Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila City

QUEZON CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR,

Defendant-Petitioner,
-versus11231994

Civil Case No.

For:

MONIQUE SANTOS, and JOEY DELA CRUZ,

Plaintiff-Respondents,
x----------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
COMES NOW DEFENDANT-PETITIONER, through undersigned counsel unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully submits the instant MEMORANDUM and avers that:

THE PARTIES
1. Defendant-Petitioner, QUEZON CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR, is a government office
operating under the Philippine law, with an office address at 1st Floor, Carigma
Street, M.l. Quezon Corner, Antipolo, 1870 Rizal, where it may be served with
legal processes and notices issued by this Honorable Court;
2. Plaintiff-Respondent, MONIQUE SANTOS, is 28 years old, Filipino, single, with
residence at 20 Mabini Street, Quezon City, and JOEY DELA CRUZ, also of the
same age, Filipino, single, with residence at 18 Bambini Street, Quezon City,
where both may be served with legal processes and notices issued by this
Honorable Court;

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
3. On 9 March 2015, the Quezon City Civil Registrar, hereto as the DefendantPetitioner, denied the application for the marriage license of the PlaintiffRespondents on the ground that both applicants are of the same sex.
4. In response to the letter dated 9 March 2015 which denies their application of
marriage license, Monique Santos, one of the Plaintiff-Respondents, wrote a
letter dated 12 March 2015 to the Quezon City Civil Registrar requesting a
reconsideration of the denial in their application of marriage license, and also
threatens to file both administrative and criminal charges against them for
violating Section 4 (f) of Republic Act No. 10743.
5. The Quezon City Civil Registrar, fearing not to be a respondent in any
administrative or criminal case that would cause her retirement benefits to be
withheld, decided to reconsider for her earlier decision and issued the application
for marriage license on 16 March 2015.

6. The Plaintiff-Respondents, filed a Petition for Mandamus on 20 July 2015 with

the Quezon City Regional Trial Court compelling the Quezon City Civil Registrar
to register their marriage certificate for they cannot apply for US Visa after going
to Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) and surprised that they did not have a
copy of their marriage certificate.
7. The Quezon City Civil Registrar sought the assistance of the Office of the Solicitor
General to question the decision of Quezon City Regional Trial Court dated 07
December 2015.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
8. Plaintiff-Respondents who are both female were roommates and became best
friends while they were still in college. After obtaining their respective degrees in
2014, they both decided to live together in a condominium in Eastwood City;
9. Republic Act No. 10743 then became effective, and they both decided to finally
legalize their union thereby availing all the benefits and privileges of a married
couple;
10. The couple attended the mass wedding organized by the PAG-IBIG Fund held
every year. They are listed as one of the couples to be married after verifying that
all the necessary requirements and documents to be filed are in order, true and
valid;
11. On 05 May 2015, an actual mass wedding held in UP Chapel officiated by the
Quezon City Mayor, the Plaintiff-Respondents took their vows and were finally
married in the presence of their witnesses. They received a copy of their marriage
certificate duly signed by the Quezon City Mayor;
12. After three months, they applied for US Visa which needed them to submit a
certified true copy of their marriage certificate. However, when they went to
Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) on 07 July 2015, they were surprised that
the PSA did not have a copy of their marriage certificate. They then discovered
that the new person-in-charge in the issuance of marriage license in the Quezon
City Civil Registrar had refused to register their marriage after finding that they
were of the same sex;

ISSUE OF THE CASE

13. WHETHER OR NOT THE MARRIAGE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE QUEZON
CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR IN FAVOR MONIQUE SANTOS AND JOEY
DELACRUZ ON 16 MARCH 2015 BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID

ARGUMENTS
14. The Quezon City Civil Registrar committed error in deciding the issuance of
marriage license of the parties of the same sex who then invoked for the violation
of Section 4 (f) of R.A. 10743.

DISCUSSION
2

15. It is true that Republic Act no. 10743, An Act Prohibiting Discrimination On the
Basis of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity (SOGI) and Providing Penalties
Thereof, is now effective and it basically seeks to end discrimination to ones
right regardless of sex, age class, status, ethnicity, color, disability, religious and
political beliefs, sexual orientation or gender identity. This was approved by the
House Committee for gender equality in substitution in the previous House Bills.
Under this Act, it shall be unlawful for employers to consider sexual orientation
or gender identity, as well as disclosure of sexual orientation as basis for hiring,
promotion, incentives, benefits, privileges, transfer, work assignment, dismissal
of workers, and other human resource agenda and other terms of employment.
Schools are also bound not to refused admission or expel a student or person on
the basis of sexual orientation or identity. The same goes to public or private
medical and other health facilities or services shall not refuse or turn away a
patient because of his/her sexual orientation or gender identity.
The government shall ensure that no one will be denied of a professional license,
clearance certification or any other similar document due to the applicants
sexual orientation. (Section 4 (f) of Republic Act No. 10743)
The Plaintiff-Respondents on this case invokes Section 4 (f) of Republic Act no.
10743 in which they argue that they shall be allowed to the issuance of marriage
license regardless of their sex. These individuals may have undergone such a
ceremony to express their love and commitment to each other. They may have
other reason but it could not include seeking legal protection and benefits that
flow from marriage under our law.
It is very clear that same sex marriage is not recognized under the Philippine law.
Under Section 1 of the Family Code, Marriage is a special contract of permanent
union between a man and a woman entered upon into in accordance with the law
for the establishment of conjugal and family life. On this very law, it is
convincingly clear that in order to contact marriage, one must be a man and one
being a woman. Parties of both sexes contemplating marriage would be invalid
for our law is clear.
Marriage, under Article XV of the 1987 Constitution, solely recognizes marriage
between a man and woman only, thereby supporting the Family Code
implemented in 1950 which also says the same.
The Plaintiff-Respondents failed to recognize that under Section 8 of Republic
Act No. 10743 which says that if any of the provision of the Act is declared
unconstitutional, the validity of the provisions shall not be affected. In this case at
bar, the contention of the Plaintiff-Respondents invoking their right to same-sex
marriage is unconstitutional, against our morals and public policy. To allow such
law that would legalize same-sex marriage is a great disservice to humanity and
also of our law. It would demean and reduce man to being lower than animals.
Nature has always taught us that marriage is a union between a man and woman
only. Even animals know and practice this. To be gay or lesbian is just temporary
state of emotion and inner being.
If we allow such marriage of the same-sex, this would force the legislative body to
amend or even revised the Civil Code, Family Code and worst, our Philippine
Constitution. While the Constitution does not explicitly provide that only a man
and a woman may constitute marriage, I can presume that the constitutional
deliberations and intention would show that marriage is between a man and a
woman only.
Let it be clear that the focus of the implementation of R.A. 10743 prohibits
discriminatory practices in employment, education, organizing, health, access
and justice only.
3

Additionally, under Article 2 (1) of the Family Code which provides the essential
requisites in order a marriage be declared valid provides that, 1. Legal capacity
of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female, which clearly states
that marriage between same sex would invalidate a marriage and is void ab initio.
It is well-settled that where the language of the law is clear and unequivocal, it
must be given its literal application and applied without interpretation.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed for that
this Honorable Court, that Plaintiff-Respondents marriage license dated 16
March 2015 be declared NULL and VOID AB INITIO and the petition be
DISMISSED for being clearly unconstitutional.
Other just and equitable relief under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
Quezon City, 11 October 2016