No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Relative Impermeability of the Wall of Separation: Marriage Equality in the Philippines
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 November 2018
Abstract
The Philippine doctrine on the separation of church and state, while rooted in American constitutional tradition, continues to show vestiges of Spanish colonial rule. The Philippines adopted the union of church and state for three and a half centuries as a Spanish colony, but became a secular state after it was ceded to the United States of America in 1898. The wall of separation has since been maintained in all subsequent Philippine constitutions, only to be compromised in statutes and daily life. That conflict is most evident in marriage, a legal institution openly shaped by canon law. Falcis v Civil Registrar-General, the marriage equality petition pending before the Philippine Supreme Court, seeks to end that practice. But note the irony: while the US Supreme Court in Obergefell v Hodges secularizes marriage and disconnects it from religion, Falcis takes an opposing route in anchoring marriage equality on religious freedom. This article looks at the prospect of that gambit. By contrasting the legal and theological contexts from which Obergefell and Falcis stem, the article shows how the demands of same-sex union and church-state separation are tightly intertwined.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © National University of Singapore, 2018
Footnotes
*
Lecturer, Department of Philosophy, University of the Philippines; Master of Studies in International Human Rights Law candidate (University of Oxford), Diploma in Advanced Studies on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (American University); Juris Doctor (University of the Philippines); Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy cum laude (University of the Philippines). An earlier draft of the essay received honours for the 2015-2016 international essay contest on ‘Religious Freedom in Southeast Asia and the West’ jointly organized by the Institute for Global Engagement and the Leimena Institute.
References
1. 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (1987 Constitution), art II, s 6: ‘The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.’ cf ibid art III, s 5: ‘No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.’
2. Treaty of Peace of December 10, 1898, in Message from the President of the United States, transmitting a Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain, Signed at the City of Paris, on December 10, 1898, 55th congress, 3rd session, doc no 62, pt 1, (Washington Government Printing Office, 1899) (Treaty of Paris 1898), art X: ‘The inhabitants of the territories over which Spain relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty shall be secured in the free exercise of their religion.’
3. 1987 Constitution, art III, s 5.
4. ibid.
5. Constitution of the United States (US Constitution), Amendment I: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’. cf Everson v Board of Education (1947) 330 US 1, 16, which provides that while the First Amendment does not expressly provide for the separation of church and state, ‘the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and State’.
6. Abington School District v Schempp (1963) 374 US 203, 305.
7. Aguiling-Pangalangan, Elizabeth, Marriage and Unmarried Cohabitation: The Rights of Husbands, Wives, and Lovers (University of the Philippines College of Law 2014) 248 Google Scholar .
8. Reynolds v United States (1878) 98 US 145, 164. Thomas Jefferson, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, suggests that a ‘wall of separation’ must be built between the realms of church and state.
9. Lemon v Kurtzman (1971) 403 US 602.
10. Zorach v Clauson (1952) 343 US 306.
11. Estrada v Escritor, AM No P-02-1651 (22 June 2006), (2006) 492 SCRA 1, 68.
12. (2015) 576 US ____, Slip Opinion at <www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf> accessed 15 February 2017. All citations to Obergefell hereinafter are to the Slip Opinion.
13. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, Falcis v Civil Registrar-General, GR No 217910 (18 May 2015) [Falcis Petition].
14. Raul C Pangalangan, ‘Country Reports: Philippines’ in Human Rights Resource Center (HRRC), Keeping the Faith: A Study of Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion in ASEAN (HRRC 2015) 364.
15. ibid.
16. ibid.
17. See United States Census Bureau, ‘Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011’ (130th edn, United States Census Bureau 2011), 61 table 75 <www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s0075.pdf> accessed 27 June 2018.
18. See Philippine Statistics Authority, ‘The Philippines in Figures 2015’ (Philippines Statistics Authority 2015), 28 < https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2015%20PIF_0.pdf> accessed 27 June 2018.
