Thread by @ABSCBNNews

Supreme Court oral arguments on same-sex marriage petition resumes at 2:30 PM today | via @InaReformina

@InaReformina Supreme Court resumes same-sex marriage oral arguments | via @InaReformina

@InaReformina SolGen Calida: The topic of same-sex marriage provokes impassioned debates and heated discussions in the PH. This is to be expected | via @SCPh_PIO

@InaReformina @SCPh_PIO Calida: In a democratic country like ours, there is space for people to argue about issues they care about - in this case, whether the 1987 Constitution allows couples of the same sex to marry | via @SCPh_PIO

@InaReformina @SCPh_PIO Calida: I cannot denigrate the struggle of same-sex couples for marriage equality. They can speak freely speak. But their emotions and beliefs cannot and should not influence the faithful discharge of my duties as SolGen of the Republic | @SCPh_PIO

@InaReformina @SCPh_PIO Calida: Ultimately, the resolution of the present issue hinges on how the Constitution defines marriage | via @SCPh_PIO

@InaReformina @SCPh_PIO Calida: At the outset, the Court cannot exercise its power of judicial review over the Falcis petition because it lacks the first 2 requisites of judicial review | via @SCPh_PIO

@InaReformina @SCPh_PIO Calida: SC cannot likewise exercise its power of judicial review over the petition-in-intervention filed by the members of the LGBTS Christian Church, Inc. | via @SCPh_PIO

@InaReformina @SCPh_PIO Calida: Intervention is not an independent proceeding but a collateral one. It then follows that when the main petition is defective, the petition-in-intervention is also flawed. Water cannot rise higher that its source | via @SCPh_PIO

@InaReformina @SCPh_PIO Calida: Plainly stated, since the Falcis petition is dismissible, the petition-in-intervention should also be dismissible | via @SCPh_PIO

@InaReformina @SCPh_PIO Calida on the substantive issues: The Constitution only contemplates opposite-sex marriage. Thus, Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code are constitutional | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: It is a fundamental principle of constitutional construction that the intent of the framers should be given effect. Their intention could not be any clearer: marriage is the union between a man and a woman | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: The definition of marriage adopted by the drafters of our Consti is guided by the teachings of history & the recognition of the traditions that underlie our society. Marriage, as traditionally conceived in the PH, has always been between a man & a woman | @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Naturally, when Constitutional Commissioner Maria Teresa Nieva was asked to clarify what “marriage” meant, she said, “generally, I think the accepted definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman” | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: There was no equivocation on what marriage meant. The issue of same sex relationships was foremost on the minds of the framers when they deliberated on the meaning of family and marriage | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: With the Consti limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman, the Court does not have to subject the present case to due process and equal protection analyses. Art. 1 and 2 of the Family Code are constitutional | @SCPh_PIO

Calida: although the right to marry and the right to choose whom to marry are cognates of the constitutional rights to life and liberty, these rights carry with them the definition of traditional marriage between a man and a woman | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida quotes Sec 1, Art III, 1987 Consti: the right to life includes the right to exist, and the right to a good life. On the other hand, the right to liberty includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Although no categorical declaration of right to marry & right to choose whom to marry as cognates of the fundamental rights to life & liberty under Sec1 Art III, this has not prevented SC from recently rendering opinions recognizing these cognate rights | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: It was only in Justice Leonen’s dissent in Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v Quezon City, where the term “cognate rights” was used in explaining the scope of rights to life and liberty | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida cites US case Washington v Glucksberg: right to marry & right to have children are implied under the due process clause of its Consti. Implied rights under the due process clause may only be recognised as fundamental if it is deeply-rooted in a Nation’s history &tradition

