MANILA – At least two magistrates of the Supreme Court warned a lawyer of the dangers that his petition seeking marriage equality may bring to the larger LGBT movement in the country.
Lawyer Jesus Nicardo Falcis III finally saw his day before the Supreme Court after filing a petition asking the high court to strike down legal limits of marriage to heterosexual couples.
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen reminded Falcis of the milieu of the 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 asked the high court to nullify Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code, which provide that state marriage is a union between a man and a woman. He alleged these were unconstitutional.
The lawyer also asked that provisions that allow “lesbianism” and “homosexuality” to be grounds for annulment and legal separation be voided.
Falcis acknowledged that he was fighting a “very powerful heteronormative” culture in the country – the only one aside from the Vatican where divorce remains illegal.
If the Supreme Court and the public are not ready to accept the nuances of the case, the high 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, Leonen warned.
Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin also grilled Falcis with regard to what appeared to be procedural flaws in the petition.
Bersamin and Associate Justice Estela Perlas Bernabe took issue with the lawyer’s 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,” Bersamin said.
He said Falcis ought to have sought relief from a regional trial court where a refusal of a marriage license occurred.
“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.
Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza echoed Bersamin’s suggestion. He also told Falcis to wait for Congress to decide on a bill allowing same-sex civil unions.
Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio, on the other hand, asked Falcis if he could not wait for Congress to act on the bill.
Falcis told both justices that, while he has the privilege to wait, other gay people might not be so fortunate.
Bersamin stressed that the Supreme Court needs “actual case and controversy” to settle, not a “hypothetical situation.”
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 Falcis 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. (GMA News)