19. Pangalangan, ‘Country Reports: Philippines’ (n 14) 364.
20. Reply Brief for Petitioners, Obergefell v Hodges, No 14-556 (17 April 2015), 1.
21. ibid 11; Brief for Petitioners, Obergefell v Hodges, No 14-556 (27 February 2015), 18. cf US Constitution, Amendment XIV: ‘No State shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’
22. Obergefell (n 12) 1. See Executive Order No 209, Family Code of the Philippines (promulgated 6 July 1987 by President Corazon C Aquino) (Family Code), 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.’).
23. Obergefell (n 12) 4.
24. ibid.
25. ibid 22.
26. ibid 6.
27. ibid.
28. ibid 27.
29. US Constitution, Amendment I.
30. Obergefell (n 12) 27.
31. Falcis Petition (n 13) para 2.
32. Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co, Inc v People of the Philippines, GR No 170618 (20 November 2013), (2013) 710 SCRA 358 (‘direct resort… to the Supreme Court will not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals’).
33. Dy v Bibat-Palamos, GR No 196200 (11 September 2013), (2013) 705 SCRA 613, 621.
34. Family Code (n 22) art 1.
35. ibid 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; and (2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.’).
36. ibid art 46(4) (‘Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding article: … Concealment of … homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.’). cf ibid art 45(3) (‘A marriage may be annulled [when] the consent of either party was obtained by fraud’).
37. ibid art 55 (‘A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following grounds… (6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent’).
38. Comment (Ad Cautelam) of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), Falcis v Civil Registrar-General, GR No 217910 (18 May 2015), para 8(a), citing Falcis Petition (n 13) paras 1.1 to 1.2.
39. ibid para 8(b) citing Falcis Petition (n 13) para 1.3.
40. Falcis Petition (n 13) para 23.
41. Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v Commission on Elections, GR No 190582 (8 April 2010), (2010) 618 SCRA 32, 72.
42. Falcis Petition (n 13) paras 84 to 88.
43. Falcis Petition (n 13) para 84.
44. ibid para 86.
45. ibid. See also Erika Sauler, ‘15 gay couples celebrate US victory with mass wedding’ Philippine Daily Inquirer (Manila, 28 June 2015) <http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/198612/15-gay-couples-celebrate-us-victory-with-mass-wedding/> accessed 29 June 2018.
46. Rev Crescencio ‘Ceejay’ Agbayani Jr, ‘LGBTS CHRISTIAN CHURCH INC. is an independent and autonomous Christian Church since October 13, 2012’ (LGBTS CHRISTIAN CHURCH INC, 2017) <https://lgbtschristianchurch.wordpress.com/2017/09/20/lgbts-christian-church-inc-is-an-independent-and-autonomous-christian-church-since-october-13-2012/> accessed 29 June 2018.
47. Falcis Petition (n 13) para 86.
48. Oscar Franklin Tan, ‘SolGen did not oppose same-sex marriage’ Philippine Daily Inquirer (Manila, 4 April 2016) <http://opinion.inquirer.net/94125/solgen-not-oppose-sex-marriage> accessed 29 June 2018.
49. Comment of the OSG (n 38) para 3.
50. ibid para 11, citing Falcis Petition (n 13) para 2.
51. ibid para 4.
52. ibid para 12.
53. ibid para 27.
54. ibid para 20.
55. ibid para 17.
56. ibid para 35.
57. ibid para 13 citing Falcis Petition (n 13) para 30.
58. ibid para 13.
59. ibid para 44.
60. ibid para 45.
61. See eg Tan (n 48).
62. Comment of the OSG (n 38) para 48.
63. See eg Maynard v Hill (1888) 125 US 190; De Santos v Angeles, GR No 105619 (12 December 1995), (1995) 251 SCRA 206.
64. Obergefell (n 12) 25–28.
65. ibid 6.
