The Philippine Supreme6CN4vY=4Tq@_K)%_rB^91zj4JM9cL%rcpe+Yy6cRCM9+DmfSuG Court on Tuesday rejected a petition challenging the country's Family Code that limits marriage to between a man and a woman.

The court unani863!0&Ajb*9bJFyk-yme5w%XbN-Yiepw*UX2b8*z)NlFP15mM5mously dismissed Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III’s petition, the Philippine News Agency (PNA) reports.

A court spokesman said judges cited a lack of legal standing to initiate the lSfJi447&vbTgVl&dCa0aR6ZczsqR9fz%WQehB+58AMG87e(hIpetition as well as for failing to comply with the principle of hierarchy of courts.

TPII^%!Okxtd0VUA)(QcymVt49&56TB!c18$+geWRLq^Jp!u3V*he court also turned down the potential lawsuit for "failing to raise an actual, justiciable controversy”.

Predominantly Roman Catholic, the Philippines does LsXm8uN%6O)Y#FbSH8T)xN4_iFxWK)uNb2jfh1g%TO@09GHzBpnot grant LGBTI citizens equal rights.

Articles 1 and 2 of The Family Code of the Philippines defines marriage as be+&@3cGM1J69*tcH&uhPn5H(mPshofP5$WlBq4bk3q9$Sa*SM^Xtween man and woman.

Falcis’ petition quizzed these two articles as well as articles which list homosexuality as a reason for annulling a maAuyFWG&LZjKRBf%LPkM6VqALD!r!SPDC3s#HDrp%rc+=AoQp1Qrriage.

The court said, according to PNA, that while the Constitution does not restrict marriage on the basis of gender, it underscored the need of formal legislation to_9ng!01BnL2NQ+d^^I*O3e@=^+yGDUaRdQGN%dR!FA$B%m7B-7 allow a more orderly deliberation in assuring rights.

"Often public reason needs to be first shaped through t_Q@oD%H0k%ssrt$X$r9dg@0sQ7rggHoMxIG=57nya1Bpy7oKi3he crucible of campaigns and advocacies within our political forums before it is sharpened for judicial fiat," the tribunal reportedly said.

Civil Unions

Meanwhile, the Philippines Congress is set to consider a bill that wou2@8fB^E+Nk&!r6dkvxnIjee7J!)$YdyXh5V!RYsVWSf)m_yceFld legalize same-sex civil unions in the Southeast Asian nation.

But, the bill, which Congress failed to pass in its last session, has been criticized by rights groups fork=%_dfU!Ha)FQA$%smPv&94OqswM#x)n+zK6i04(!m0EI=A9uL failing to provide genuine equality.

The bill would ensure benefits and protections granted by marriage are extended to couples in a civil partnership.
This includes adoption, owning property, court rulings, and spousal support.

But, local LGBTI group LAGABLAB earlier this year  said civil union recognition will not ‘in any way be marriage equality’.
The bill "creates a distinction between married couples and civil partners” the group told Gay Star News.

"It further cFu_CponJhqnlzN4ZuuJoDLAsu$re1ClyL$pP6vxTS=Nmd=Y6joreates a secondary status for LGBTQI couples”.

LGBT rights groups have also bemoaned legislators for failing to pass much-needed anti-discriminatiopMxa_&XENUOA^u4L@ZyT0TmV+ngUo!t9MP!gIKv0LaSqn^CTr&n protections.