Calida: tradition has been defined as acts or statements that demonstrate community values or illustrate a common belief system. In the PH, the right to marry carries with it the traditional definition of a marriage as the union between a man and a woman | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Unlike the US Consti, our Consti is filled with provisions that reflect our values, goals, and aspirations of Filipinos as a nation. It is replete with provisions for preserving, strengthening, and defending the Filipino family | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: As I have discussed earlier, the framers intended marriage as a union between a man and a woman | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Therefore, while the right to marry is recognised as a cognate of the fundamental rights to life and liberty, Art XV limits this right by making it clear that marriage may only be between a man and a woman | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: The limitation of ciivl marriage to opposite-sex couples is a valid exercise of police power. | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Police power is based on the concept of necessity of the State and its corresponding right to protect itself and its people | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Under the present case, the State then has the power to determine the marital unions it would recognize, including the requirements each individual would have to possess to enter into a state-sanctioned marriage | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: The State’s police power is concededly not limitless. It must pertain to a lawful subject and effected through a lawful method | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Nevertheless, the State’s limitation of the definition of marriage as a union between only a man and a woman under the Family Code is a valid exercise of police power | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: It deals with a lawful subject, that is the “State’s interest to preserve the traditional concept of marriage in the PH;” & is effected through a lawful method which is limiting civil marriages to opposite sex couples through Art 1 & 2 of the Family Code | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: What constitutes state interest is measured by the scale of rights and powers not only arrayed in the Constitution but also calibrated in history | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: It is the constitutional policy to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Art 1 & 2 of the Family Code also reflect tradition: the history of our laws on marriage shows that marriage has constantly remained a union between a man and a woman | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Available accounts of marriages during pre-Spanish times describe it as being celebrated only between a man and a woman | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: This understanding of marriage continued during the Spanish regime. The rule of canon law, particularly that marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, was then the law prevailing in the PH being one of Spain’s dominions | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Annotating the 1950 Civil Code, civilists such as Arturo M. Tolentino and Edgardo L. Paras wrote that marriage between a man and a woman was the tradition and understanding at that period in time | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Noted commentators likewise opined that this definition was specifically “for the birth, rearing, and education of children” | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida citing Chi Ming Tsoi v CA: one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children. This is based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida citing Chi Ming Tsoi v CA: SC in this case further pronounced that sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida asserts: it is clear that marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman primarily to constitute a complete and perfect community between two heterosexual individuals and, consequently, to preserve the human race | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: A reasonable relation exists between the purposes of the exercise of police measure and the means employed for its accomplishment. Thus, limiting marriage only to opposite-sex couples is a valid exercise of the State’s police power | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: The limitation of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the due process clause | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Substantive due process, as PH jurisprudence recognizes it, prohibits Congress from enacting laws that are arbitrary and unduly oppressive | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: The Family Code, in defining marriage as a special contract of a permanent union between a man and a woman, is merely a manifestation of the traditional concept of marriage in, which the State has an interest protect | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: The limitation of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the equal protection clause | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: In our jurisdiction, most equal protection cases are examined under the reasonableness test | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: For a classification to be valid, it must rest on substantial distinctions, be germane to the purpose of the law, not to be limited to existing conditions only, and apply equally to all members of the same class | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: The provisions of the Family Code limiting civil marriages to opposites-sex couples satisfy these requirements | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: First, there is a substantial distinction between opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Only opposite-sex partners can procreate without third-party intervention | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Second, the classification is germane to the purpose of the law, that is to preserve the traditional concept of marriage. Marriage is geared towards procreation, which only a man and a a woman can have through biological sex | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Third, so long as procreation through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage, the questioned provisions will still apply to future conditions | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Fourth, the assailed articles equally applies to all opposite-sex couples | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Sex-based conceptions of marriage do not violate religious freedom | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: The exercise of religious freedom is neither absolute nor all-encompassing. It cannot have its way if there is a compelling state interest | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Hence, the Family Code is a valid state regulation founded on a purely secular purpose when it limited civil marriages to opposite-sex couples | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Art 1 & 2 of the Family Code cannot be considered unconsti just because a particular religious group claims that it went against their belief. To do so will render the State subservient to the beliefs of said religious group | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Should Art 1 & 2 of the Family Code be declared unconsti, it follows that Art 46(4) & 55(6) should also be declared unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Art 46(4) & 55(6) only apply to marriages of opposite-sex couples:
46(4) -concealment by a partner of his or her sexuality is a ground for annulment of marriage;
55(6) -homosexuality or lesbianism per se of a partner is a ground for legal separation | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Marriage is an inviolable social institution. For the very reason that it is inviolable, the petitioners cannot simply brush away the intent of the framers of the Consti to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Beyond peradventure, the words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers. Thus, hue and cry regarding the constitutionality of Art 1, 2, 46(4), & 55(6) of the Family Code cannot be given accuracy | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: present definition of marriage under the Family Code is but a reflection of the concept of marriage contemplated under the Consti Petitioners cannot therefore claim that the Family Code flouted the basic law of the land | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Until the Conti is changed, they have no cause to complain. To cut the Gordian knot, the petitioners should lobby for a constitutional amendment redefining marriage to include same-sex couples | via @SCPh_PIO