66. Pablo-Gualberto v Gualberto, GR No 154994 (28 June 2005), (2005) 461 SCRA 450, 472.
67. Family Code (n 22) art 55.
68. Latin for ‘from board and hearth’: Bryan A Garner (ed), Black’s Law Dictionary (9th edn, West 2009) 96.
69. Garcia v Gracia-Recio, GR No 138322 (2 October 2001), (2001) 366 SCRA 437.
70. Sy v Eufemio, GR No L-30977 (31 January 1972), (1972) 43 SCRA 177, 181.
71. Aguiling-Pangalangan, Marriage and Unmarried Cohabitation (n 7) 81 (dubbing Article 36 ‘Divorce, Philippine style.’).
72. Family Code (n 22) art 36 (‘A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.’).
73. See Marcos v Marcos, GR No 136490 (19 October 2000), (2000) 343 SCRA 755, 757. The Court asserted that ‘[t]here is no requirement, however, that the respondent should be examined by a physician or a psychologist as a conditio sine qua non for such declaration’.
74. Kalaw v Fernandez, GR No 166357 (14 January 2015), (2015) 745 SCRA 512, 554.
75. Sempio-Diy, Alicia V, Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines (AV Sempio-Diy 1995) 43 Google Scholar .
76. Santos v Bedia-Santos, GR No 112019 (4 January 1995), (1995) 240 SCRA 20, 40 (Romero J, concurring).
77. ibid.
78. ibid 42.
79. Republic v Molina, GR No 108763 (13 February 1997), (1997) 268 SCRA 198, 212.
80. ibid.
81. ibid 213.
82. Antonio v Reyes, GR No 155800 (10 March 2006), (2006) 484 SCRA 353, 384.
83. Mallilin v Jamesolamin, GR No 192718 (18 February 2015), (2015) 751 SCRA 1, 24.
84. CMPL, Presidential Decree No 1083, art 13.
85. Family Code (n 22) art 2; cf art 35(1).
86. CMPL, art 16(1).
87. ibid.
88. ibid art 16(2).
89. ibid art 16(3).
90. Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, Act No 3815, art 266-A (1930), as amended by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997(Republic Act No 8353).
91. CMPL, art 16.
92. Raul C Pangalangan, ‘Keeping the Faith: A Study of Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion in ASEAN, Philippine Report’ (Lecture delivered at the University of the Philippines Law Center, Manila, 29 June 2015).
93. 1987 Constitution, art VI, s 29(2)–(3).
94. Ibid art XIV s 3(3).
95. 1935 Constitution of the Philippines, Preamble; 1973 Constitution of the Philippines, Preamble.
96. 1987 Constitution, Preamble.
97. Valmores v Achacoso, GR No 217453 (19 July 2017). SCRA publication forthcoming.
98. Goldman v Weinberger (1986) 475 US 503.
99. Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v Smith (1990) 494 US 872.
100. ibid 878, citing Compare Citizen Publishing Co v United States (1969) 394 US 131, 139, where the Court stated: ‘If prohibiting the exercise of religion… [is] merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.’
101. ibid 876–890; cf Gonzales v O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006) 546 US 418. The Supreme Court unanimously held that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), the União do Vegetal (UDV), in the sincere practice of religion, may take communion containing an illegal narcotic. Notably, it was decided in City of Boerne v Flores (1997) 521 US 507 that the RFRA binds the federal government alone. Hence, in many state courts, Smith remains the controlling case. See also Canby, William C Jr, American Indian Law in a Nut Shell (5th edn, West 2009) 344 Google Scholar ; W Cole Durham, Jr, ‘Religious Freedom’s Darkling Plain: American and European Responses to the Erosion of a Fundamental Right’ (International Forum on Law and Religion: The Secular State and Religious Freedoms, University of the Philippines Law Center, Manila, 3 August 2017).
102. Smith (n 99) 879, citing Reynolds v US (n 8).
103. GR No L-25246 (12 September 1974), (1974) 59 SCRA 54, 75.
104. GR No 95770 (1 March 1993), (1993) 219 SCRA 256.
105. An Act Making Flag Ceremony Compulsory in All Educational Institutions, Republic Act No 1265 (1955).
106. King James Version (1995) Exodus 20:3. See also Ebralinag (n 104) 263 (‘Jehovah’s Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag… They feel bound by the Bible’s command to ‘guard ourselves from idols — 1 John 5:21’[.]’)
