Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

FAJARDO,

 CARL  DIANNE  S.    JD1A  

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  

race  and  religion.5  


 

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.