Case Digest

Submitted by: 

Jacquilou G. Macasero

JD2

Liceo de Cagayan University

Submitted to:

Atty. Maricel R. Seno

Legal Writing
Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis, III, Petitioner

versus 

Civil Registrar General, Respondent

G.R. No. 217910 , September 3, 2019

Ponente: Leonen, J.:

Facts:

On May 18, 2015, Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis, III (Falcis) filed pro se before the
Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure. His Petition sought to “declare Articles 1 and 20 of the
Family Code as unconstitutional and, as a consequence, nullify Articles 46 (4) and 55
(6) of the Family Code. 

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. 

Furthermore, Falcis argues that Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code 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 in accordance with their
religious convictions”. 

Issues:

1. Whether or not the self-identification of petitioner Falcis as a member of the

LGBTQI+ community gives him standing to challenge the Family Code;

2. Whether or not the application of the Doctrine of Transcendental

Importance is warranted; and

3. 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:

1. No. Petitioner has 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 supposed "personal stake in the outcome of this case" is not the direct
injury contemplated by jurisprudence as that which would endow him with standing.
Mere assertions of a "law's normative impact"; "impairment" of his "ability to find and
enter into long-term monogamous same-sex relationships"; as well as injury to his
"plans to settle down and have a companion for life in his beloved country" or
influence over his "decision to stay or migrate to a more LGBT friendly country"
cannot be recognized by this Court as sufficient interest. Petitioner's desire "to find
and enter into long-term monogamous same-sex relationships" and "to settle down
and have a companion for life in his beloved country" does not constitute legally
demandable rights that require judicial enforcement.

2. No. The issues involving transcendental importance is an oft-cited justification for

failing to comply with the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and for bringing admittedly
factual issues to this Court. 

The Diocese of Bacolod recognized transcendental importance as an exception to

the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. In cases of transcendental importance, imminent
and clear threats to constitutional rights warrant a direct resort to this Court. This
Court declared that there must be no disputed facts, and the issues raised should
only be questions of law. Thus, concerning the extent to which transcendental
importance carves exceptions to the requirements of justiciability, the elements
supported by the facts of an actual case, and the imperatives of our role as the
Supreme Court within a specific cultural or historic context, must be made clear.

3. Yes. Accordingly, the task of devising an arrangement where same-sex relations

will earn state recognition is better left to Congress.

Marriage is a legal relationship, entered into through a legal framework, and

enforceable according to legal rules. Law stands at its very core. Due to this inherent
"legalness" of marriage, the constitutional right to marry cannot be secured simply by
removing legal barriers to something that exists outside of the law. Rather, the law
itself must create the "thing" to which one has a right. As a result, the right to marry
necessarily imposes an affirmative obligation on the state to establish this legal
framework.

Allowing same-sex marriage based on this Petition alone can delay other more
inclusive and egalitarian arrangements that the State can acknowledge. Prematurely
adjudicating issues in a judicial forum despite a bare absence of facts is
presumptuous. It may unwittingly diminish the LGBTQI+ community's capacity to
create a strong movement that ensures lasting recognition, as well as public
understanding, of SOGIESC.