107. Ebralinag v Superintendent (29 December 1995), (1995) 251 SCRA 569, 589 (Mendoza J, concurring).
108. West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette (1943) 319 US 624, 634.
109. Estrada v Escritor, AM No P-02-1651 (4 August 2003), (2003) 408 SCRA 1, 63 (Ynares-Santiago J, dissenting) citing Administrative Code of 1987, Executive Order No 292 (1987) [Revised Administrative Code]; see also Banaag v Espeleta, AM No P-11-3011 (29 November 2011), (2011) 661 SCRA 513, 519 (‘Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct … is an act which violates the basic norm of decency, morality and decorum abhorred and condemned by the society and conduct which is willful, flagrant or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference’).
110. Dañguilan Vitug, Marites and Yabes, Criselda, Our Rights, Our Victories: Landmark Cases in the Supreme Court (Cleverheads Publishing 2011) 55 Google Scholar .
111. Estrada (n 109) 81.
112. Sealana-Abbu v Laurenciana-Hurao, AM No P-05-2091 (28 August 2007), (2007) 531 SCRA 289. In this case, court stenographers were found guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct for having entered into an illicit affair. They received the penalty of one-year suspensions without pay with the possibility of dismissal from the service should they persist in their illegitimate and immoral relationship. See also Reynes, Antonio BC, ‘The Bed & The Bar: Regulating Attorney-Client Sexual Relations in the Philippines’ (2016) 90 Philippine Law Journal 84, 150 Google Scholar , citing Garrido v Garrido, AC No 6593 (4 February 2010), (2010) 611 SCRA 508; Tiong v Florendo, AC No 4428 (12 December 2011), (2011) 662 SCRA 1.
113. See Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No 386, (1949) art 2219 (‘Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases… (4) Adultery or concubinage’).
114. Revised Penal Code, art 333.
115. Abington School District v Schempp (1963) 374 US 203.
116. Lee v Weisman (1992) 505 US 577.
117. Estrada (n 109) 165.
118. Criminal Case No 47696 (Quezon City Regional Trial Court).
119. 1987 Constitution, art VIII s 5(5).
120. Supreme Court Memorandum Circular No 001-2001 (18 April 2001) (Philippines). See also Artemio V Panganiban Jr, Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court, ‘Saving the Constitutional System’ (Address at the University of Santo Tomas Central Seminary, UST Martyrs’ Hall, Manila, 19 February 2002).
121. ibid.
122. Re: Letter of Tony Q Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City, AM No 10-4-19-SC (7 March 2017), (2017) 819 SCRA 313.
123. 1987 Constitution, art VI s 29(2).
124. Re: Letter of Tony Q Valenciano (n 122) 360.
125. ibid 319.
126. ibid.
127. (1989) 492 US 573.
128. ibid 601.
129. ibid 603.
130. ibid 616.
131. ibid 664 (Kennedy J, concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Rehnquist CJ, and White and Scalia JJ).
132. (1984) 465 US 668.
133. (1983) 463 US 783.
134. GR No L-53487 (25 May 1981), (1981) 104 SCRA 510.
135. 1973 Constitution of the Philippines, art VII, s 18(2), now 1987 Constitution, art VI, s 29(2).
136. Garces (n 134) 518.
137. App no 30814/06 (ECtHR (Grand Chamber), 18 March 2011).
138. Grégor Puppinck, ‘The Case of Lautsi v. Italy: A Synthesis’ (2012) Brigham Young University Law Review 873, 917.
139. ibid; cf Re: Letter of Tony Q Valenciano (n 122).
140. Bernas, Joaquin G, Constitutional Rights and Social Demands: Notes and Cases Part II (Rex Book Store 2004) 284 Google Scholar .
