MISON V.
GALLEGOS omission of public official or employee or private individual or
Facts:
 Dec 2013, Interpol of Seoul Korea sent a notice to Interpol Manila
requesting assistance in the location and deportation of Ku for
arbitrary spending allotted as a reserve fund for Phildip Korea Co.
Ltd.
 Embassy of Korea wrote a letter request to Mison chairperson of
Bureau of Immigration for immediate arrest and deportation of Ku
to Korea.
 Jan 2014, Ku’s visa expired.
 Prosecutor Mangrobang charged Ku for being risk to public
interest which was approvedby BI Board of Commissioners.
 Jan 2014, Ku was arrested and detained at BI detention center,
his passport was subsequently voided by Korea
 Ku filed a petition for issuance of Writ of Amparo with Interm
Remedies and a Supplemental petition for Issuance of Writ of
Amaparo.
 Judge Gallegos issued writ.
 Ku filed a Motion for issuance of TPO
 Judge Gallegos merely noted petitioners motion for being moot
considering that he already released Ku’s passport on March
2014
 Petitioner filed a Review for Certiorari assailing Gallego’s
resolution.
ISSUE: WON PRIVILEGE OF WRIT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED
AT CASE AT BAR
HELD: NO
 Sec 1 : Amparo Rule
- Remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and
security is violated threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
entity.
- Writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or
threats thereof.
 Amparo Rule intended to address intractable problem of
extralegal killings and enforced diappearances in its coverage,
in its present form, is confined to these two instances or threats
thereof
Extra-legal Killings committed without due process of
killings law
Enforced Attended by the following characteristics
Disappearances 1. Attention, Detention or Abduction of
person by a government official or organized
groups or private individuals acting with
direct or indirect acquiescence of
government
2. Refusal of state to disclose the fate or
whereabouts of the person concerned or
refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of
liberty which places such person outside
protection of law.
(Navia v. Paridico) Elements of Enforced Disappearances Sec
3. RA 9851
1. Arrest, Detention, Abduction or any form of deprivation of
liberty
2. Carried out by or with authorization, support acquiescence of
State or Political organization
3. Followed by State or Political organization’s refusal to
acknowledge or give information on fate or whereabouts of
person subject of amparo petition
4. Intention of such refusal is to remove subject person from the
protection of law for a prolonged period of time.
 Ku’s circumstances does not come under statutory definition of
an enforced involuntary disappearance
 Ku was arrested by agents of BI but there was no refusal on part
of BI to acknowledge such arrest nor was there any refusal to
give information on his whereabouts
 Neither an it be said that BI had any intention to remove Ku from
protection for a prolonged time.
 His arrest –well documented as evidenced by Return of Warrant
of Deportation and After Mission Report.
 No intent to remove Ku from protection of law for a prolonged
time –Ku’s counsel was immediately able to file Entry of
appearance thereby showing Ku’s legal rights were amply
guarded and that he was never removed from protection of law.
 Sec 5 Amparo rule enumerates what an amparo petition should
contain
1. Right to LLS aggrieved party violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission
2. How such threat or violation is committed with attendant
circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits
 Amparo rule requires parties to establish their claims by
substantial evidence. However KU was not able to present
evidence that he was exposed to “life-threatening situations
while confined in BI Detention Center. ---he was even afforded
visitoral rights ad access to counsel
 Fundamental function of writ of amparo is to cause disclosure of
details concerning EJK or ED. Ku’s whereabouts never hidden,
no need for issuance of Writ in the case at bar.
ZARATE V. AQUINO
 Petitioners : members of various progressive party lists and/or
religious organizations and that these organizations have been
wrongfully tagged by military and police as communists front
organizations
 March 2014: government commenced intensified military
offensives in Davao del norte under rubric of
counterinsurgency. 1,300 Manobos allegedly evacuated to
Davao City to escape
 January 2015, Manobos started going back to davao.
 July 2015, Manobos were at United Chruch of Christ PH
(UCCP) Haran.Petitioners claimed that these Manobos sought
refuge due to persisting militarization of their communities and
forcible recruitment to paramilitary group, Alamara
 Certain Manobos claimed that they were deceived into going to
Davao City and that upon reaching UCCP Haran, they were
deprived of their freedom of locomotion and were held there
against there will for 22 days. They were forced to listen to
lectures and join rallies.
 May 2015 CIDG forwarded to Office of City Prosecutor of
Davao City complaint for violation of RPC (Kidnapping and
Serious illegal detention) and (Expanded Anti-trafficking in
Persons Act of 2012)
 To determine who would be charged in complaint.
