JOSEPH HERNANDEZ CUMAGUN

MA. LOUIE INNA GRACIA LASAM CUMAGUN

We rule against the proposition given, that civil union between a man and man (or a woman and a
woman) should be allowed in the Philippines.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

To term the arrangement as a civil union, as opposed to formally calling it marriage, is to evade the
provisions of laws upheld by our State. A civil union, as defined by the State of Vermont, is a
relationship that is legally recognized by a state government, which affords same-sex couples the
rights and responsibilities of marriage. As such, civil unions are, in effect, equivalent to marriage.

Article I of the Family Code of the Philippines defines Marriage as a special contract of permanent
union between a man and a woman. Article II of the same Code provides that for marriage to be
valid, one of the essential requisites that must be met is that the contract be entered into by legally
capacitated parties who must be a male and a female.

The provisions of the law are clear: a marriage shall only be valid if it is between a male and a
female; thus, any marriage contract entered into by same-sex parties shall be deemed void ab initio.

Being the law that governs marriage in the Philippines, the provisions of Family Code must thus be
upheld. At the time being, it is the most concrete thing that bars the celebration of same-sex
marriage.

It must be noted, however, that our Supreme Law does not make mention of the sex-related
limitations stated in the Family Code. What the Constitution merely provides is that marriage is an
inviolable social institution and that it should be afforded protection by the State.

Basing on that Constitutional provision and on the fact that statutes are not irrepealable, there could
be a possibility of enacting a law which allows same-sex marriage to be celebrated in the Philippines.
It is important to note that in the Obergefell case, the US High Court in a 5-4 Decision granted the
validity of same-sex marriage in the US. But as Chief Justice John Roberts in his dissenting opinion
wrote, judges have the power to say what the law is, not what it should be, hence finding the
majority decision legally baseless. The same is true with our judicial system. The courts, even if it is
the Supreme Court, have no power to define marriage for the act of doing so has been exclusively
granted to the legislative. This is particularly related to the very recent petition filed by a Filipino
lawyer with the Supreme Court to lift the sex-related limitations set forth in the Family Code. The
Court may not simply decide to grant the Petition, because doing so would encroach upon the
powers granted to another branch of the Government. Aside from that, the Petition also did not
make mention of an actual, real-life case like those settled in Obergefell. Deciding upon this would
defeat the rule of judicial power that such may only be used in an actual case. So unless the
legislative passes a comprehensive bill enabling same-sex marriage, its celebration in our country can
never exist. While efforts have already been made, like that of Akbayan Rep. Barry Gutierrezs, no law
has yet been produced considering that such initiative was done way back 2015.

SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS

The entire idea of marriage has been based on religion, and what religion has taught us is that
marriage is celebrated by a man and a woman. While its true that the proposition only talks about
civil and not church-sanctioned unions, the idea of religion still cannot be totally disregarded for a
vast majority of our countrys population is Christian. It cannot be denied that a majority of our
population rally against same-sex marriage for the reason that it goes against our teachings and even
our morals.

Before one can say that an act is immoral, such act must first be assessed against what society
believes is moral. At the time being, same-sex marriage is still an immoral act for what our prevailing
norms of conduct uphold is marriage between a man and a woman. It cannot be denied that more
and more people are acknowledging the existence of same-sex relationships, but it must be noted
that this is different from the idea of entering into the sacred contract of marriage. Rights are not
absolute, and limits have to be set.