“The OSG has always been of the position that the pursuit of happiness is everyone’s birthright. Same-sex couples can live happily together. But they cannot demand that the State recognize same-sex marriages because the Consti simply does not allow such unions” | via @SCPh_PIO

J Tijam: considering members of the SC are heterosexuals, can we be considered biased?
Calida: definitely no your Honor | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida believes this petition can be dismissed because of procedural issues and not because of the alleged bias (considering members of the SC are heterosexuals) | via @SCPh_PIO

J Tijam: considering respondent did not question legal standing of petitioners, is it deemed cured by the subsequent filing of the petition in intervention?
Calida: not deemed cured; in fact we filed a supplemental petition dealing with this matter | via @SCPh_PIO

J Tijam: In light of changing times, assuming arguendo that same sex relationships would increase a number and congress still fails to enact a law that addresses their legal capacity to marry, will it be sufficient ground for SC to interfere? | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Judiciary cannot interpret the wisdom and policy of the legislature | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen: in last week's orals, petitioners have expressed they are not against people who have opposite sex relationships, they do not want that article in consti to be declared unconsti
Calida: but Petitioners want to declare Art 1 and 2 of Family Code unconsti | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen: What is the harm in allowing them to marry?
Calida: The harm is that the constitution and our laws do not allow such | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen: Does Consti say same sex or opposite sex?
Calida: There is a constitutional construction

Leonen: Consti now, what does it say? Between a man and woman?
Calida: Doesn't have to be defined, it is the big elephant in this room. | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen: Is there no transcendental interest in this case?
Calida: Before we discuss that, petitioners must first hurdle procedural issues
Leonen: But precisely that is what transcendental interest is about | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida insists transcendental interest cannot overcome the procedural flaws | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen: When RH law was brought to this court, was there an actual case?
Calida although not yet the Solicitor General at that time, asserts transcendental importance does not cure procedural flaws | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen: Do you agree that in this case, the SC should clarify the use of transcendental interest?
Calida: I stand by my answers, your Honor | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: The cases of Imbong and Disini are criminal, there is a threat of prosecution, here there is none | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida on the difference of this case from Imbong & Disini: the case now is whether or not the State will allow marriage between the same sex and our position is no because it is against the Constitution and the Family Code | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen: Here in the SC, is there any Constitutional Commissioner sitting in this bench? None. Therefore, when SC makes a judgment on a Consti interpretation do we give those Commissioners a status higher than all of Filipino people? | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen: When we look at text of Consti, is it bound to replace its own wisdom with the wisdom of those who actually wrote or deliberated?
Calida: But there is now a case in this court | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen: Constitutional Commissioners are not gods. They may have committed mistakes. When they said “tradition of marriage that we should respect," is there such a thing as a “tradition of marriage”?
Calida: Yes | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Tradition that we should follow is marriage between a man and a woman | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: Marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman, not between the same sex. | via @SCPh_PIO

