REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Polytechnic University of the Philippines

College of Law
Sta. Mesa. Manila

1. James Obergefell, et al., v. Richard Hodges, Director, Ohio

Department of Health
Valeria Tanco, et al., v. Bill Haslam, Governor of Tennesse, et al.
April Deboer, et al., v. Rick Snyder, Governor of Michigan et al.
Gregory Bourke, et al v. Steve Beshear, Governor of Kentucky
576 U.S. ___ (2015) June 26, 2015

The United States Supreme Court, in a vote of 5-4,

reversed the earlier decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals. It declared that same sex-marriage bans are a
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due process and
Equal Protection Clauses. It required all states to grant same
sex-marriages and should recognize same sex-marriages
granted in other states. The majority opinion of the court and
the dissenting opinions of the four dissenting justices applied
the modes of interpretation to come up with the reason behind
their stance on the case.

The majority opinion of the court which was penned by

Justice Anthony Kennedy, was joined by Justices Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, andElena
Kagan. It explained that the liberty sought by petitioners is
afforded to them by the US Constitution under the Due
Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment
and thus, must enjoy this constitutional right as being enjoyed
by other people. The Justices used the sixth approach in
interpreting the texts of the said clauses on the decision, the
search for meaning through a deliberately eclectic combination
of the other five modes of interpretation. We can notice that
textualism and reliance on stare decisis came to play major
roles in coming up with the majority opinion.

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental
liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights
enumerated in the Bill of Rights. They examined the words on
it and came up that the identification and protection of
fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to
interpret the Constitution.

Several Landmark cases came in discussion as well. In

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211 (1888), the court
explained that marriage is “the foundation of the family and of
Modes of Interpretation: Legal Method Page 2 of 9
x---------------------------------------------------x

society, without which there would be neither civilization nor

progress”, in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967), which
invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court
held marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to
the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” The Court
reaffirmed that holding in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374,
384 (1978), which held the right to marry was burdened by a
law prohibiting fathers who were behind on child support from
marrying. The Court again applied this principle in Turner v.
Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987), which held the right to marry
was abridged by regulations limiting the privilege of prison
inmates to marry. Over time and in other contexts, the Court
has reiterated that the right to marry is fundamental under
the Due Process Clause. Applying these established tenets,
the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the
Constitution.

The right for marriage of same-sex couples is not literally

stated in the US Constitution and in other state constitutions.
However, as it is presumed that the words in which the
constitutional provisions are written, expressed the objectives
that the Constitution seeks to attain. In the case, the Court, in
assessing whether the force and rationale of its cases apply to
same-sex couples, it stated that they must respect the basic
reasons why the right to marry has been long protected.
This analysis compelled the conclusion that same-sex couples
may exercise the right to marry. They came up with four
principles and traditions that discussed and demonstrated the
reasons why marriage is fundamental under the Constitution
(1) The first principle stated that the nature of marriage is
that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find
other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.
This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.
(2) A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the
right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-
person union unlike any other in its importance to the
committed individuals. The right to marry thus dignifies
couples who “wish to define themselves by their commitment
to each other.” Marriage responds to the universal fear that a
lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers
the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance
that while both still live there will be someone to care for the
other.
As the Court held in Lawrence v. Texas, 538 U.S. 558,
575, same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex
couples to enjoy intimate association. Lawrence invalidated
laws that made same-sex intimacy a criminal act. And it
acknowledged that “when sexuality finds overt expression in
Modes of Interpretation: Legal Method Page 3 of 9
x---------------------------------------------------x

intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but

one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.”
(3) A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it
safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning
from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.
The Court has recognized these connections by describing the
varied rights as a unified whole: “[T]he right to ‘marry,
establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the
liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” As all parties
agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing
homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And
hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised
by such couples. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians
to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many
adopted and foster children have same-sex parents. This
provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays
and lesbians can create loving, supportive families. Excluding
same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central
premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition,
stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children
suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.
They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised
by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own
to a more difficult and uncertain family life. That is not to say
the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or
cannot have children. An ability, desire, or promise to
procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid
marriage in any State.

(4) Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s
traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social
order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex
couples with respect to this principle. Yet by virtue of their
exclusion from that institution, same-sex couples are denied
the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to
marriage. This harm results in more than just material
burdens. Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability
many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their
own lives. As the State itself makes marriage all the more
precious by the significance it attaches to it, exclusion from
that status has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians
are unequal in important respects. It demeans gays and
lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution
of the Nation’s society. Same-sex couples, too, may aspire to
the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in
its highest meaning.

