriage contemplated under the Constitution. The petitioners cannot therefore claim that the Family code flouted the basic law of the land," he said.

"Until the Constitution is changed, they have no cause to complain. To cut the Gordian know, the petitioners should lobby for a constitutional amendment redefining marriage to include same-sex couples," he added. —NB, GMA News