Calida: The main portion of the tradition is the "marriage between a man and a woman," and it hasn't changed
Leonen: why is that portion the tradition and not the other portions? Please cover that in your memoranda | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen citing 1935 Consti Art II sec 4: marriage was not mentioned?
Calida: no need to mention because everybody knows marriage is between a man and a woman
Leonen: I don't think "everybody knows" because there were already LGBTs then | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen citing 1973 Consti Art II sec 4: Introduced concept of family but did not mention marriage nor relate family to marriage
Calida insists no need to mention the same | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen citing 1987 Consti Art II Sec 11: "state values the dignity of every human person" does not qualify what your identity, gender preference. Don't you think argument of OSG is consistent w/ this?
Calida: Consti clear that same sex couple cannot be married | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen: Can there be marriage without procreation? Can there be infertile couples?
Calida agrees that there are infertile couples.
Leonen: And that is not the marriage in the Consti?
Calida says there are not many of them (infertile couples) | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen: People who marry just because they love each other without intending to have children, how do we classify them - illicit?
Calida: Those are not my words; will cover such in our memo | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen: why does the state protect 3rd party intervention in married heterosexual couples and not allow same privileges for same sex couples?
Calida: State protects institution of marriage between a man and a woman | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen: Are we not violating the equal protection clause by protecting one and not the other?
Calida takes time to answer, reading something.
Calida: Will just put the same in our memo | via @SCPh_PIO

Martires: If purpose of marriage is procreation, why would State tolerate the issuance of a marriage license between a 70y/o man & 70y/o woman?
Calida: In some instances, procreation may not be feasible because of health conditions of either or both parties | via @SCPh_PIO

Martires: Since when has the State been in the business of marriage between opposite sex, why discriminate between same-sex? Aren't they capable of loving?
Calida: They are capable of loving but not capable of procreating | via @SCPh_PIO

Martires: If there is such love and devotion between hetero couples, there is also love and devotion between LGBTs. So why is the state still sleeping and not facing this reality that nowadays there are individuals -LGBTs - who would also like to be happy? | via @SCPh_PIO

Martires: Are we just affected by our religious beliefs?
Calida: Let the people decide, your Honor through their elected representatives | via @SCPh_PIO

Martires: If Atty. Falcis happens to be your son, will you be proud of him? Will you be proud of a son like Atty. Falcis?
Calida: Yes, your Honor | via @SCPh_PIO

De Castro on the implication of allowing same sex marriage -- will this union be considered now as forming a family?
Calida: If allowed by a new Constitution, we will have to change definitions | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO De Castro: w/o any study, by allowing same sex marriage we'll still be able to comply w/Consti giving the family a status under the social structure w/c is considered important for the maintenance of order in society?
Calida: w/o changing consti & laws there will be a big problem

De Castro: will same sex marriage strengthen the family as a basic social institution
Calida: there aren't any statistics yet | via @SCPh_PIO

De Castro: question is whether or not the Court is in a position to make the balancing of interest (individual and state interest) based on what the petitioners presented in Court and what the SolGen argues
Calida assures they will cover such in their memo | via @SCPh_PIO

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio now interpellates the Solicitor General

Carpio: There is a bill sponsored by Speaker Alvarez and Congressman Roman recognizing same sex marriage as a “civil union” but not as “marriage”. Will a union under this be constitutional?
Calida: I have not read such bill

Carpio: Marriage can only be between a man and a woman-- the intention of the framers?
Calida: Yes | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen: aware of any statistical study before we entrenched which shows that heterosexual couples make better families than same-sex couples?
Calida says he is unaware and he can only speak for himself - raised by heterosexual couples | via @SCPh_PIO

Counsel for Intervenors, Atty. Fernando P. Perito, now delivers their opening statement | via @SCPh_PIO

Perito: I adopt in toto the position of the Solicitor General | via @SCPh_PIO

Perito: I adopt the Sol Gen's position that there is no actual controversy that needs judicial determination; Petition is more of a hypothetical; Petition has nothing concrete | via @SCPh_PIO

