[ G.R. No.

217910, September 03, 2019 ]

JESUS NICARDO M. FALCIS, III, PETITIONER, V. CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL,

RESPONDENT.

ISSUE: The unconstitutionality of Article 1 and 2 of the FCP.

REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:

1.) Actual case or controversy;

2.) Standing;
3.) Raised in the earliest opportunity;
4.) The constitutional question is the very lis mota (the cause of the suit or action) of the
case.

STANDING
- Petitioner is a homosexual – a pro same sex relationship
- That the said articled of the FCP prohibits the right to marry the same sex.
- Petitioner contends that same-sex couples are equally capable of founding their own
families and fulfilling essential marital obligations.
- there is allegedly no necessity to limit marriage as only between a man and a woman,
Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code are supposedly unconstitutional
- there is a violation of the equal protection clause since there is no substantial distinction
between same-sex and opposite-sex couples

CIVIL REGISTRAR CONTENTION

- Falcis did not present any statistics or evidence showing discrimination against the
LGBTQI+ community
- Falcis did not show any specific injury, such as the denial of a marriage license or refusal
of a solemnizing officer to officiate a same-sex marriage.

CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL CONTENTION

- the Petition was not in the nature of a class suit, but was instead personal only to Falcis.
- Falcis failed to show injury-in-fact and an actual case or controversy, but was rather
seeking an advisory opinion that this Court cannot issue.
- Falcis has not proven that the issues in this case are of such transcendental importance,
there being no law or facts contained in his Petition to determine any principles
concerning the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in the Philippines.

LGBTS Christian Church, Inc. (LGBTS Church)

- Filed a petition that the declaration of unconstitutionality of Articles 1 and 2 of the Family
Code; and and (2) the invalidation of Articles 46(4) and 55(6) of the Family Code.
- Avers that requisites for judicial review are present.

THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL CONTENTION

 - the issues raised in the Petition are political questions, saying that marriage's legal
definition is a policy issue for Congress to determine and that any amendment to the
definition in Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code should be addressed to Congress.
DIRECT CONTEMPT
- Falcis was ordered to show cause why he should not be cited in direct contempt
because the latter failed to observe the required decorum during the preliminary
conference which is a formal session of the Court.
- The Court found Falcis guilty of direct contempt of court wherein the latter acted in
contumacious manner.
- The court said that the preliminary conference was not mere make-work. Rather, it was
essential to the orderly conduct of proceedings and, ultimately, to the judicious
disposition of this case. Appearance in it by counsels and parties should not be taken
lightly.

INTERVENORS - OPPOSITORS CONTENTION

- They claim that this Court has no jurisdiction to act upon the Petition, none of the
requisites of justiciability having been met.
- they have standing to intervene in these proceedings as the proposed definition of
marriage in the Petition is contrary to their religious beliefs and religious freedom as
guaranteed in Article III, Sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution.
- argue that granting the Petition would be tantamount to judicial legislation, thus violating
the doctrine of separation of powers.
- the definition of marriage in the Family Code was a valid exercise of legislative
prerogative which this Court must uphold
- there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Civil Registrar General, as there
was no violation of the equal protection clause or of Falcis' right to liberty.
- there are substantial differences between opposite-sex and same-sex unions that
account for state recognition only of the former, and that such limitation is for the
common good.

SUPREME COURT RULING:

- The Petition before this Court does not present an actual case over which we may
properly exercise our power of judicial review.
- There must be narrowly-framed constitutional issues based on a justiciable controversy
- judicial review is the courts' power to decide on the constitutionality of exercises of power
by the other branches of government and to enforce constitutional rights.
- Judicial review is inherent in this Court's judicial power. Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987
Constitution.
- Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether
or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
- political questions refer "to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to
be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a
particular measure."
 - A controversy is said to be justiciable if: first, there is an actual case or controversy
involving legal rights that are capable of judicial determination; second, the parties
raising the issue must have standing or locus standi to raise the constitutional issue;
third, the constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and fourth, resolving
the constitutionality must be essential to the disposition of the case.
- There must be an actual case, "a contrast of legal rights that can be interpreted and
enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence.
- The duty (to adjudicate) remains to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is
upheld.' Once a 'controversy as to the application or interpretation of a constitutional
provision is raised before this Court . . ., it becomes a legal issue which the Court is
bound by constitutional mandate to decide. '
- the Petition cannot be entertained as a facial challenge to Articles 1, 2, 46(4), and 55(6)
of the Family Code.
- A facial challenge is "an examination of the entire law, pinpointing its flaws and defects,
not only on the basis of its actual operation to the parties, but also on the assumption or
prediction that its very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from
constitutionally protected speech or activities."
- Facial challenges are only allowed as a narrow exception to the requirement that litigants
must only present their own cases, their extant factual circumstances, to the courts.
- situations that have not yet fully ripened into clear breaches of legally demandable rights
or obligations—this Court shall refrain from passing upon the case.
- It is not for this court to rehearse and re-enact political debates on what the text of the
law should be.
- It is the parties' duty to demonstrate actual cases or controversies worthy of judicial
resolution.
- This Court cannot render an advisory opinion. We assume that the Constitution binds all
other constitutional departments, instrumentalities, and organs.
- The court’s power of judicial review is a duty to make a final and binding construction of
law. This power should generally be reserved when the departments have exhausted
any and all acts that would remedy any perceived violation of right.
- Here, petitioner has no actual facts that present a real conflict between the parties of this
case. The Petition presents no actual case or controversy.

TAXATION IN MARRIAGE:

- The State's interest in marriage and married persons extends to taxation.

- Income tax return of both spouses but may file separate ITR.
- Estate tax

LABOR CODE ON MARRIAGE

- Labor Code and other labor laws are influenced by the institution of marriage.
- The narrow definition of "dependents" under the Labor Code includes "the legitimate
spouse living with the employee."

RULES OF COURT
- the status of marriage is also recognized in the Rules of Court.

JUSTICE LEONEN CONTENDS:

- Petitioner miserably failed to discharge even the most elementary burden to demonstrate
that the relief he prays for is within this Court's power to grant. It is curious, almost
negligent, for him as petitioner and counsel not to present to this Court any other
provision of law that will be affected as a consequence of his Petition.

- There is a myriad of laws, rules, and regulations that affect, or are affected by marriage.
Yet, none was ever mentioned in the Petition or the Petition-in-Intervention.

- Whether by negligence or sheer ineptitude, petitioner failed to present to this Court even
more than a handful of laws that provide for the benefits and burdens which he claims
are being denied from same-sex couples. He confined himself to a superficial
explanation of the symbolic value of marriage as a social institution.
-