The Philippine Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition challenging the country's Family CLTQ0oAGmxW)Kmk+6o6CBEw075sx&aJ2MV9rGeyT3Bp2lBqqpOSode that limits marriage to between a man and a woman.
The court unanimously 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 initi1da_MB3GR9KHrjwu9UK)Nnc_vL4SQ!pGUU++)UU0=hW!90K!7Hate the petition as well as for failing to comply with the principle of hierarchy of courts.
The court also turned down tYlLc%S&7NESZ^$rtsCej%MKdeYEb_0b86QQMNNKqes0ApjMQUXhe potential lawsuit for "failing to raise an actual, justiciable controversy”.
Predominantly Roman Catholic, the Philippines doy%bD71SDZ^L7xY%YQRc^zZc%GoEVKcKJ7gbff!2^&8QzvfZ4+#es not grant LGBTI citizens equal rights.
Articles 1 and 2 of The Family Code of the Philippines defines marriage as between man and womaCO%8eWmN6BdbwGWNx!o47VIuByS%o_MLhzAry)mT)k+-%I)o63n.
Falcis’ petition quizzed these two articles as well as articles which list homosexuality as a reason e^i#OjUb^vF06ep$ohg&R)J(G#59$jd=%U#Lyv-xQfqtyO4NCmfor annulling a marriage.
The court said, according to PNA, that while the Constitution does not restrict marriage on the basis of gender, it underscoredPn6_fwrC$#[email protected]@thIgTVcUYU*[email protected]_ the need of formal legislation to allow a more orderly deliberation in assuring rights.
"Often public reason needs to be first shaped throughleAjWIR&-)c%[email protected]+qqE4GE_sE2czj5WV5kFI*zM9k3 the crucible of campaigns and advocacies within our political forums before it is sharpened for judicial fiat," the tribunal reportedly said.
Meanwhile, t8RXLE%IX-kp#Acw-!+UNpNNm-IP$WH1f%[email protected])w2he Philippines Congress is set to consider a bill that would legalize same-sex civil unions in the Southeast Asian nation.
But, the bill, which Congress failed to pass in its last session, has been criticized by rights grouyb+duvvoWvIXSaG-jr%+LJ1#[email protected]#g+K#kz5RElMX#n3o$hps for 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 creates a secondary $_lQj1AFDm+gbj7dU7yYsfX7Abeth!^T&DZerbI2kCragC4d(ystatus for LGBTQI couples”.
LGBT rights groups have also bemoaned legislatdTaFZ_Hv*PT(@VxIgXJUnYw0aVMrr5_%YG&LNdX%y6gIIFK=qAors for failing to pass much-needed anti-discrimination protections.