Philippine Supreme Court strikes down same-sex marriage bid

The Philippine Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition challenging the country's FamilyV04^uq#*Ts%d4JP@fE2(l=0!wbgFIs#DIwZeeeMHTAP9)iBpNL 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 36ma1sCJ*p7#EyGhyK#!c&-SB8EaCbfs_=1HIj5Fp9#1ai800finitiate the petition as well as for failing to comply with the principle of hierarchy of courts.

The court also turnc1zdbvJZFSywObxBlQgyNy_tSPCaljmG)KC0N-5h7T8yytS1Yxed down the potential lawsuit for "failing to raise an actual, justiciable controversy”.

Predominantly Roman Catholic, the Philippines does not grant LGx1iK(@tcXiFca&U4XLBSR-g7^rgz%G3tV0(A79uzkwx8I%DJP+BTI citizens equal rights.

Articles 1 and 2 of The Family Code of the Philippines defines marriage as beLL*j-iveO%lbbu3@-n_OaK7atpxXmxbQsZh8Le4!!WolluW476tween man and woman.

Falcis’ petition quizzed these two articles as well as art$o2%5(Omikh6Uu9*J2DUbo^YY+-886S_xoez*k@2elaMLxgt%Kicles which list homosexuality as a reason for annulling a marriage.

The court said, according to PNA, that while the Constitution does not restrict marriage on the basis of gender, iDZS256nDztVe_u*!H31MqCpJ8RdR8FNI5u*QoCWh@NEc)IWVZbt 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 campaigns and advocacies within our political forums before it is sharpe=lhvuLkLkVgMdoQPa^IcijQU-6AJ6P$93y^l)MUP4wPFOeYlgWned for judicial fiat," the tribunal reportedly said.

Civil Unions

Meanwhile, the Philippines Congress A8J9^TEwgVJsTa^1c2B#foC0&K*(yK)se-5Ay8TK8v+&2QfO#tis set to consider a bill that would legalize same-sex civil unions in the Southeast Asian nation.

But, the bill, which Congress failed to pass in its last session, has been criticized by rights groups for failinYRg*lNMceIs%0dlWq5JqxyNtoYn3rfoK1#bHUEBmBNLs5A9aOSg 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 secondary status for LGBTQI coupl19LM%=3i@(cLg6TtMD^JUUg^vJB1Kb9P8gC*Ug-yJ*25YvUHgses”.

LGBT rights groups have also bemoaned legislators for failing to pass much-needed anti-disBtQ^s$-+gje@)RQ6j$fLSbr5L)qA$eHqL#Ef0NHHZZ4vp^V6Ancrimination protections.