Falcis v. Civil Registrar General, G.R. No.

217910, 3 September 2019

Facts:

 Falcis filed a petition to declare Art. 1 and 2 of the Family Code as unconstitutional, and to nullify
Art. 46(4) and 55(6) of the Family Code.

 Art 1 and 2, prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion and that the issues raised were
transcendental importance as to warrant the setting aside of procedural niceties. Falcis claims
that Art 1 and 2 of FC deny the existence of individuals belonging to religious denominations that
believe in same-sex marriage and that they have a right to found a family accordance with their
religious convictions.

 Falcis claims that a resort to Rule 65 was appropriate, citing separate opinions of various cases
saying that this Court should follow a fresh approach to the Court’s judicial power and find
petition pertains to a constitutional case attended by grave abuse of discretion

 CRG prays that the Court deny due course or dismiss the petition, that the petition is no in the
nature of a class suit, but instead personal only to Falcis. Falcis failed to show injury-in-fact and
an actual case or controversy but seeking an advisory opinion that the Court can’t issue.

 LGBTS Christian Church, Reverend Agbayani, Felipe and Ibanez, counsel by Falcis, filed a Motion
for Leave to Intervene and Admit Attached Petition-in-Intervention, asking the court to allow
them to intervene in the proceedings, claiming that:

 (1) they offer further procedural and substantive arguments;

 (2) their rights will not be protected in a separate proceeding; and

 (3) they have an interest in the outcome of this case.

 Subsequently, Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking the same reliefs
as those in Falcis’ Petition, namely: (1) declaration of unconstitutionality of Art 1 and 2 of the FC;
and (2) invalidation of Art 46(4) and 55(6) of the FC.

Issue:

1. WON petitioner has legal standing.

2. WON CRG gravely abused its discretion.

Held:

1. No.

 Petition has no actual facts that present a real conflict between the parties of the case,
there is no actual case or controversy. There is no legal standing to file his petition.
  Legal standing is a party’s personal and substantial interest in the case such
that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its
enforcement. Interest in the case means a material interest, an interest in
issue affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the
question involved, or a mere incidental interest.
 Petitioner’s desire to find and enter into long-term monogamous same-sex
relationship and to settle down and have a companion for life in his beloved
country does not constitute legally demandable rights that require judicial
enforcement. The Court will not witlessly indulge petitioner in blaming the
FC for his admitted inability to find a partner.

2. No.

Petitioner failed to show that respondent CRG exercised any judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
function. No grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction can be appreciated.
Petitions for certiorari and prohibition require the proper allegation not only of a breach of a
constitutional provision, but more important, of an actual case or controversy.

Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III vs. Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 217910, September 3,

2019

FACTS:

On May 18, 2015, Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III (Falcis) filed pro se before this Court a Petition

for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. His Petition

sought to “declare article 1 and 2 of the Family Code as unconstitutional and, as a

consequence, nullify Articles 46(4) and 55(6) of the Family Code.

Falcis claims that a resort to Rule 65 was appropriate, citing Magallona v. Executive Secretary,

Araullo v. Executive Secretary, and the separate opinion of now-retired Associate Justice

Arturo D. Brion (Associate Justice Brion) in Araullo. Again citing Associate Justice Brion’s

separate opinion, he claims that this Court should follow a “‘fresh’ approach to this Court’s

judicial power” and find that his Petition pertains to a constitutional case attended by grave

abuse of discretion. He also asserts that the mere passage of the Family Code, with its

Articles 1 and 2, was a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion, and that the issues he
raised were of such transcendental importance as to warrant the setting aside of procedural

niceties.

ISSUE: Whether or not the right to marry and the right to choose whom to marry are

cognates of the right to life and liberty

RULING:

Yes, from its plain text, the Constitution does not define or restrict marriage on the basis of

sex, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression. However, the Court held

that it does not have a monopoly in assuring this freedom since not all intimate relationships

are the same and, therefore, fit into the rights and duties afforded by our laws to marital

relationships.

Article XV of the 1987 Constitution concerns the family and operates in conjunction with

Article II, Section 12, Article XV, Section 1 pertains to the family in general, identifying it "as

the foundation of the nation" and articulates the State's overarching commitment to

"strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development." Article XV, Section 2

concerns marriage, in particular, and articulates a broad commitment to protecting its

inviolability as a social institution.

Consequently, this has placed great significance on procreation as a purpose or end of the

family.

With the most difficult political, moral, and cultural questions, the Constitution requires that

we share with the political departments of government, especially with Congress. And the

task of devising an arrangement where same-sex relations will earn state recognition is

better left to Congress in order that it may thresh out the many issues that may arise.