Complainants were shown lists from which they purportedly
identified defendants.
 Photographs of De Jesus, Casino, Anover were in 1st list while
photographs of petitioners Zarate, Palabay, Balaba, and Ruiz
were in 2nd list.
 Petitioners now aver : inclusion of their names and
photographs : indicates that they have been subject to
State surveillance – inclusion in list threats to LLS
warranting protection under writ of Amparo
 No basis for inclusion of their names and photographs, then
respondents should be compelled via writ of habeas data to
disclose and to provide copies of all information and eveidence
pertaining to them whch respondents have in their files or
records.
 PETITION DISMISSED
 Writ of Amparo is a remedy available to any person whose
rights to LLS is violated or threatened with violation of an
unlawful act or omission of public official or employee or of
private individual or entity.
 Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
 conclusion. More than mere imputation of wrongdoing or
violation that would warrant a finding of liability against a
person charged.
 Writ of Amparo is an ordinary remedy : available not only for
violations of LLS but also against threated violations of such
==actual threat.
 Petitioners failed to substantially proved that LLS are
threatened with violation.
 Petitioner’s general statements are empty averments in the
context of Amparo rule.
ZARATE Mere membership in these
-Bayanmuna Party list organizations and sectors
DE JESUS cannot equate to an actual
- Gabirela & executive threat that would warrant
director of CRC issuance of writ of amparo.
PALABAY
- labeling administration of Writ of Amparo is sought
President GMA and individually and granted
Aquino of KARAPATAN individually – assess situation
as front organizations of of petitioners individually. –
CPPA-NPA-NDP and lumping together previos and
death in 2013 of one of present experiences may give
their human rights worker of impression that indeed
who was allegedly taken together petitioners’ LLS
included in target list of are threated and violated. =
military but this way of presenting the
obtaining situation is
misleading. Perusal of their
individual circumstances
negates the conclusion that
they are each entitled to writ of
amparo
(PALABAY).Death of
KARAPATAN’s workers
without corroborative evidence
that his death was on account
of membership is not an actual
test of substantial evidence.

ZARATE Complaints were duly
- avers that his inclusion in supported by affidavits, police
the list coupled with his blotters, medical records and
previous inclusion in reports of social wrkers. We
Order of Battle of Military, cannot say that criminal
filing of 2 charges of charges were fabricated or
serious illegal detention that they are filed to threaten
and violation of Anti-Child his LLS.
Abuse Law in connection
with the detention of
Manobos and the fact
that being a former
representative of
Bayanmuna Party-list
which has been labeled
by Governement as a
military front org of the
Communist Party entitle
him to Wirt of Amparo.
MARIANO AND CASINO Filing of cases cannot be
charge of rebellion and earlier characterized as an unlawful
implication in kidnapping with act or omission in context of
murder case Amparo rule.
ANOVER Fails to allege any personal
- schools run my rural circumstance showing right to
missionaries of PH for LLS are threatened or violated
Manobos have been 
occupied by soldiers and
that these schools were
tagged as communist
schools providing
education for rebels
BALABA Of all the petiioners : only
- occasions and also Balaba
noticed vehicle with red
placed have people that
seems to be stalking or
watching her.
ISSUE: WON THESE ALLEGATIONS CONSTITUTE
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO WARRANT ISSUANCE OF
WRIT OF AMPARO.
HELD
 No. Balaba failed to demonstrate an actual threat to her
LLS.
 We cannot conclude that petitioner Balaba’s inclusion in
the list have direct relation to circumstances she
experienced.
 Threat must be actual and not merely one of supposition or
with likehood of happening
 Writ of Habeas Data is a remedy available to any person
whose right to privacy of LLS is violated and threated by an
unlawful act or omission of public official, or employee, or
private individual or entity engaged in gathering collecting
or storing data or information regarding person, famly,
home and correspondence of aggrieved party.
 Writ of Habeas Data provides a judicial remedy to protect a
person’s rights to control information regarding oneself,
particularly in instances where such info is being collected
through unlawful means in order to achieve lawful ends.
 Habeas Data rule also requires substantial evidence.
 In present petition, petitioners fail to show how their right to
privacy is violated given the information contained in the list
are only their names, positions, respective organizations
and photographs = public knowledge and readily
accessible even to civilians especially known personalities.
 Although petition for writ of HD may be filed by fam
member or even relatives on behalf of aggrieved, HD
presupposes that aggrieved party is still alive to show how
violation of aggrieved party’s right to privacy, LLS violated.
