Summary of The Memoranda - Moot Court Decision

Summary of the Memoranda of Group 8, The Love for All Network
By: Ma. Conchita B. Danocup
As enshrined in the Philippine 1987 Constitution, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law. The right to due process guarantees that the State
must respect individual rights by setting limitations on laws and legal proceedings. This includes
granting all persons a right to fair trial and effective remedy.
In reference to the above definition of the Equal Protection Clause of the 1987 Constitution, it is
blatantly clear that there is no violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution for the
new law being passed by Congress that amends the Family Code definition of marriage as not
just between a man and a woman but includes also those between males, females, and
transsexuals. In fact, the new law re-enforces the true meaning of equal protection clause
enshrined in the constitution that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without
due process of law.
In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered 5-4 decision. The court
in its majority opinion found that marriage is a fundamental right, “as a matter of history and
tradition. It is therefore protected under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, which
prevents states from depriving anyone of “Life, Liberty or Property without due process of law.”
Justice Kennedy wrote, “Under the Constitution, same sex couples seek in marriage the same
legal treatment as opposite sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their
personhood to deny them this right.”
Additionally, The Court emphasized that, while the democratic process may be an appropriate
tool for deciding issues such as same-sex marriage, no individual has to rely solely on the
democratic process to exercise a fundamental right. "An individual can invoke a right to
constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and
even if the legislature refuses to act, for fundamental rights.”
The court held: “Marriage is a fundamental right. State bans on same sex-marriage violate the
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause.”
However, the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the supreme law of the land, neither discriminates
nor prohibits same-sex marriage. It provided only for the significance of marriage, such that
marriage, “as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be
protected by the State.”
Without marriage, same-sex couples suffer from substantially lesser rights compared to
heterosexual couples. There are legal issues involving the former’s adoption and custody of
children, hospital and prison visitation rights, management and transfer of properties, medical
and burial decisions, and entitlement to insurance proceeds. Same-sex couples resort to
certain legal, albeit limited, approaches to legitimize their union — adoption, which is allowed if
done by a single LGBT person; business partnership, to jointly own properties; and a special
power of attorney, to name a few.
Same-sex marriage is an issue that is still heavily debated upon. Grounds raised against it
range from moral to legal. However, the legal impediment against same-sex marriage can be
cured by legislation. There is no absolute prohibition against legitimizing — at least, civilly —
unions between two Filipinos of the same sex. Hence, it is legally feasible for the legislative
branch of the government — the Congress and the Senate — to enact a law which legalizes
same-sex marriage in the Philippines.
Our freedom to differ and, ultimately, our freedom to choose must not be limited by existing
laws, especially when there is nothing that prohibits legislation accommodating legitimate calls
for equality, which the Constitution itself enshrines.
In this case, petitioner and petitioners-in-intervention, as professed homosexuals, gays and

lesbians, assert a fundamental right to enter into same-sex marriage. They argue that the legal
requirement that marriage be a union between a male and a female violates their rights to due
process and the equal protection of the laws. On the former, they claim that there is no rational
nexus between limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples and the state interest of protecting
marriage as the foundation of the family. They assert that: homosexuals can fulfill the essential
marital obligations, heterosexuals are no better parents than homosexuals, and homosexuals
can raise children well in the same manner that heterosexuals can.
With respect to their equal protection claim, petitioner asserts that classification on the basis of
sexual orientation is suspect, because, among others, sexual orientation is an immutable trait.
Since the classification is suspect, strict scrutiny review must be resorted to. Petitioner further
argues that even applying the rationality test, no substantial distinction can be made between
same-sex and opposite-sex couples, because gay couples can do everything that opposite-sex
couples are required to do by the Family Code, even if they cannot by themselves procreate.
Thus, the new law being passed by Congress that amends the Family Code definition of
marriage as not just between a man and a woman but includes also those between males,
females, and transsexuals is not violative of the constitution and must therefore, declared as
Constitutional.

Summary of The Memoranda - Moot Court Decision

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Summary of The Memoranda - Moot Court Decision

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Summary of The Memoranda - Moot Court Decision

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Summary of the Memoranda of Group 8, The Love for All Network

By: Ma. Conchita B. Danocup

In this case, petitioner and petitioners-in-intervention, as professed homosexuals, gays and

You might also like