Philippine Supreme Court and the Pride cases

 

Rainbow themed tarpaulins can be seen placed in courts nationwide “to acknowledge and honor the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual (LGBTQIA++)  community.”

The Supreme Court issued  a memorandum  dated  May 12, 2023 designating June 13, 2023  as the   “first ever”  ceremony as part of the  judiciary-wide 2023  Pride Month celebration.

 

The role of  SC in the LGBTQIA++  rights movement is reflected in its various decisions.

 

The contentious  issue of same-sex marriage was the focal point of  Jesus Ricardo Falcis III   vs. Civil Registrar General et al . (G.R. No. 217910. September 03, 2019).

 

 Falcis  had  requested that the SC  declare unconstitutional on equality grounds certain provisions of the Philippine Family Code that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

 

The SC   dismissed the petition as it  ruled that the  request was too limited in scope, as there are a wide variety of other statutes besides the Family Code that similarly treat marriage as a heterosexual institution.

 

 Penned by my UP Law professor and SC Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, he noted that  granting the request would cause the SC  to arrogate to itself quasi-legislative powers as this would be necessary in order to amend all the statutes that inevitably would have to be changed to accommodate his petition.

 

The SC  did however acknowledge that the 1987 Constitution “does not define or restrict marriage on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.”

 

 The SC  “understand the desire of same-sex couples to seek, not moral judgment based on discrimination from any of our laws, but rather, a balanced recognition of their true, authentic, and responsive choices.”

 

Petitions for changes in entries in the birth certificate was favorably  ruled  in Republic vs. Jennifer Cagandahan [G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008] but in the  negative  in Rommel Silverio  vs. Republic (G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007).

 

Silverio filed a petition for the change of his first name  to “Mely” and sex (gender) in his birth certificate be changed to female since he underwent sex reassignment surgery. As there is no law legally recognizing sex reassignment, the SC  denied the petition as it stressed that the determination of a person’s sex made at the time of his or her birth, if not attended by error, is immutable.

 

In the Cagandahan case, the plaintiff was registered at birth as female, but developed secondary male characteristics over time. He was diagnosed with congenital adrenal hyperplasia and displayed both male and female characteristics. 

 

The SC ruled that  Jennifer  can become Jeff as  “it was reasonable to allow that person to determine his or her own gender where the individual was biologically or naturally intersex.”

 

The plaintiff had allowed “nature to take its course” and had not interfered with what “he was born with”.

 

In Ladlad Partylist vs.  Comelec (G.R. No. 190582 April 8, 2010), the Comelec denied the application of  Ang Ladlad on the premise  that it is an LGBT organization that  “tolerated  immorality which offends religious beliefs.”

 

The SC overturned  said decision based on the ground that there is no law in Philippines criminalizing homosexuality and that Ang Ladlad had complied with all legal requirements. The SC  also said that the Comelec's denial of Ang Ladlad's petition purely on moral grounds amount more to a statement of dislike and disapproval of homosexuals , rather than to further any substantial public interest.

 

In Espejon and  Cabonita vs. Judge Jorge Emmanuel Lorredo (A.M. No. MTJ-22-007. March 9, 2022), the  trial judge was suspended after he uttered inappropriate remarks in court about the sexual orientation of two gay litigants.  As he argued   that he merely reminded  them  that God hates homosexuality, the SC  said “homophobic slurs have no place in our courts of law.”

 

In Almelor,  vs   Almelor (G.R. No. 179620, August 26, 2008 ], the SC  said that it is the concealment of homosexuality, and not homosexuality per se, that vitiates the consent of the innocent party as ground for annulment.  Such concealment presupposes bad faith and intent to defraud the other party in giving consent to the marriage.

 

In  Campos v. Campos, (AC. No. 8644, 2014-01-22),  a judge who admitted he was gay should not be automatically presumed to be immoral. There was no evidence that  he engaged in scandalous conduct that would warrant the imposition of disciplinary action against him.

 

“Our freedom to choose the way we structure our intimate relationships with our chosen significant other in a large sense defines us as human beings. The companionship and understanding that we inevitably discover with the person we choose to spend the rest of our lives with provide the foundation for an ethic of care that enriches a democracy”,  said Justice Leonen  in  the  Falcis case.

 

  (Peyups is the moniker of University of the Philippines. Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786.)