The Philippine Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a pRg(98zshLDG5M!#kv=pEbL)&*EzP-SW$&OIPJkR9%1Mx8JJJNeetition challenging the country's Family Code that limits marriage to between a man and a woman.
The court unanimously dismissed Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III’s petition, the Philippine News Agency (PNA) reports.
A court spokesman said judges cited a lack of legal standing to initiate the petition as well as for f[email protected]$sv-m)65iy9%E5M(SQzHRL7IgLjLk1D-Zk(H1ailing to comply with the principle of hierarchy of courts.
The court also turned down the potential lawsuit for "failing to raise an actual, justiciable controversy”m%O8lCN%-Ia)xc$*eEcowK29Zy$+0!PcfYbrT^%lt6!pHf$a0k.
Predominantly Roman Catholic, the Philippines does not grant LGBTI citizg([email protected]*m1xRRgy1OMwJA3rS+EfKLKv%SS&_0q-qRens equal rights.
Articles 1 and 2 4SS=fx36NaYpuf+b7cD*1BAXCWxyBb7y!P7Pxi-s8Tw5A+LVq8of The Family Code of the Philippines defines marriage as between man and woman.
Falcis’ petition quizzed these two articm&NoEUx$K2YS3DnQ&G9FP+$cB00*8WNDMeYtyXVkb+qG_r-fJCles as well as articles which list homosexuality as a reason for annulling a marriage.
The court said, according to PNA, that while the Constitution does not restrict marriage on the basis of gender, it underscored the need of formal legislation to allow a more orderly deliberation in assuringy3BoFD_l_x(#kem7*7+^Z8$dudl-=fu-_rx1-g2HfdmNh7^m(# rights.
"Often public reason needI$1sHQU*XOM)W+F4CXB-5sC8vR4(RgHwGoofbN1HJb*ibBkuz8s to be first shaped through the crucible of campaigns and advocacies within our political forums before it is sharpened for judicial fiat," the tribunal reportedly said.
Meanwhile, the Philippines Congress is set to consider a bill that wo[email protected]+4iRTLakQfViAhj=lBuu5OcK8_dCM5^K=bbuld legalize same-sex civil unions in the Southeast Asian nation.
But, the bill, which Congress failed to pass in its last session, has been criticized by rights groups for failing to =ODXm3xjrnv0zy^zUwy38Up8ULYIzKlEE*N!0NA$Br&XLBvrl&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 status for LGBTQI cou@Fwbh51(7V%QlKinoNNu&%&pN9jzG0TZeZXwNFfM$W^Aa^sG$aples”.
LGBT rights groups have also bemoaned legislators for[email protected]@8PFQ533#CmG9Jupnv&JHDwJFcYy0KyY failing to pass much-needed anti-discrimination protections.