I CHILDREN HUNGER FOR BIOLOGICAL PARENTS

A. Children who are raised in a same sex marriage do not

hunger for biological parents.
As defined, hunger is a strong desire or to have an eager
desire. Childrens hunger for their biological parents may be a result of
curiosity or of longing. As such, childrens hunger for their biological
parents does not necessarily mean that they long for them. It is but
natural for a child to be curious as they are born eager to learn and
curious by nature that they cannot be kept from exploring as they try
to comprehend their environment. Curiosity is a response to an
informational gap which may entail having a strong desire to inquire
into his roots or to simply know the persons who gave them life. Thus,
childrens curiosity should not be taken to mean at all times hunger for
their biological parents and only for them.
1

i.

Sense of belonging of a child.

The childs hunger for his or her biological parents is a

manifestation of a childs need to belong to a certain group or to be
accepted and be part of a certain unit of society. In Maslows theory on
hierarchy of needs2, the pivotal development of a child is to have a
sense of belonging. In his theory, this vital aspect may not be inferred
solely from his parents love and affection alone but may also be
derived from the community such as peers, educational institution and
social groups are just among others.
Sense of belonging is a human necessity, just like the need for
food and shelter which is essential for the development of a child. The
child feels a sense of belonging regardless of the family structure, as
long as he or she is well-nourished in all aspects of his needs among
others warmth, love and affection, emotional commitment, reliability
and consistency of a safe and a secure home environment provided by
the parents which does not necessarily infer exclusively to
heterosexuals.
In furtherance, it means the totality of the circumstances and
conditions which are most congenial to the childs protection and
feelings and most encouraging to his physical, psychological and
emotional development as amplified in the definition of RA 9344 3 on
the Best interest of the Child.4

Merriam Websters Dictionary, 2015

Abraham MaslowTheory of Hierarchy of Needs

Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.

Section 4 (b), Republic Act No. 9344, The Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act of 2006.
4

The best interest principle was not in itself a novel when the
United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child was being drafted.
Indeed, it was included in a number of other international human rights
instruments, most notably the 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the
Child and the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women.5
There is no concrete definition of the best interest principle,
however, international law provides that, in all actions concerning
children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare
institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative
bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary
consideration.6
Furthermore, the principle of best interest of the child pervades
Philippine cases involving adoption, guardianship, support, personal
status, minors in conflict with the law, and child custody. In these
cases, it has long been recognized that in choosing the parent to whom
custody is given, the welfare of the minors should always be the
paramount consideration.7 Courts are mandated to take into account
all relevant circumstances that would have a bearing on the childrens
well-being and development. Aside from the material resources and
the moral and social situations of each parent, other factors may also
be considered to ascertain which one has the capability to attend to
the physical, educational, social and moral welfare of the children. 8
Among these factors are the previous care and devotion shown by
each of the parents; their religious background, moral uprightness,
home environment and time availability; as well as the childrens
emotional and educational needs.9
Evidently, it is shown that with regard to all questions on the
care, custody, education and property of children, the latters welfare
shall be paramount.10 In determining such childs welfare, sexual
preference or sexual orientation of parents is not the primary factor to
T. Hammarberg, Janusz Korczak Lecture: The Childs best interest: a
generally applicable principle, Stockholm, 9 September 2008.
5

Article 3 (1) of the Convention of the Rights of the Child.

Tonog v. CA, 427 Phil. 1, 7, February 7, 2002; Artadi-Bondagiy v.

Bondagiy, 423 Phil. 127, 136, 138, December 7, 2001; Perez v. CA,
supra, p. 1024; Espiritu v. CA, supra, p. 437; Medina v. Makabali, 137
Phil. 329, 331, March 28, 1969; Slade Perkins v. Perkins, 57 Phil. 217,
219, September 12, 1932.
7

Bondagiy v. Bondagiy, supra; David v. CA, 320 Phil. 138, November

16, 1995; Espiritu v. CA; supra; Unson v. Navarro, supra; Cervantes v.
Fajardo, 169 SCRA 575, January 27, 1989.
8

10

Gualberto vs. Gualberto V, C .R. No. 1511.994, June 28, 2005.

