Case Digest (G.R. No. 182573)
Facts:
On May 18, 2015, Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis, III filed pro se before the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure against the Civil Registrar General, seeking to declare Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209, 1987) unconstitutional and to nullify its Articles 46(4) and 55(6). Falcis alleged that, as an “open and self-identified homosexual,” he suffered a direct injury in his plans to found a family, asserting violation of his rights to due process, equal protection, marital privacy, and religious freedom. On June 30, 2015, the Court required the Civil Registrar General’s comment. Pro-intervenor–oppositor Fernando P. Perito likewise answered in intervention. On June 7, 2016, LGBTS Christian Church, Inc., Reverend Crescencio “Ceejay” Agbayani, Jr., Marlon Felipe, and Maria Arlyn “Sugar” IbaAez were granted leave to intervene with an identical petition. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) fiCase Digest (G.R. No. 182573)
Facts:
- Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
- On May 18, 2015, Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III filed pro se under Rule 65 a petition to declare Articles 1 and 2 of EO 209 (Family Code) unconstitutional and to nullify Articles 46(4) and 55(6), claiming those provisions denied same-sex couples the right to marry.
- Falcis asserted he was an “open and self-identified homosexual” personally injured by the prohibition against same-sex marriage.
- Procedural history and interventions
- June 30, 2015: Civil Registrar General (CRG) ordered to comment.
- June 22, 2015: Atty. Fernando P. Perito intervened, attacking procedural defects and absence of injury.
- June 7, 2016: LGBTS Christian Church, Reverend Agbayani, Marlon Felipe, and Maria Arlyn IbaAez intervened with a like petition, alleging denial of marriage licenses.
- June 8, 2018: Intervenors-oppositors filed opposition-in-intervention, arguing lack of jurisdiction, justiciability, and respect for traditional marriage.
Issues:
- Procedural and standing questions
- Is there an actual case or controversy ripe for review?
- Do petitioner and intervenors have personal, substantial interest (standing)?
- Does the petition-in-intervention cure the original petition’s procedural defects?
- Substantive questions (if justiciable)
- Does limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the right to marry/liberty?
- Is the opposite-sex restriction a valid exercise of police power under equal protection?
- Does nonrecognition of same-sex marriage infringe religious freedom?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)