Solicitor General Jose Calida on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition before it seeking the legalization of same-sex marriages in the country.
During the continuation of the oral arguments on the subject, Calida said the petition filed by Jesus Nicardo Falcis III should be denied for lack of merit as he defended the prohibition on same-sex marriages under the Family Code and under the 1987 Constitution.
The chief state lawyer said the 1987 Constitution, not just the Family Code, mandated marriage only for straight couples. He cited the argument of its drafters that “marriage is the union between a man and woman” based on constitutional construction.
“The definition of marriage adopted by the drafters of our Constitution is guided by teachings of history and recognition of the traditions that underlie our society”•marriage, as traditionally conceived in the Philippines, has always been between a man and a woman,” Calida said.
“While the right to marry is recognized as a cognate of the fundamental rights to life and liberty, Article XV limits this right by making it clear that marriage may only be between a man and a woman.”
Calida said marriage, as defined in the Constitution, was “geared towards procreation, which only a man and a woman can have through biological sex.”
He said the prohibition on same-sex marriages was actually a valid act of police power by the government to protect the people’s fundamental right to life and liberty.
“The limitation of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is a valid exercise of police power, which is based on the concept of necessity of the State and its corresponding right to protect itself and its people,” Calida said.
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen immediately questioned Calida’s interpretation of the constitutional provision on marriage.
“Does the Constitution say same sex or opposite sex?” Leonen asked Calida.
“There is constitutional construction. It doesn’t have to be defined, it is the big elephant in this room,” Calida replied.
Leonen also questioned Calida’s argument on procreation as a requirement for marriage, saying not all married couples could have a child.
Calida said there were “not too many of them.”
Calida also disputed the petitioner’s claim that the prohibition on same-sex marriages violated the constitutional right to due process and equal protection as well as religious freedom.
“Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code cannot be considered unconstitutional just because a particular religious group claims that it goes against their belief. To do so will render the state subservient to the beliefs of said religious group,” Calida said.