The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history

and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone.
They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how
Modes of Interpretation: Legal Method Page 4 of 9
x---------------------------------------------------x

constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent

in our own era. Many who deem same-sex marriage to be
wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable
religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their
beliefs are disparaged here. It stated: “There can be no doubt
that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial
classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal
Protection Clause.” With this link to equal protection the
Court proceeded to hold the prohibition offended central
precepts of liberty: “To deny this fundamental freedom on so
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in
these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the
principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth
Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of
liberty without due process of law.” The reasons why marriage
is a fundamental right became more clear and compelling from
a full awareness and understanding of the hurt that resulted
from laws barring interracial unions.

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right

to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the
person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-
sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The
Court thus held that same-sex couples may exercise the
fundamental right to marry. The dispositive portion of the
majority opinion reads, “xxx They ask for equal dignity in
the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that
right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.xxx”

Clearly, the rules of the last approach were satisfied in

the majority opinion. The following are the several rules in
reading the Constitution under this mode1; (1)It is assumed
that the words in which the constitutional provisions are
couched to express the objective sought to be attained, (2) the
words are to be given their ordinary meaning except where
technical terms are employed in which case, the latter
meaning prevails, (3) it’s language as much as possible should
be understood in the sense they have in common use and, (4)
The texts of the provision to be construed compels the
acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter it, on
the premise that the framers and the people mean what they
say.

In the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts,

which was joined by Justices Antoine Scalia and Clarence
Thomas, he noticeably used the mode of originalism, making

1 Dan Gatmaytan, Legal Method Essentials, pp. 47-48

Modes of Interpretation: Legal Method Page 5 of 9
x---------------------------------------------------x

emphasis in looking deeper at the intent of the framers of their

constitution with respect to the essence of marriage. He
discussed that the Constitution protects a right to marry and
requires States to apply their marriage laws equally. But
“marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been
thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of
that term and to its role and function throughout the history
of civilization.”

According to him, this universal definition of marriage as

the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence.
Marriage did not come about as a result of a political
movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any
other moving force of world history—and certainly not as a
result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It
arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring
that children are conceived by a mother and father committed
to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong
relationship.

There is no doubt that the intent of the framers of their

Constitution is to protect marriage as a right and ensure that
all states abide with it. However, as there is no provision in the
constitution solely for marriage, the framers thereby entrusted
the States with “the whole subject of the domestic relations of
husband and wife.” Clearly, history dictates that marriage as
stated above should only be between opposite sexes. According
to him, procreation is the chief end of marriage. Therefore, for
the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead
to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman
committed to a lasting bond. This made marriage as the
fundamental institution in the society and binds the states
together.

In the end, he urged the Americans who are favoring

the expansion of marriage, by all means, to celebrate the
achievement of a desired goal, the opportunity for a new
expression of commitment to a partner and the availability of
new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia with whom,

Justice Thomas joined, the context of textualism and
originalism is the center of his discussion. He opened his
opinion by stating that because of the “liberties” created by the
court through their claimed power to create liberties, the
people are being robbed of the most important liberty, the
power to govern themselves. His opinion is centered in the
importance of the intent of the Constitution towards marriage.
He stated that when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified
Modes of Interpretation: Legal Method Page 6 of 9
x---------------------------------------------------x

in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one

woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so.
And that argument resolved these cases.

He also contended that they have no basis for striking

down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the
Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the
endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and
unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification.

Justice Thomas also gave value to the originalism in

his dissenting opinion, in which Justice Scalia joined. The
important of the intent of the framers of their Constitution was
given due importance with respect to the meaning of liberty.
He stated that since well before 1787, liberty has been
understood as freedom from government action, not enti-
tlement to government benefits. The Authors of their
constitution created it to preserve that understanding of
liberty. He argued that the majority opinion in of “liberty” is
entirely different on what the framers are intended and sought
for the people. It rejected the idea captured in their
Declaration of Independence: that human dignity is innate and
suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This
distortion of the Constitution not only ignores the text, it
inverts the relationship between the individual and the state
inour Republic and he ultimately disagreed with the majority’s
inversion of the original meaning of liberty and conclude that
it will likely cause collateral damage to other aspects of “our
constitutional order that protect liberty.”

Lastly, Justice Alito, with whom Justice Scalia and

Justice Thomas joined, also used the context of textualism in
expounding the meaning of the provisions in this case,
particularly with that of “liberty” that paved the way to
marriage.