141. ibid.
142. ibid, citing 1987 Constitution, art III, s 4 (‘No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.’).
143. (1940) 310 US 296.
144. Cohen v California (1971) 403 US 15, 25.
145. United States v Schwimmer (1929) 279 US 644, 655 (Holmes J, dissenting).
146. GR No 119673 (26 July 1996), (1996) 259 SCRA 529.
147. ibid 547.
148. ibid.
149. Revised Penal Code, art 132.
150. ibid, art 133.
151. People v Baes, GR No L-46000 (25 May 1939), (1939) 68 Phil 203.
152. Reyes, Luis B, The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law (18th edn, Rex Book Store 2012) 81 Google Scholar , citing People v Mandoriao, Jr, CA 51 OG 4619 (Court of Appeals of the Republic of the Philippines).
153. People v Celdran y Pamintuan, Criminal Case No 387435-SA, 14 December 2012 (Metropolitan Trial Court).
154. Jose Rizal, Noli Me Tangere [Don’t Touch Me] (Ma Soledad Lacson-Locsin tr, Raul L Locsin ed, University of Hawai’i Press 1996).
155. See An Act to Include in the Curricula of All Public and Private Schools, Colleges and Universities Courses on the Life, Works and Writings of Jose Rizal, Particularly His Novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, Authorizing the Printing and Distribution Thereof, and for Other Purposes, Republic Act No 1425 (1956).
156. Celdran (n 153) 7.
157. Florin T Hilbay, ‘Offending Religious Feelings’ Philippine Daily Inquirer (Manila, 31 January 2013) <http://opinion.inquirer.net/45975/offending-religious-feelings> accessed 18 February 2018.
158. ibid; cf People v Perfector, GR No L-18463 (4 October 1922).
159. ibid.
160. Abrams v United States (1919) 250 US 616, 630 (Holmes J, dissenting).
161. Iglesia ni Cristo (n 146) 547.
162. Reyes (n 152) 80. (‘The acts complained of [must be] performed (1) in a place devoted to religious worship, or (2) during the celebration of any religious ceremony.’)
163. See Cohen v California (1971) 403 US 15, 25; cf Snyder v Phelps (2011) 562 US 443.
164. Mormon Church v United States (1890) 136 US 1.
165. Barlin v Ramirez, GR No L-2832 (24 November 1906), (1906) 7 Phil 41.
166. See Batas Pambansa Bilang [National Assembly Enactment] 68, The Corporation Code of the Philippines (1980), s 109.
167. GR Nos 134963–64 (27 September 2001), (2001) 366 SCRA 113.
168. GR No L-6776 (21 May 1955), (1955) 97 Phil 58.
169. 1987 Constitution, art XII, s 1.
170. Ung Siu Si Temple (n 168) 61.
171. GR No L-8451 (20 December 1957), (1957) 102 Phil 596, 597.
172. House Bill No 6595, An Act Recognizing the Civil Partnership of Couples, Providing for Their Rights and Obligations (HB 6595) (10 October 2017) Explanatory Note, 1.
173. ibid 2.
174. House Bill No 3179, An Act Governing Property Ownership of Couples of Same Sex Living Together (17 October 2013) (HB 3179).
175. ibid Explanatory Note, 1.
176. Valmores (n 97).
177. Sandel, Michael J, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2010) 254 Google Scholar .
178. See also Ang Ladlad (n 41) (Puno CJ, separately concurring) (‘it would not be difficult to conclude that gay persons are entitled to heightened constitutional protection [under the equal protection clause of the 1987 constitution]’). The author agrees with that view, but for purposes of space will focus solely on religious considerations.
179. See generally Plessy v Ferguson (1896) 163 US 537, 540.
180. HB 6595, s 11(a).
181. ibid s 5(b).
182. ibid s 5(c).
183. Family Code (n 22) art 1.
184. ibid art 3(2).
185. ibid art 2(1).
186. ibid art 3(1).
