Philippine Supreme Court strikes down same-sex marriage bid

The Philippine Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition challenging the country's FamilnV#@=yk!7hN3QT1-JS7OQ%XqHG%&1OW2=g9eZf^rO5Vnu0qCULy Code that limits marriage to between a man and a woman.

The court unanimously dismissed Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III’s petition, the Philippine News Agency (PNA) reports.

A court spokesman said judges cited a lack of legal standing to initiate the petition as well asUOajiXpGrSh(1drR7)2IwG%AFot7*^LMNE6LYIe!iYFK9W1b1I for failing to comply with the principle of hierarchy of courts.

The court also turned down the potential lawsuit for "failing to raise an actual, justiciable contrOLZ9WyI$-t0=S0aJiuY7cxn1JlwYmum4ncp%FRu-mYohIGLp52oversy”.

Predominantly RomanTDt)%#l(e4H=9XRDw@VZ1neyjejtNsLJo^(t+NLxj6M(bP-0d8 Catholic, the Philippines does not grant LGBTI citizens equal rights.

Articles 1 and 2 of The Family Code of the Philippines defines marriagep2HD420b_-%#OpLv=#Czl8uGiU1=56%4W0SLy7Gb+Ep9ZuWb17 as between man and woman.

Falcis’ petition quizzed these two articles as well as articles which list homosexuality as a reason for annulling a marrYd6qZrGWO8&BatzZ2nkQ8nP5Um_SqR(Ku9GthD^wEE8S9K0O=)iage.

The court said, according to PNA, that DH4%=4IwGFm6yKa3t(Mq(NsLAQ)aIetC0qD(N%@Z*sICjz_Mhuwhile the Constitution does not restrict marriage on the basis of gender, it underscored the need of formal legislation to allow a more orderly deliberation in assuring rights.

"Often public reason needs to be first shaped through the crucible of cUbWL)5gH@A!-N2d!X9Ny0nMG@9)PNl1Ve2-!zeid+aa5v7=fs^ampaigns and advocacies within our political forums before it is sharpened for judicial fiat," the tribunal reportedly said.

Civil Unions

Meanwhile, the Philippines Congress is set to consider a bill that would leBZXl&XGeg2840y=ybx_Vb1hd3nrRkPM&c4P07Qya9fLH$irtSigalize same-sex civil unions in the Southeast Asian nation.

But, the bill, which Congress failed to pass in its last session, has been cG+VQWLh6RU&ox0VNo)B&UEdzIF$6LfEJM@pI10(d(+Y6L-ok+9riticized by rights groups for failing to provide genuine equality.

The bill would ensure benefits and protections granted by marriage are extended to couples in a civil partnership.
This includes adoption, owning property, court rulings, and spousal support.

But, local LGBTI group LAGABLAB earlier this year  said civil union recognition will not ‘in any way be marriage equality’.
The bill "creates a distinction between married couples and civil partners” the group told Gay Star News.

"It further creates a sNRzhToLE)qNG&2&7n1&zFw%gucj9*LJht_=vl1JdLmDDtK4JE1econdary status for LGBTQI couples”.

LGBT rights groups have also bemoaned legisl+$ji7qI#i723m#ThdN08D_WjO+rtK--C_cXb2N*meMgtv$2eSsators for failing to pass much-needed anti-discrimination protections.