He concluded that it is not what States should do

about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution
answers that question for them and it does not. The
Constitution according to him, leaves that question to be
decided by the people of each State. The Constitution says
nothing about a right to same-sex marriage, but the Court
holds that the term “liberty” in the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment encompasses this right. In his words,
“Our Nation was founded upon the principle that every person
has the unalienable right to liberty, but liberty is a term of
many meanings. For classical liberals, it may include
economic rights now limited by government regulation. For
social democrats, it may include the right to a variety of
Modes of Interpretation: Legal Method Page 7 of 9
x---------------------------------------------------x

government benefits. For today’s majority, it has a distinctively

postmodern meaning. This understanding of marriage, which
focuses almost entirely on the happiness of persons who
choose to marry, is shared by many people today, but it is not
the traditional one. For millennia, marriage was inextricably
linked to the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can
do: procreate.”

Clearly, he emphasized that marriage is only for

opposite sexes, because process of procreation can only be
achieved when opposite sexes unite to form the basis of family
which is marriage. This is within the intention of the framers
of their constitution, which is to preserve the basic institution
of American Society.

2. In the Philippine Context, the majority opinion of the US

Supreme Court, will be held unconstitutional and a violation
of the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and
Family Code with respect to the family as a basic foundation of
the nation. It will be disputed on the following grounds;

I. Sex or Gender is one of the

requisites on the legal capacity to
marry in our country.

II. The state shall protect marriage as

the foundation of family.

Discussion

I. Sex or Gender is one of

the requisites on the legal
capacity to marry in our
country.

While there is no expressed provision in the Philippine

Constitution about the exclusivity of marriage among opposite
sexes, it is expressly provided under Article 1 of the Family
Code2, which reads;
Art. 1. Marriage is a special contract of
permanent union between a man and a
woman entered into in accordance with law
for the establishment of conjugal and family
life. It is the foundation of the family and an
inviolable social institution whose nature,
consequences, and incidents are governed by
law and not subject to stipulation, except
that marriage settlements may fix the

2 Executive Act No. 209, “THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES”, July 6, 1987
Modes of Interpretation: Legal Method Page 8 of 9
x---------------------------------------------------x

property relations during the marriage within

the limits provided by this Code.

It can’t be denied that based on the above-mentioned

article, marriage is a special contract of permanent union
between a man and a woman. It is the fundamental rule that
governs the system that we have with respect to marriage.
Marriage by the same-sex in our country would be deemed
contrary to public policy, customs and public order. The end
fruit of marriage which is procreation can only be achieved by
the opposite sexes.

We are living in a period of history where change is

inevitable and almost all nations are adopting to what is being
offered as new by influential countries and same-sex marriage
is one of them. But, in our status quo, which is governed by a
system of laws and not of men, it is just to say that, it cannot
prosper in our country.
Article 2 of the Family Code also supports this notion;

Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid,

unless these essential requisites are present:

(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties

who must be a male and a female.
xxx

It is one of the legal capacity mentioned in the Family

Code, the absence of which will render the marriage void ab
initio. So, if we are going to apply the decision, it will be
rendered a violation of this provision of the Family Code.

II. The state shall protect

marriage as the
foundation of family.

It is the duty of the state to protect marriage. It is the

institution that is the center of the family. Section 2 of Article
XV provides;

SECTION 2. Marriage, as an inviolable

social institution, is the foundation of the
family and shall be protected by the State.

Marriage is the glue that binds the family together.

Without marriage, there is no family. And it is also the duty of
the state to protect family as the basic autonomous social
institution. Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution
provides;
Modes of Interpretation: Legal Method Page 9 of 9
x---------------------------------------------------x

SECTION 12. The State recognizes the

sanctity of family life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution. Xxx

With that being said, it is noteworthy that the state puts

family in the center of the society. It is the bond which ties the
thousands of islands in the Philippine Archipelago as one
nation and without family; we will have no nation as it is
today. Marriage meanwhile is what makes a family, a family.
Family and marriage are intertwined with each other.

In contemplating the intention of the framers of our

Constitution, the protection of the family is one of the most
important facets of it. We can notice that a whole article
(Article XV) of the Constitution is put in place to make
emphasis on its importance.

Based on the above-mentioned arguments, judgment is

hereby rendered declaring the decision of the US Supreme
Court UNCONSTITUTIONAL (1987 Philippine Constitution).
Decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals REAFFIRMED.
Petitions DENIED.