187. ibid art 2(2).
188. ibid art 3(3).
189. ibid art. 1. See also Black’s Law Dictionary (n 68) 96, 1533.
190. Aguiling-Pangalangan, Marriage and Unmarried Cohabitation (n 7) 248.
191. Family Code (n 22) art 55.
192. ibid art 36.
193. Santos (n 76) 40.
194. House Bill No 1062, An Act Amending Title I, Chapter 3, of Executive Order No 209, Otherwise Known as the Family Code of the Philippines, Prescribing Additional Ground (sic) for Annulment (5 July 2010) (HB 1062); House Bill No 6027, An Act Providing for Grounds for the Dissolution of a Marriage (24 July 2017) (HB 6027); and House Bill No 1629, An Act Legalizing Church Annulment or Dissolution of Certain Marriages and for Other Purposes (18 July 2016) (HB 1629).
195. Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan, ‘Expert Opinion Communicated to the House of Representatives Committee on Population and Family Relations’ (18th Congress, 16 February 2018), 2.
196. See HB 1062, Explanatory Note, 1 and HB 6027, Explanatory Note, 1.
197. HB 1629, Explanatory Note, 1.
198. Aguiling-Pangalangan, ‘Expert Opinion’ (n 195) 2.
199. Santos (n 76).
200. Bea Cupin, ‘Alvarez says option for dissolution ‘makes marriage stronger” (Rappler, 24 July 2017) <www.rappler.com/nation/176530-sona-2017-alvarez-dissolution-marriage> accessed 19 July 2018. When asked why he preferred a ‘dissolution of marriage’ over a divorce law, Speaker of the House of Representatives Panteleon Alvarez said that divorce would be ‘too complicated’: ibid.
201. The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, Republic Act No 10354 (2012).
202. Congressional Record, House of Representatives, 14th Congress, 2nd Regular Session, 23 September 2008, vol 2 no 21, 31, available at <www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/congrec/14th/2nd/14C_2RS-21.pdf> accessed 29 June 2018.
203. ibid.
204. GR No 204819 (8 April 2014), (2014) 721 SCRA 146.
205. ibid 332.
206. Tecson v Commission on Elections, GR No 161434 (3 March 2004), (2004) 424 SCRA 277.
207. Pacifico Agabin, ‘LGBT Rights Under the 1987 Constitution’ (Lecture delivered at the University of the Philippines Malcolm Hall, Manila 8 April 2016).
208. National League of Cities v Usery (1976) 426 US 833, 850.
209. Pangalangan, ‘Keeping the Faith’ (n 92).
210. Pangalangan, ‘Country Reports: Philippines’ (n 14) 403–404.
211. ibid. See also Ma Ceres P Doyo, ‘INC “thinking” members to defy group’s practice of bloc voting’ Philippine Daily Inquirer (Manila, 14 December 2015) < http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/747390/inc-thinking-members-to-defy-groups-practice-of-bloc-voting> accessed 18 February 2018.
212. Garces (n 134).
213. Obergefell (n 12) 3.
214. ibid 6.
215. See Tribe, Laurence H, American Constitutional Law (3rd edn, Foundation Press 2000) 1201 Google Scholar (arguing that the ‘free exercise principle should be dominant in any conflict with the anti-establishment principle’). cf Estrada (n 109).
