A.

THE FAMILY CODE IN DEFINNING AND LIMITING MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN MAN AND
WOMEN , IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DEPRIVES PETITIONER AND OTHER
HOMOSEXUAL THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY WITHOUT SUBATANTIVE DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

A1.

The Plaintiff submits that applying strict analysis , Article 1 and 2 of the Family Code is
unconstitutional because of unreasonable nexus between the way of limiting marriage to opposite sex and
encourage the interest of the state to protect marriage as the foundation of the family.

A2.

The petitioner has submitted rigorous evaluation test that are appropriate. The High Court explained
the case of the White Light V. City of Manila. It is all about the principle, strict scrutiny of these statues or
ordinance is strict the investigation define the criteria for determining quality and amount of government
interest brought to justify analysis used the test of the validity of law relating to the regulation of speech,
gender, or age as well as another fundamental right as an extension from it earlier application with equal
protection.

A3.

Article 1 and 2 of the Family Code regulate correctly temporary privacy , the right of marriage and
the right to find a Family according to religion and belief. The petitioner does not discuss such right as a
fundamental right.

A4.

Preliminarily, petitioner affirm that the presumption of constitutionality is reversed in the case
where strict scrutiny is applied. This Honorable Court has stated that:

The application of rigorous evaluation of evaluation Petitioners ’petitions for grant of relief are
inevitable the conclusion that the trial court cannot deny the interim relief the party alleging a prima facie
case pardoning the government infringement of the right to free expression without hearing from the
violation of the case why its actions should be maintained accordingly. Such acts of infringement are
unconstitutional, thus judicial review cannot be denied in the meantime the remedy since doing so will lead
to the maintenance of a presumptively unconstitutional act. This is a must for infringer that appears in court
and somehow rebuts against presumption of unconstitutionality for the trial court to reject the injunctive
relief sought in cases where there is a prime facie case that establishes a violation of the right to be free
expression.
 A5.

Continuing the application, for a law to pass strictly review of the examination under a strong due
process, the Honorable Court explained in the case of the City of Manila vs. Laguio, Jr. by:

"If it is a place where rigorous testing is used, such as protects the fundamental right, then the
government meets the durable due process only if it can prove that the law is it is necessary to achieve a
compelling government goal.”

A6.

The petitioner submitted that the state's interest was protection of marriage as the foundation of the
family as provided by Section 2, Article XV of the Constitution. The existence of state interest is complied
with if it is laid down by the Constitution itself. The Honorable Court, speaking through Justice Cruz, in
the case of the Association of Small Landowners vs. the Secretary of Agrarian Reform explained:

“As the subject and purpose of agrarian reform became laid down by the Constitution itself, 'we
can say that the first the requirement was satisfied. What remains to be reviewed is the validity of the die
method used to achieve the constitution purpose.”

A7.

Although a compelling state interest existed, the Plaintiff submits that the provisions of the Family
Code limit the marriage between a man and a woman is not required to achieve such interest. To emphasize,
the interest of the state is the protection of marriage and family as the foundation of not the protection of
heterosexual relations per se.

A8.

What is a family? According to Black Law, a family is a collective body of people living in a house
and under one head or management. Merriam Webster defined the family as a group of people related to
each other.

A9.

The petitioner strongly avers that homosexual are people or heterosexual people who can be part
of a family and contribute to that family. Homosexuals are born out of a family and raised in a family.
Homosexuals can leave their families and find their own families. Same-sex Couples living in a home form
a family. Same-sex couples can formally adopt children as. individuals under Philippine law or informally
adopted children together, either of which is a family by definition Black Law .
 A10.

Besides being able to find and form a family, petitioner submitted that homosexuals such as
heterosexuals can fulfill the essential marital obligations laid down by the Family Code, such as recognizing
this venerable Court in the case of the Republic vs. the Court of Appeals, which:

A10.1

The obligation to live together, observe the love of each other, respect and honesty, and provide
mutual help and support.

A10.2

The obligation to fix the domicile of the family.

A10.3

The obligation to support the family and pay the costs for such support and other obligations
conjunction.

A10.4

The duties of the parents and their children as stated in Articles 220, 221, and 225 of the Family
Code.

A11.

The petitioner submitted that homosexuals can fulfill the essential obligations of marriage even if
it is between spouses or between parents and their children.

A12.

To determine, as mentioned, the Family Code does not require individuals or couples can have
children. there is no legal requirement for any law of the Philippines for spouses to have children before
entering into marriage or at the time of marriage.

A13.

Petitioner is aware that this Honorable Court has stated that procreation is one of the essential
marital obligations under the Family Code in the case of Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals, where it
stated:
 “One of the essential obligations of marriage under the Family Code is to produce children based
on the universal principles that the reproduction of children by sex Cooperation is the fundamental end of
a marriage.”

A14.

The petitioner respectfully submits that such expression that the Honorable Court has no legal
basis and obiter dictum. There is no such obligation can be found in the Family Code or any law of the
Philippines.

A15.

Assuming arguendo that the couple is necessary, the petitioner politely pointed, as mentioned, that
the homosexual is not prohibited by laws of the Philippines regarding the adoption of domestic and inter-
country adoption from in the adoption of children.

A16.

Also, again, heterosexuals are no better parents than homosexuals. As noted, on the other hand,
homosexuals are not necessarily worse parents than heterosexuals. Homosexuals can properly raise children
in the same way that heterosexuals can. While there is no guarantee that gays will not be bad or incompetent
parents, there is no guarantee that heterosexuals will not be bad or incompetent parents. 'This is the
Honorable Court itself saying:

Sexual preference or moral impairment alone does not prove parenting / neglect or inability.

A17.

Thus, the petitioner submits that homosexuals and same-sex couples are NOT and will NOT be the
institution of marriage. Homosexual and same-sex couples. Spouses can serve to advance the interest of the
State to nurture and strengthen the family as a major autonomous social institution. As such, there is NO
RIGHT to limit marriage between a man and a woman to protect and strengthen the family. There is a need
to allow same-sex marriage.

A18.

'There is no necessity to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, there is no rational nexus or relation
of the means of limiting marriage as between a man and a woman to the compelling state interest of
protecting marriage as the foundation of the family. Thus, Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL for depriving Petitioner of his right to liberty without substantive due process of
law.