Perito: Same sex marriage is not a liberty or freedom issue | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO Perito: no law or prohibition in our society denying them to love or be loved | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO Perito: they want to be treated specially | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO Perito: it's like marrying my pet dog | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO Perito: if i cannot marry my sister, is it not discriminating, your Honor? | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO Perito: denying same sex marriage is not denial of liberty under due process | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO Atty. Ronald T. Reyes for intervenors-oppositors now delivers his opening statement | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO Reyes: we are not talking about a matter of rights but a redefinition of rights. | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO Reyes also cites the US case of Washington v Glucksberg | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO Reyes: this case is actually interesting because what the petitioner is asking not to be free, but to be regulated, state intrusion | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO Reyes: also not a protected class that can be argued under equal protection. Discrimination per se is not wrong. We do it everyday. Question is whether or not it is wrongful | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO Reyes: International law does not recognize same sex marriage | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO Reyes: currently only 28 countries recognize same sex marriage | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO Reyes: most foreign jurisdictions conclude that if there is a legislation for same sex marriage, it be done by the legislative process, perhaps not by judicial mandate | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO Justice Marvic Leonen interpellates intervenors-oppositors | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO ERRATUM: Previous tweets stating that Atty Ronald Reyes delivered the opening statement on behalf of intervenors-oppositors was actually delivered by Atty Jeremy Gatdula | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO Gatdula on the slippery slope argument: if point of relationship is love, why would you discriminate all the other relationships based on love | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen: Consti says family is foundation of society. Marriage is foundation of family. If same sex couples are not able to marry, aren't we taking them out of participation from society?
Gatdula: Not necessarily | via @SCPh_PIO

Leonen: Where do we situate a same sex relationship?
Gatdula: Situate vis a vis with Art III: Bill of rights, not all relationships are mentioned in the Consti, except that one particular relationship: marriage is mentioned | via @SCPh_PIO

Gatdula: This is a Court of law, not necessarily of facts. Better for issue to be debated first | via @SCPh_PIO

Martires: Will it dishonor a heterosexual marriage if we allow same sex marriage?
Gatdula: The reason we are taking this seriously is because we know that law affects the behavior of people | via @SCPh_PIO

Martires: Since when has the State been in the business of marriage?
Gatdula: A State needs citizens that are productive, that are stable, that tend to blend well within the body politic. But I also concede that this is Court of law and not of fact | via @SCPh_PIO

Gatdula quotes President Obama: children who grow up without a father will be more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home | via @SCPh_PIO

Martires cautions Atty Gatdula of what he just quoted and points out that the phrase "more likely" indicates the person who made the study did not end up with a conclusion. Points out he was raised by a single mother | via @SCPh_PIO

Gatdula: What is the state interest in regulating this kind of relationship? for heterosexual relationships, forming a family | via @SCPh_PIO

Martires: Seems that the effect of marriage is always procreation. In your memo submit an affidavit from a Civil Registrar when a man or woman applies for a marriage license that there is a requirement to submit a medical certificate capable of procreating | via @SCPh_PIO

Gatdula argues the requirement asked of him: It is not necessary that the procreation comes into being | via @SCPh_PIO

Martires: You are short of telling me that you cannot be aroused if a woman will not get aroused if she kisses another woman? Because you are talking about sexual relationships | via @SCPh_PIO

Martires: no matter how barako you are, if a man kisses you, you will be aroused. There is union in anal sex, in oral sex. These are the realities.
Gatdula: but these will not result in procreation | via @SCPh_PIO

Associate Justice Jardeleza now interpellates Atty Gatdula | via @SCPh_PIO

Jardeleza: I am a judge, faced with your assertion that heterosexuals are better in raising children - is this matter of who raises better children a matter of judicial notice?
Gatdula: No; asserts the matter is actually better argued in the lower courts | via @SCPh_PIO

De Castro asks that intervenors tackle in their memo if a petition as such is sufficient to advocate social change | via @SCPh_PIO

Carpio: Counsels of parties are instructed to submit their respective memo within 30 days from today including all topics Justices pointed out to be tackled | via @SCPh_PIO

Falcis requests for five minutes to deliver petitioners' closing statement. SAJ Carpio asks Atty Falcis to cover such in their memo instead | via @SCPh_PIO

@SCPh_PIO SC oral arguments on same-sex marriage is adjourned