Title
Falcis III vs. Civil Registrar General
Case
G.R. No. 217910
Decision Date
Sep 3, 2019
Falcis challenged the Family Code's heterosexual marriage definition, arguing it violated LGBTQI+ rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, citing lack of actual controversy and emphasizing legislative, not judicial, resolution for such complex societal issues.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 217910)

Key Dates and Proceedings

• May 18, 2015 – Falcis files Pro se Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65, challenging Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code as unconstitutional.
• June 30, 2015 to August 8, 2017 – CRG comments; interventions by Perito and LGBTS Church; oral arguments set.
• June 5, 2018 – Preliminary conference, leading to Falcis’s direct contempt citation for failure to observe courtroom decorum.
• June 26, 2018 – Court orders memoranda; most parties comply except Falcis, intervenors, and Perito.
• July 3, 2018 – Falcis found guilty of direct contempt; admonished.
• August 7, 2018 – Memoranda of Falcis and intervenors dispensed with; show-cause orders issued for indirect contempt.

Applicable Law and Constitution

• Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision after 1990).
• Relevant Provisions:
– Article II, Section 12 (Sanctity of family life; parental duty)
– Article III, Section 1 (“No law shall be made…”) and Sections 4–5 (religious freedom)
– Article XV, Sections 1–2 (family as foundation of nation; marriage as inviolable social institution)
• Statute: Executive Order No. 209 (Family Code), defining marriage as a union between a male and a female.

Supreme Court’s Threshold Requirements for Judicial Review

To invoke this Court’s power of judicial review, a petition must satisfy:

  1. Actual case or controversy ripe for adjudication (no advisory opinions).
  2. Standing (locus standi): Petitioner must allege direct, personal injury from the challenged law.
  3. Issues of law free from disputed factual premises.

Absence of an Actual Case or Controversy

• Petitioner: No marriage license application filed; no act by CRG depriving him of any right.
• Intervenors: Alleged license denials—but did not seek mandamus or administrative relief; they sought the same broad constitutional ruling.
• No concrete, legally cognizable controversy exists; petition is premised on hypothetical future harm.

Lack of Standing

• Direct Injury Test: Petitioner admits no application for license and no partner to marry—no injury-in-fact.
• Taxpayer, voter, concerned citizen, legislator, or association exceptions do not apply.
• Third-party standing requirements unmet: no close relation, no hindrance to direct suit by affected individuals, and no showing of class injury.

Failed Exceptions: Transcendental Importance and Facial Challenge

• Transcendental Importance: Relaxes standing only; cannot override lack of case/controversy or factual record.
• Facial Challenge: The Family Code’s definitions are not penal or speech-regulating provisions subject to overbreadth or vagueness exceptions.

Jurisdictional Limits and Hierarchy of Courts

• Though original jurisdiction over certiorari and prohibition is concurrent with lower courts, direct recourse must involve pure questions of law.
• Questions dependent on factual findings belong in trial courts; SC is not a trier of first-instance facts.
• Doctrine of hierarchy of courts prevents SC from undertaking evidentiary review.

Inadequate Factual Record and Need for Evidence

• Petitioners assert fundamental rights—e.g., right to marry, equal protection, religious freedom—but provide no affidavits, studies, or expert testimony.
• Resolution of alleged rights to same-sex marriage involves disputed factual issues:
– Children’s welfare in same-sex households
– Historical and cultural




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms