JESUS NICARDO M.

FALCIS, III, petitioner,

-versus-

CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL, respondent.

G.R. No. 217910 September 3, 2019

J. Leonen

Facts:

Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III (Falcis) filed pro se before this Court a Petition for Certiorari
and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure dated May 18, 2015.
He raised the issue on declaring article 1 and 2 of the Family Code as unconstitutional,
hence Articles 46 (4) and 55(6) of the Family Code null.

He had identified himself as a member of the LGBTQI+ community hence he claimed

that the Family Code has a "normative impact" on the status of same-sex relationships
in the country. He was also allegedly injured by the supposed "prohibition against the
right to marry the same-sex which prevents his plans to settle down in the Philippines.

He also acclaimed that the case is of transcendental importance and that the mere
passage of the Family Code, with its Articles 1 and 2, was a prima facie case of grave
abuse of discretion. Thus, procedural niceties must be set aside.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the self-idenfication of petitioner Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III as
a member of the LGBTQI+ community gives him the standing to challenge the
Family Code;
2. Whether or not the application of the doctrine of transcendental importance is
warranted; and
3. Whether or not the right to marry and the right to choose whom to marry are
cognates of the right to life and liberty.

Ruling:

1. No. Petitioner’s supposed “personal stake in the outcome of this case” is not the
direct injury contemplated by jurisprudence as that which would endow him with
standing. Mere assertions of a “law’s normative impact”; “impairment” of his
“ability to find and enter into long-term monogamous same-sex relationships”; as
well as injury to his “plans to settle down and have a companion for life in his
beloved country”; or influence over his “decision to stay or migrate to a more
LGBT friendly country” cannot be recognized by this as sufficient interest.
Petitioner’s desire “to find and enter into long-term monogamous same-sex
relationships” and “to settle down and have a companion for life in his beloved
 country” does not constitute legally demandable rights that require judicial
enforcement. This Court will not witlessly indulge petitioner in blaming the
Family Code for his admitted inability to find a partner.
Petitioner presents no proof at all of the immediate, inextricable danger that the
Family Code poses to him. His assertions of injury cannot, without sufficient
proof, be directly linked to the imputed cause, the existence of the Family Code.
His fixation on how the Family Code is the definitive cause of his inability to find a
partner is plainly non sequitur.
2. No. In cases of transcendental importance, imminent and clear threats to
constitutional rights warrant a direct resort to this Court. We explained that the
decisive factor in whether this court should permit the invocation of
transcendental importance is not merely the presence of “special and important
reasons” but the nature of the question presented by the parties. This Court
declared that there must be no disputed facts, and the issue raised should only
be questions of law.
3. Yes. Consequently, the task of devising an arrangement where same-sex
relations will earn state recognition is better left to Congress in order that it may
thresh out the many issues that may arise.
Marriage is a legal relationship, entered into through a legal framework, and
enforceable according to legal rules. Law stands at its very core. Due to this
inherent “legalness” of marriage, the constitutional right to marry cannot be
secured simply by removing legal barriers to something that exists outside of the
law. Rather, the law itself must create the “thing” to which one has a right. As a
result, the right to marry necessarily imposes an affirmative obligation on the
state to establish this legal framework. 
To continue to ground the family as a social institution on the concept of the
complementarity of the sexes is to perpetuate the discrimination faced by
couples, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, who do not fit into that mold.
It renders invisible the lived realities of families headed by single
parents, families formed by sterile couples, families formed by couples
who preferred not to have children, among many other family
organizations. Furthermore, it reinforces certain gender stereotypes within the
family.