216. Congressional Record (n 202) 30–31.
217. Falcis Petition (n 13) para 86.
218. Philippine Statistics Authority (n 18).
219. See eg Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches (PCEC), ‘Philippine Evangelicals Support Biblical Marriage’ (PCEC, 8 July 2015) <http://pcec.org.ph/2015/07/08/philippine-evangelicals-support-biblical-marriage/> accessed 7 July 2018; Oscar V Cruz, ‘Same Sex “Marriage”’ (CBCP News) <www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=286> accessed 5 September 2017; ‘Have you heard about the Church Of Christ?’ (Iglesia ni Cristo) <https://incmedia.org/have-you-heard-about-the-church-of-christ/> accessed 7 July 2018; ‘Homosexuality. What does the Bible say about homosexuality and homosexual acts?’ (Iglesia ni Cristo) <https://incmedia.org/homosexuality-2/> accessed 7 July 2018; Jehovah’s Witnesses, ‘Does the Bible Comment on Same-Sex Marriages?’ (JW.org, 2018) <www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/same-sex-marriage-bible-view/> accessed 20 September 2017; Statement by Karmen Sayas, Administrative Secretary for the Iglesia Filipina Independiente Aglipay (Personal Communication, 20 September 2017); Statement of Elias Marcelo, Youth Leader of the Seventh Day Baptist Church (Personal Communication, 20 September 2017); Statement of Neneng Bautista, Administrative Secretary of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (Personal Communication, 20 September 2017).
220. Rev Crescencio ‘Ceejay’ Agbayani Jr (n 46); Statement by Jack Quimbo, Church Administrator of the Open Table Community of the Metropolitan Community Church (Personal Communication, 20 September 2017).
221. See Philippine Statistics Authority (n 18) 17.
222. Falcis Petition (n 13) para 86.
223. ibid para 30.
224. ibid para 86.
225. Andy Uybuco, ‘Uybuco: Meeting Jesus’ SunStar Philippines (Cebu, 26 February 2016) <www.sunstar.com.ph/article/60253/> accessed 7 September 2017.
226. See Banda v Ermita, GR No 166620 (20 April 2010), (2010) 618 SCRA 488 (‘From the foregoing definition, the requisites of a class suit are: 1) the subject matter of controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons; 2) the parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all to court; and 3) the parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and can fully protect the interests of all concerned.’).
227. Falcis Petition (n 13) para 30, cf Comment of the OSG (n 38) para 13.
228. Comment of the OSG (n 38) para 13–14.
229. 1987 Constitution, art III, s 1 (‘No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law’).
230. Falcis Petition (n 13) para 84.
231. 1987 Constitution, art XV s 3(1) (‘The State shall defend: (1) … right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions’).
232. Family Code (n 22) art 1. See also Black’s Law Dictionary (n 68) 96, 1533.
233. See eg Yu v Samson-Tatad, GR No 170979 (9 February 2011), (2011) 642 SCRA 421 (‘Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos.’).
234. Falcis Petition (n 13) para 84.
235. Record of the Constitutional Commission: Proceedings and Debates, No 32, 17 July 1986 (Sponsorship Remarks by Commissioner Father Joaquin G Bernas (Society of Jesus)) < www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1986/07/17/r-c-c-no-32-thursday-july-17-1986/> accessed 30 June 2018.
236. See DeShaney v Winnebago County Dept of Social Services (1989) 489 US 189, 196–97.
237. Obergefell (n 12) 17 (Thomas J, dissenting), cf Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO v Glaxo Wellcome Philippines Inc, GR No 162994 (17 September 2004), (2004) 438 SCRA 343.
238. See People v Marti, GR No 81561 (18 January 1991), (1991) 193 SCRA 57.
239. See Estrada (n 109).
240. James Madison, ‘The Federalist No 51: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments’ in Alexander Hamilton, Jay, John and Madison, James, The Federalist Papers (Clinton Rossiter ed, Penguin 1961) 321 Google Scholar (‘In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.’).
241. Mégret, Frédéric, ‘Nature of Obligations’ in Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah, and Sandesh Sivakumaran (eds), International Human Rights Law (2nd edn, OUP 2014) 101–104 Google Scholar .
242. Record of the Constitutional Commission (n 235).
243. DeShaney (n 236).
244. Estrada (n 109) 10–12.
245. Nolan, Aoife, Children’s Socio-Economic Rights, Democracy and the Courts (Hart Publishing 2011) 25 Google Scholar .
246. Estrada (n 11) 91.
247. Valmores (n 97).
248. An Act Providing for the Establishment of the University of Mindanao in Dansalan City and Authorizing the Appropriation of Funds Therefor, Republic Act No 1387 (18 June 1955).
