Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

First Division

LGBT ALLIANCE

Petitioner,

- versus - Case No. xxx

PROF. KASAL

Respondent.

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
(For the Respondent)

RESPONDENT by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully submits this position paper and aver the following to wit:

THE CASE

This is a case involving the right of privacy in regards to same-sex marriage.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On July 6, 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order No.

209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines. The Family Code took

effect on August 3, 1988.

 Atty. Juan Andres, the petitioner, questions the constitutionality of right to

marriage based on the right to privacy or other constitutional right.

ISSUE

Do same sex couples have a constitutional right to marriage based on the right to

privacy or other constitutional right?

DISCUSSION

Sec. 3(1) Art. XV of the constitution states that “The right of spouses to found a

family in accordance with their religious convictions…” this is not a violation on the right

of privacy. The contention of the petitioners that it violates the right of marriage based on

the right of privacy is preposterous. Yes, a person may choose whoever he or she wants

to marry. This is in accordance with the family code, as long as it’s a member of the

opposite sex. According to our constitution, only men and women can marry each other.

The petitioners argue that Sec. 3(1) Art. XV of the constitution violates same-sex

couples from founding a family through marriage in accordance with their religious

convictions. Using religious beliefs as a scapegoat to justify the marriage of the same-

sex can’t be validly accepted by the constitution. The family code already defined who

can marry in the Philippines.

There are no other right that is within the constitution that the petitioners can use.

The right to exercise religious belief can’t be a valid argument since the constitution pay

respect to that right, but it is not more important than the civil relation.

2
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, it is respectfully prayed to the

Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in favor of the respondent, and that an order

be issued, dismissing the petition.

Other relief this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable are likewise

prayed for by the respondent under the premises.

Respectfully submitted, February 9, 2018.

ATTY. JONEL TATEL

ATTY. DAN BENAMIR

ATTY. GEORGE PANTO JR

Lawyers