College of Law Square Offs

Negative Side Second Speech

College of Law

We disagree to the contention that same sex marriage will be legalized in the Philippine
setting based on the following legal and compelling reasons and arguments

1. Justice Paras enumerates the sources of laws to mention Divine Law and Natural Law. The
Divine Law pronounces that man is for a woman. Natural law also suggest just as in the law
of magnetism that unlike sign contract and like sign repel each other. Thus it is clear that
under those origins of the law same sex marriage is not permitted.

2. The Constitution though does not expressly provide the concept of family and marriage
exclusively for man and woman the spirit and intent of the framers of the constitution is
clear and unambiguous. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution
explicated this in his commentary citing that the family as expressed in the words of Section
12 of the 1987 Constitution is to be understood as a stable heterosexual relationship whether
formalized by civilly recognized marriage or not. thus the principle in statutory construction
ratio legis est anima translated it means in the absence of clear meaning refer to the spirit and
intent of the framers of the law is deemed applicable. It is indeed clear as crystal that
marriage and family as enshrined in our constitution was confined to heterosexual
relationship hence it must be adhered and followed.

3. Moreover, in disregarding the same sexes to enter into marriage is for the primordial reason
of their inability to procreate and such marriage if permitted runs contrary to public policy
and will strike the conscience of man. Public policy as defined in the case of Herndon is the
principle of law that holds no citizen can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be to be
injurious to the public or against the public good. In application to the context of same sex
marriage statistics shows that 70% of Filipinos are against same sex marriage thus such
marriage is not in conforme to the sentiments of the public and if permitted it will cause
social disorder and confusion. The whereas clause of Executive Order No. 209 substantially
provides that revisions made is for the reason to bring the law more closer to Filipino
customs, values and ideals X X X by analogy as the said law mentioned that marriage is a
union between a man and woman, therefore it reflects and purports to the customs, values
and ideals of Filipino people.

4. Further, in one of the litany of cases decided by the Supreme Court, Saclolo vs. CAR it
elucidated that marriage is for purposes of pro-creation in its words “under the common law
or under the civil law, upon marriage the husband and the wife become one single moral, spiritual

1|Page
 and social being,X X X for purposes of procreation X X X for the purpose of mutual help and
protection, physically, morally and materially.” which the same sex marriages are wanting.

With the quantum of arguments presented and the reasonableness not to permit same sexes
marriage as it is not germane to the purpose of the constitution, not in consonance to the prevailing
public policy as people manifested their disagreement to such, in lieu of the jurisprudence existing
and for the general welfare of the people so as not to strike the conscience of man nor create social
disorder based in the concept of salus populi est suprema lex I submit to the argument not to allow
same sex marriage to be legalized in the philippines

2|Page