M E M O R AN D U M

RE: SAME SEX MARRIAGE DISCRIMINATION IN RELATION

TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10743

COMES NOW Petitioners, through undersigned counsel unto this Honorable

Court, most respectfully submits the instant MEMORANDUM and avers
that:

THE PARTIES

1. Petitioner, the Solicitor General on behalf of the Quezon City Civil

Registrar.
2. Respondents, Monique Santos, a 28 year old lawyer and Joey Dela Cruz, a
28 year old civil engineer, both are Filipino and residents in Quezon Street,
Quezon City.
NATURE OF THE CASE
3. This is a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court seeks the reversal
of the decision of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court dated December 07,
2015 granting the Petition and directing the Quezon City Civil Registrar to
register the marriage certificate of Monique and Joey and to furnish the PSA
with a copy of the same.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Monique Santos, a 28 year old lawyer, and Joey Dela Cruz, a 28 year old
engineer, first met each other while they were studying in college where they
became roommates and best friends. Having the same interest in books,
movies and food, they would often spend their time with each other during
their breaks. While they were drinking one night, Monique finally had the
courage to tell Joey of her feelings of attraction for her best friend. Monique
was ecstatic to learn that Joey shared the same feelings and was just waiting

for the right moment to make her move. From that night, the two became a
couple.

4. After Republic Act No. 10743 became effective, Monique saw an

opportunity how she and Joey could finally legalize their union so that they
could avail of all the benefits and privileges of a married couple.

5. On March 5, 2015, the couple went to the Office of the Civil Registrar of
Quezon City to apply for a marriage license and to submit the required
documents, Certificate of Attendance in a pre marriage counseling, family
planning and responsible parenthood seminar, CTC, Barangay Clearance, 2
Valid IDs, recent 1x1 photos and the marriage license application form).

6. When the Quezon City Civil Registrar examined the documents presented
and observed that the applicants were of the same gender, she immediately
wrote a letter denying the application for a marriage license on the ground
that both applicants were female.

7. In response to the letter denying their application for a marriage license,

Monique wrote a letter to the Quezon City Civil Registrar requesting for a
reconsideration of the denial and threatening to file both administrative and
criminal charges against the Civil Registrar for violating Section 4 (f) of
Republic Act No. 10743.

8. Since the Quezon City Civil Registrar was about to retire and did not want to
be a respondent in any administrative or criminal case that would cause her
retirement benefits to be withheld while the case was pending, she decided
to reconsider her earlier decision and issue the application for a marriage
license sought by Monique and Joey.

9. Armed with a marriage license, the couple joined the mass wedding
organized by the PAG IBIG Fund every year. The organizer included
Monique and Joey in the list of couples to be married after verifying that the
marriage license they submitted was genuine and validly issued and that all
the supporting documents were complete and in order. Due to the large
number of couples getting married, the organizers failed to notice that
Monique and Joey were of same gender.

10.During the actual mass wedding held in UP chapel, officiated by the

Quezon City Mayor, Monique and Joey took their vows and were finally
married in the presence of their witnesses. They received a copy of their
marriage certificate duly signed by the Quezon City Mayor.

11.Three months after the wedding, Monique and Joey needed to submit a
certified true copy of their marriage certificate in connection with their
application for a US visa. When they went to the Philippine Statistics
Authority to obtain a Certified True Copy of their marriage certificate, they
were surprised to learn that the PSA did not have a copy of their marriage
certificate. Upon further inquiry, they discovered that the new Quezon City
Registrar, who replaced the one who had issued their marriage license after
the latters retirement, had refused to register their marriage after finding
that they were of the same gender.

12.Monique and Joey then filed a Petition for Mandamus with the Quezon City
Regional Trial Court to compel the Quezon City Civil Registrar to register
their marriage certificate. After due proceedings, the Quezon City Regional
Trial Court rendered a decision, granting the Petition and directing the
Quezon City Civil Registrar to register the marriage certificate of Monique
and Joey and to furnish the P.S.A. with a copy of the same.

13.Aggrieved by the Decision, the Quezon City Civil Registrar sought the
assistance of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to question the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City on pure questions of law. Hence, the
instant petition before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE OF THE CASE

I.

WHETHER OR NOT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS LEGALLY

PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10743
(AN ACT PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF
SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY (SOGI) AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFOR).
INDEX OF ARGUMENTS

14.No, same sex marriage is not valid. Under the Family Code of the
Philippines, the law requires that marriage is a special contract of permanent
union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for
the establishment of conjugal and family life.

DISCUSSION

15.Same sex marriage in the Philippines is not legally permissible under the
Constitution, the Family Code of the Philippines and existing jurisprudence
laid down by the Supreme Court. Contracting parties must be of different
sex. Marriage is a union founded on the distinction of sex. The law likewise
provides that the contracting parties must be a MALE and FEMALE. This
particular requirement appears to be for emphasis purposes only for even in
its absence, the phrase contracting parties could not have included within
its ambit persons of the same sex.1 This is evidence by the fact that the New
Family Code as well as the Civil Code are replete with words of
heterosexual import such as husband and wife, man and woman and
father and mother. In fact, the very first article of the Family Code
explicitly provides that marriage is a special contract of permanent union
between a man and a woman. Moreover, it is quite unrealistic and even
inconceivable to think that the term contracting parties as used in our
marriage laws could have been intended by the framers in a different light. 2

16.Before the Contracting parties can be considered legally capacitated to

contract marriage, it is indispensable that they must be of opposite sex. Note
that Article 5 of the Family Code uses the phrase any male or female. In
addition, the very definition of marriage in Article 1 of the Family Code says
that is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a
woman.3

17.Article 1 of the Family Code of the Philippines specifically provides that

Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a
woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal
and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social
institution whose nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law

1 Baker vs. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310

2 Melencio S. Sta Maria., Jr. Persons and Family Relations. Recto, Manila: Rex Book Store, 2004
3 Elmer T. Rabuya, The Law on Persons and Family Relations. Recto, Manila: Rex Book Store, 2006

and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the
property relations during the marriage with the limits provided by this code.4

CONCLUSION

18.As such the marriage between Monique and Joey is void ab initio in blatant
violation of the Constitution, the Family Code of the Philippines and
existing jurisprudences. Same sex marriage is not recognize in Philippine
jurisdiction and Republic Act No. 10743 does not apply in this case because
the fundamental law of the land and substantial laws prohibits marriages
between same gender.

19.The duties and functions of the Quezon City Civil Registrar is discretionary
in nature and not ministerial to determine if such marriage license complies
with the law or not. Thus, mandamus is not the proper remedy as provided
by law

4 Article 1, The Family Code of the Philippines

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioners asks the Supreme Court o

adjudge and declare that:

a. The Marriage License issued by the Quezon City Civil Registrar in favor of
Monique Santos and Joey Dela Cruz on March 16, 2015 be declared NULL
and VOID.

b. The Marriage Certificate dated May 05,2015 between Monique Santos and
Joey Dela Cruz be declared NULL and VOID.
c. The decision dated December 07, 2015 of Quezon City Regional Trial Court
be reversed and set aside and a new decision be rendered dismissing the
petition.

Respectfully submitted. Quezon City October 18, 2016

Signature of Counsel