Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
NON-NECESSITY
1. Legalization of same-sex marriage Majority of the Filipinos oppose same-
sex marriage.
“Seven in 10 Filipinos disagree with same-sex marriage, according to a poll
conducted in May. Up to 70% of the survey respondents said they "strongly
disagree" with same-sex marriage being allowed in the predominantly Catholic
country. A small 4% said they "strongly agree" with same-sex marriage. The rest
of the respondents "somewhat disagree" (14%) and "somewhat agree" (12%) with
a possible reform in the country's marriage laws. The sentiment against same-sex
marriage is "strong" across the board based on regional and socio-economic
breakdown of the survey exclusively conducted by Laylo Research Strategies for
the newspaper The Standard.”1
1
Carmela
Fonbuena,
7
in
10
Filipinos
oppose
same-‐sex
marriage,
Rappler
news,
June
29,
2015
available
at
https://www.rappler.com/nation/97804-‐same-‐sex-‐marriage-‐survey-‐philippines
last
accessed
October
19,
2017.
FAJARDO,
CARL
DIANNE
S.
JD1A
Another notable survey is an online poll conducted by INQUIRER.net just after the US
Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Results of the poll showed
that majority of Filipinos do not care whether or not the same measure should be
legislated in the Philippines. 41.2 percent of respondents, equivalent to 9,100 out of
22,085 votes, answered “I don’t care” on whether the Philippines should follow suit.2 This
was slightly higher than the 39.2 percent or 8,658 respondents who said that the country
should also legalize same-sex unions. Meanwhile, 19.59 percent of total votes answered
“no.”
Sec 1 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution reads: “The Philippines is a democratic
and republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them.”3 The 1987 Constitution describes the Philippines as a republican
and democratic state. Democracy is essentially government by the people. Thus, the
people are declared supreme and every citizen is a repository of sovereignty. The
citizenry and not the officialdom is recognized as the origin, and therefore also the
restriction of all government authority. 4 Therefore, if majority of the Filipino people oppose
same-sex marriage, it should not be legalized.
2. The State is not obliged to legalize same-sex marriage.
On June 24, 2010, The European Court of Human Rights ruled on a complaint of
a homosexual couple in Austria who were denied the right to marry. This is although
months before, in January 2010, Austria created the possibility to enter into a
registered partnership for same-sex couples. The petitioners in this case, invoked
their right to marry and right against discrimination in relation to their right to private
and family life. The court found no violation of their human rights, ruling that the State
has a valid interest in protecting the traditional definition of marriage, which is “a
permanent union between a man and a woman”. Thus, the Philippine Society can
choose not to legalize same sex marriage as it chooses not to legalize incestuous,
polygamous and minors to marry. The current marriage laws already treat all people
equally. A man and woman without any legal impediment and who is of legal age can
marry each other the law is neutral with respect to gender preference just as it ignores
2
Gonzales,
Vincent,
Same-‐sex
marriage
in
PH?
Majority
of
Filipinos
don’t
care,
Inquirer.net
available
at
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/703260/same-‐sex-‐marriage-‐in-‐ph-‐majority-‐of-‐filipinos-‐dont-‐care
(last
accessed
October
19,
2017).
3
CONSTI,
ART
II
SEC
I.
4
Cruz,
Isagani,
Philippine
Political
Law,
(2014).
FAJARDO,
CARL
DIANNE
S.
JD1A
3. Same-sex marriage should not be legalized because it is outside the
interest of the State.
Many would argue that the happiness of same-sex couples would be enhanced by
gay marriage, thus providing a compelling interest. This, in fact, is not the case. According
to Normadin, a contributor of The Tech, “the government has already shown through
prohibiting certain types of marriage that it does not view enhanced happiness as a
compelling enough interest to encourage marriage of any kind. After all, if “enhanced
happiness” was a compelling interest, it could be used to justify government subsidization
of chocolate, which is proven to increase happiness through the release of certain
endorphins. In fact, one could argue that the government should subsidize anything and
everything that makes someone happy.”6 Thus, “enhanced happiness” can clearly not be
considered a compelling enough interest to justify the recognition and, therefore, the
legalization of gay marriage.
4. Civil unions and domestic partnerships can provide the protections and
benefits gay couples need without changing the definition of marriage.
Prior to the Obergefell7 decision, wherein same sex marriage was legalized in the
United States, several states have already expanded the legal rights available to spouses
in same-sex relationships through civil unions and domestic partnerships rather than
permitting same-sex marriage.
5
Buyse,
Antoine,
Strasbourg
court
rules
that
states
are
not
obliged
to
allow
gay
marriage,
The
Guardian,
available
at
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/jun/24/european-‐court-‐of-‐human-‐rights-‐civil-‐
partnerships
(last
accessed
October
19,
2017).
6
Id.
7
576 U.S. 2015.