Article 363, Civil Code of the Philippines.

consider in ensuring the welfare of the child. It is not the sole factor to
be considered into as there are still other factors that must be looked
upon such as: the previous care and devotion shown by each of the
parents; their religious background, moral uprightness, home
environment and time availability; as well as the childrens emotional
and educational needs.
Suitability of a parent to care and nurture a child does not dwell
mainly on the fact that he or she may be homosexual or heterosexua
The court only looks into whether the parents are capable enough to
provide for the childs needs as set forth by law.
As held in the case of Gualberto vs. Gualberto, it is therefore not
enough for Crisanto to show merely that Joycelyn was a lesbian. He
must also demonstrate that she carried on her purported relationship
with a person of the same sex in the presence of their son or under
circumstances not conducive to the childs proper moral development.
Such a fact has not been shown here. There is no evidence that the
son was exposed to the mothers alleged sexual proclivities or that his
proper moral and psychological development suffered as a result.
The best interest of the child is still the main consideration
whether the parents be homosexual or heterosexuals. What can be
inferred best in this case is that the heterosexuals are only given the
preferential right to become parents in accordance to what is
traditionally, morally and culturally accepted by society and by the law.
However, it does not prohibit homosexuals the right to become parents
as well, as long as they are able to meet the requirement of ensuring
that the best interests of the child is met then, they too can become
suitable parents for the child.
Lastly, neither the Family Code nor the Civil Code of the
Philippines and any other law make any distinction as to who can
become a parent. The law did not even expressly provide that to
become a parent, he or she must be a heterosexual person. If the law
did intend it to be so, it should have clearly and unambiguously
provide so.
B. Homosexuals have the same parent potential capability
as that of heterosexual couples.
Children whose parents provide loving guidance in the context of
secure home environments are more likely to flourish, regardless of
their parents sexual orientation.11
S. Golombok, Parenting: What Really Counts? (2000); M.E. Lamb &
C.Lewis, The Role of Parent-Child Relationship in Child Development, in
Developmental Science: An Advanced Textbook 429-68 (M.H>
Bornstein & M.E. Lamb eds.,5th ed. 2005); C.J. Patterson, & P.D.
Hastings, Socialization in the Context of Family Diversity, in Handbook
of Socialization: Theory and Research 328-51 (J.E. Grusec & P.D.
Hastings eds., 2007); Lamb & Lewis, supra note 1: Patterson & Hasting.
11

i.

Comparison between Homosexuals and

Heterosexuals.

Homosexuals ordinarily are not impotent. While same-sex

couples cannot biologically procreate together, they are ordinarily not
sterile. Even if assuming homosexuals can be classified as a group as
sterile, they are not prohibited by Philippine law on domestic adoption 12
and inter-country adoption13 from individually adopting children.
Heterosexuals are no better parent than homosexuals. Stated
otherwise, homosexuals aren't necessarily worse parents than,
heterosexuals. Homosexuals can raise children well in the same
manner that heterosexuals can. While there is no assurance that gays
will not be bad or incompetent parents, there is also no assurance that
heterosexuals will not be bad or incompetent parents. This Honorable
Court itself has stated that:
"Sexual preference or moral laxity alone does not prove
parental neglect or incompetence.14 "
Homosexual men and women are ordinarily attracted to the
same-sex in the same way that heterosexual men and women are
ordinarily attracted to the opposite-sex. Gay individuals are human
beings who can love another person just like straight individuals.
Heterosexuals who enter marriage after committing to or to
commit to a long-term monogamous relationship are no different from
homosexuals, who can enter into long-term monogamous relationships
as well. Both straight and gay couples have the same chances of
breaking up or falling out of love.
Homosexuals are people or persons like heterosexuals who can
be a part of a family and contribute to that family. Homosexuals are
born out of a family and grow up in a family. Homosexuals can leave
their family and found their own family. Same-sex couples who live in
one house constitute a family. Same-sex couples can formally adopt
children as individuals under Philippine law or informally adopt children
jointly, either of which is a family according to the definition of Black's
Law Dictionary15.
Aside from the ability to found and constitute a family,
homosexuals just like heterosexuals can fulfill the essential marital
obligations laid 'down by the Family Code. To reiterate, as
aforementioned, the Family Code does not require married individuals
to procreate or have the ability to procreate, as held in the case of.
12

Republic Act No. 8552 or the Domestic Adoption Act of 19.98.

13

Republic Act No. 8043 or the Inter Adoption Acl of 1995.

14

Id. Gualberto, 2005.

Black's Law Dictionary 2" '' Edition Online,

http://lhelawdictionary.org/fonily/, last accessed on May 18, 2015.
15

There is no legal requirement in any Philippine law for married couples

to have children before entering marriage or during its subsistence.
Thus, homosexuals and same-sex couples DO NOT and CANNOT
HARM the institution of marriage. In fact, homosexuals and same-sex
couples can serve to forward the State's compelling interest in
protecting and strengthening the family as a basic autonomous social
institution16. Consequently, there is NO NECESSITY to limit marriage as
between a man and a woman to protect and strengthen the family.
There is actually a necessity to allow same-sex marriage.17

Section 12, Article II states: ''The State recognizes the sanctity of

family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a. basic
autonomous social institution.
16

17

Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III vs Civil Registrar General.