(G)The Family Code in defining and limiting marriage as between man and woman is

unconstitutional because it discriminates same sex relationships for it affects the public
interest and therefore violates the provision of Section 5 Article 3 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution.

-COMMENT/OPPOSITION-

Section 5 Article 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that 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.

1. The Philippines as a sovereignty has a compelling state interest to protect the history and
tradition of marriage. Marriage has traditionally been regarded as the milestone to becoming
an adult and young people were encouraged to get married as soon as possible and it is
considered the natural conclusion of a stable heterosexual relationships.

2. That, the Petitioner is aware that the Family Code does not explicitly prohibit nor allow same
sex relationships, thus, it does it is not discriminated. In fact, there is already a social
recognition of same sex relationships in our community and exactly this is not considered
illegal under Philippine Laws.

3. That, the right to marry is not mandatory or compulsory, thus, it is optional. In fact, there are
heterosexuals as well as homosexuals who are living together outside marriage. They are
already exercising their freedom or rights to love, to commit and to found a family outside
marriage.

4. That, homosexuals like the heterosexuals enjoy the rights to establish contractual relations or
property relations to any person that they want to contract with, including the creation of civil
union. It is a possible to create the relationships that they want. It has more choices, more
freedom without the burden of the married state.

5. That, besides being able to find and form a family, homosexuals couples like the heterosexuals
couples already fulfill the essential marital obligations laid down by the Family Code and
performing the following obligations; (a) The obligation to live together, observe the love of
each other, respect and honesty, and provide mutual help and support; (b) The obligation to
fix the domicile of the family; (c) The obligation to support the family and pay the costs for
such support and other obligations conjunction; (d) The duties of the parents and their
children as stated in Articles 220, 221, and 225 of the Family Code.

6. That, it is only the official recognition of the same sex relationships, which will be a matter
that should be addressed to Congress. Nevertheless, it is worth saying that there is a need for
the public reason or cause to be first formed through the ordeal of campaigns and advocacies
within our political forums before it is honed for judicial fiat.
7. Therefore, as there is a compelling state interest to protect the history and tradition of
marriage, thus, the Family Code, in defining and limiting marriage as between man and woman
is CONSTITUTIONAL.