Good morning, your Honors. May it please the court, my name is Rod Bendolf Franco Delgado.

I am the second council for the respondents and my speech will revolve around the intentions of
the framers of our 1987 Constitution vis-a-vis the Family Code, and why same-sex marriage
should not be legalized.

As my argument states,
The drafters of the Constitution intended that marriage may only be contracted between a man
and a woman; hence, Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code, in defining and limiting marriage, are
only in accordance with Section 3 (1), Article XV of the 1987 Constitution, which compels the
State to defend the right of the spouses to found a family.
__________________________________________________________________________
Your Honors, as citizens of this country and as advocates of the rule of law, we have sworn to
defend and uphold the Constitution; To abide by all its provisions.

In the current debate on same-sex marriage, the term “spouses” in Sec. 3(1), Art. XV of the 1987
Constitution, has been challenged to have more than one interpretation - claiming that it does not
only pertain to a man and a woman, but also couples of the same sex. In doing so, we encounter
an ambiguity.

(1st level) PRINCIPLE: VERBA LEGIS

Your Honors, the term “spouses” should only be construed as a union between a man and a
woman. This is in accordance with a legal principle in law.

In Atty. Sualog’s book on Construction and Interpretation of the Laws, he writes “in order to
ascertain and determine the intended meaning of an ambiguous constitutional provision, the
following guidelines must be taken into consideration together with the applicable rules,
principles, doctrines, [...] and aids in construction and interpretation” (Sualog, 2015).

The second guideline enumerated talks about the well-settled principle of verba legis or plain
meaning rule, wherein it states that words in the constitution must be given their ordinary
meaning except where technical terms are employed. The term “spouses”, has been historically
and legally referred to as a relationship ‘between a man and a woman’ (Family Code, 1987).
[Therefore, applying the principle of verba legis, the term “spouses” should not be subject to
other interpretations.]

(2nd level) HISTORY OF LAWS ON MARRIAGE

Your Honors, another guide to ascertain the intent of the framers is through reviewing our
history.
In examining the history of our laws on marriage, it shows that the definition constantly remains
as a union between a man and a woman.
The Rule of Canon Law, particularly a covenant between man and a woman, was then
promulgated in the Philippines being one of Spain’s dominions. The law of civil marriage in
1870 was extended to the Philippines by Royal Decree in 1883. In 1889, the Spanish Civil
Code was likewise extended to the Philippines; these laws fixed the duties and obligations of the
husband and wife. General Orders No. 68 promulgated on Dec. 11, 1899 regarding civil
marriages was likewise made available only between a qualified male and female. Act No. 3412
which took effect on 1927, retained the definition of a male and female but included the age of
consent. On Dec. 1929, Act No. 3613 was approved, enacting a new law on marriage but
retained the previous requirements that marriage may only be solemnized between a man and a
woman.

(3rd level) EXTRINSIC AIDS: DELIBERATIONS OF THE CONCON

Your Honors, if there is still doubt with regards to the interpretation, resort should be made to
intrinsic and extrinsic aids of the construction; such as deliberations or proceedings of the
Constitutional Convention. Former Constitutional Commissioner Maria Teresa Nieva, a member
of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Philippine Constitution, when asked to
clarify what marriage meant, she said “Generally, I think, the accepted definition of marriage is
the union between a man and a woman” (Nieva, 2018).
Aside from Ms. Nieva, it can also be inferred from other Constitutional Commissioners during
the Proceedings and Debates of the 1987 Constitution, that the term “spouses” and “marriage”
was defined as a union of a man and a woman.
On September 17, 1986, when Mr. Nolledo asked Mr. Villacorta about what they meant by the
phrase “on the free consent and equality between spouses”?. Mr. Villacorta answered “This
simply means that in a marital relationship, both the husband and the wife have equal rights
in that relationship [...]”. Another instance where marriage was implicitly defined was during the
deliberations on September 24, 1986. Mr. Gascon had Mr. Tingson explain the phrase“the
institution of marriage as the foundation of the family,” Mr Tingson clarified that it is a positive
suggestion that the family should be based on people who are married to each other, man and
wife, and not just living together without the sanctity of marriage.
Taking into consideration the basic meaning of the word, the history of our laws on marriage,
and the extrinsic aids shedding light on the intent of the framers, it is clear that the drafters of the
constitution intended that marriage may only be contracted between a man and a woman. Hence,
Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code, is not violative but is rather in accordance to Sec. 3, ART.
XV of the 1987 Constitution. Therefore, same-sex marriage should not be legalized in the
Philippines.
Possible Questions and their respective answers:

Questions: What is the weight of the ConCom interpretation in regards to the Constitution?
Answer: “The intent of the framers of the Constitution and the people adopting it is accorded
much weight and due respect in the application or interpretation of a constitutional provision.”
(Sualog, 2015)

Question: What is the primary source to ascertain the constitutional intent?

Answer: The primary source where to as ascertain the constitutional intent or purpose is the
language of the law itself (See: Ang bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. Nos. 147589 & 147613).
It is to be assumed that the words in which constitutional provisions are couched express the
objective sought to be attained (See: J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration,
G.R. No. L-21064)

Question: With regards to our history on marriage laws, do you think the framers of the
constitution had foreseen every obstacle it may encounter in the future regarding such laws?
Answer: “A constitution is framed for ages to come, and is designed to approach immortality as
nearly as human institutions can approach it.” (Chief Justice John Marshall; Cohens v. Virginia,
19 U.S. (6 Wheaton) 264, 387 (1821)
Marshall meant that the Constitution should be read as a document “intended to endure for ages
to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to various crises of human affairs” (Constitutional
Interpretation; Terrance Sandalow; Michigan Law Review
Vol. 79, No. 5 (Apr., 1981), pp. 1033-1072)
The Framers of the [...] Constitution were visionaries. They designed our Constitution to endure.
They sought not only to address the specific challenges facing the nation during their lifetimes,
but to establish the foundational principles that would sustain and guide the new nation into an
uncertain future. (The Framers’ of the Constitution; BY GEOFFREY STONE & WILLIAM P.
MARSHALL)

Question: Do we have to resort to extrinsic aids in examining the meaning of the words in the
Constitution?
If considering that the language of the subject constitutional provision is plain and unambiguous,
there is no need to resort extrinsic aids such as records of the Constitutional Commission.
However, where there is ambiguity or doubt, the words of the Constitution should be interpreted
in accordance with the intent of its framers or ratio legis et anima. A doubtful provision must be
examined in light of the history of the times, and the condition and circumstances surrounding
the framing of the Constitution. In following this guideline, courts should bear in mind the object
sought to be accomplished in adopting a doubtful constitutional provision, and the evils sought to
be prevented or remedied. Consequently, the intent of the framers and the people ratifying the
constitution, and not the panderings of self-indulgent men, should be given effect.

(FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ vs. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH G.
ESCUDERO and REP. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR.; G.R. No. 202242)