249. Commission on Higher Education, ‘Memorandum from the Chairperson: Remedial Work for Teachers, Personnel and Students to be Excused Due to Compliance with Religious Obligations’ (15 November 2010), available at <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EmX2vefzBoMz3uPhkSB9abBOF1sEg3Z6VAigyZGDXzl4n3KiLlj2TbucD34P/view> accessed 8 July 2018.
250. ibid.
251. Valmores (n 97) 14.
252. See eg Tablarin v Gutierrez, GR No 78164 (31 July 1987), (1987) 152 SCRA 730, 742 (‘the regulation of the practice of medicine in all its branches has long been recognized as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public’).
253. 1987 Constitution, art XIV s5(2).
254. Schempp (n 115).
255. Weisman (n 116).
256. Valmores (n 97).
257. See eg People v Marti (n 238). See also Pangalangan, Raphael, ‘The Blurring of the Public/Private Distinction: Obsolescence of the State Action Doctrine’ (2016) 90 Philippine Law Journal 84 Google Scholar .
258. See Falcis Petition (n 13) paras 84–88.
259. Falcis Petition (n 13) para 84.
260. Teodorico C Martin and Arturo M Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, vol 1 (Central Books 2004) 8 (‘Law, in the specific sense, is generally classified into mandatory, prohibitory, and permissive. In commands in three different ways: (1) it commands that something be done, in which case it is mandatory; (2) it commands that something should not be done, in which case it is prohibitory; and (3) it commands that what it permits to be done should be tolerated or respected, in which case it is permissive.’).
261. But see 1987 Constitution, art III s 1 (‘nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws’); cf Ang Ladlad (n 41) (Puno CJ, separately concurring).
262. Valmores (n 97) 13.
263. ibid.
264. Jaymee T Gamil, ‘Same-sex couples to challenge marriage ban at SC’ Philippine Daily Inquirer (Manila, 4 August 2015) <http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/710349/same-sex-couples-to-challenge-marriage-ban-at-sc> accessed 18 February 2018.
265. See Banda v Ermita (n 226), citing Rules of Court, r 3 s 12; cf Sauler (n 45); see also Comment of the OSG (n 38) paras 13 to 14.
266. Philippine Blooming Mills Employment Organization v Philippine Blooming Mills Co Inc, GR No L-31195 (5 June 1973), (1973) 51 SCRA 189, citing Barnette (n 108) 638.
267. See Saguisag v Ochoa Jr, GR No 212426 (12 January 2016), (2016) 779 SCRA 241, 333 (members of Congress ‘are representatives of the sovereign people and it is their sacred duty to see to it that the fundamental law embodying the will of the sovereign people is not trampled upon’). See eg Congressional Record (n 202) 31.
268. Naval v Commission on Elections, GR No 207851 (8 July 2014), (2014) 729 SCRA 299, 316.
269. ibid 315.
270. Angara v Electoral Commission, GR No L-45081 (15 July 1936), (1936) 63 Phil 139, 158. See eg Santos (n 76).
271. Springer v Government of the Philippine Islands (1928) 277 US 189, 209 (Holmes J dissenting).
272. ibid.
273. Northern Securities Co v United States (1904) 193 US 197, 401 (Holmes J (joined by Fuller CJ, White J, and Peckham J), dissenting).
274. New American Standard Bible, Mark 12:17.
275. See eg Valmores (n 97).
276. ‘Supreme Court wants out of Faura, transfer to Fort Bonifacio’ Philippine Daily Inquirer (Manila, 18 August 2014) <http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/630207/supreme-court-wants-out-of-faura-transfer-to-fort-bonifacio> accessed 19 February 2018 (‘The location of the Supreme Court building on Padre Faura led to the justices being dubbed the “gods of Padre Faura”.’).
277. Browning, Robert, ‘Andrea del Sarto’ in Men and Women (Ticknor and Fields 1855) 184 Google Scholar .