Heirs of Crispin Beltaran do not have legal standing to file
this petition.
OBERGEFELL V. GODGES DIRECTOR OF OHIO
DEPARTENT OF HEALTH ET AL
 Petitioners in this case seek to find that liberty of marrying
someone of the same sex and having their marriage deemed
lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between
persons of opposite sex.
 These cases come from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee
States that define marriage as union between man and a woman
 14 same sex couples and 22 men whose same sex are deceased
filed for the said petition.
 Respondents are state officials responsible for enforcing laws.
CLAIMS OF PETITIONERS
 14th
It violates amendment denying them right to marry or to
have their marriage lawfully performed in another stte, given
full recognition.
 ISSUE:
Whether 14th amendment requires a state to license and
recognize a same sex marriage
Brief History of Role of marriage:
 Marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, inding
families and societies together.
 Life long union of man and woman has promised nobility
and dignity to all persons without regard to their status in
life.
 Its dynamic allows 2 people to find life that couldn’t be
found alone for marriage becomes greater than just 2
persons
 History: Marriage by nature is a gender differentiated union
of man and a woman.
 Petitioners acknowledge history but contend that these
cases cannot end there. To the contrary, it is the enduring
importance of marriage that underlies the petitioner’s
contentions.
 Lawful marriage is stripped off from them.
 Ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality but it has
not stood in isolation from developments in law and society.
 History of marriage is one of both continuity and change.
That institution even as confined to opposite sex relation
has evolved over time.
 In fact in 2003 Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
held the State’s Constitution guaranteed same sex couples
right to marry . After that ruling, some additional states
granted marriage rights to same sex couples either through
judicial or legislative process.
[DUE PROCESS CLAUSE 14TH AMENDMENT]
“No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property
without due process of law”.
 Identification and protection of fundamental rights require
courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of
person so fundamental that the State must accord them its
respect.
 Such process is guided by many of the same considerations
relevant to analysis of other constitutional provisions that set
forth broad principles rather than specific requirements.
 Court has long held that right to marry is protected by the
Constitution.
 Over time and in other contexts, Court has reiterated that right
to marry is fundamental under the Due Process clause.
 It cannot be denied that Court’s cases describing right to
marry presumed in a relationship involving opposite sex
partners.
 In assessing whether the force and rationale of its cases apply
to same sex couples, court must respect the reasons why right
to marry has been long perfected.
 FOUR PRINCIPLES AND TRADITIONS: REASON FOR
MARRIAGE IS FUNDAMENTAL UNDER CONSTITUTION
AND APPLY WITH EQUAL FORCE TO SAME SEX
COUPLES.
First premise
 Right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the
concept of individual autonomy. Right to marry is of
dunamental importance for all individuals.
 Most intimate decision that an individual can make.
 Contradictory to recognize a right of privacy with respect to
other matters of family life and not with respect to decision to
enter the relationship is the foundation of family in our
society
 It fulfills the yearnings for security, safe haven and
connection that expresses our common humanity, civil
marriage is an esteemed institution and decision whether and
whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-
definition
 There is dignity in the bond between 2 men/women who seek
to marry and their autonomy to make such profound choices
Second Premise
 Right to marry is fundamental because it supports two-
person union unlike any other in its importance to the
committed individuals.
 Marriage is the coming together, for better or for worse,
hopefully enduring and intimate to the degree of being
sacred… association that promotes a way of life, not
causes; a harmony of living, not in political faiths; a
bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects
 Right to marry dignifies couples who wish to define
themselves b their commitment to each other.
 Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely
person might call out only to find no one there.
 It offers the hope f companionship and understanding and
assurance that while both still live there will be someone
to care for them
 Same sex couples has sch a right
Third Premise
 Safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning
from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and
education.
 Right to marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is
a central part of liberty protected by Due Process clause.
 Allows children to understand the integrity and closeness
of their own family and its concord with other families in
thee community and in their daily lives.
 Affords permanency and stability important to children’s
best interest
 As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide
loving and nurturing homes to their children whether
biological or adopted. Hundreds of children are presently
raised by such couples.
 Gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.
 Excluding same sex couples from marriage thus conflicts
with a central premise of right to marry .—without such
recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers,
their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families
are somehow lesser. They also suffer significant material
cost of being raised by unmarriaged parents relegated
through no fault of their own to a more difficult uncertain
family life.
Forth Premise
 Court’s case and Nations traditions make clear that
marriage is a keystone to our social order.
 Marriage is the foundation of family and society, without
which there would be neither civilization nor progress.
 Marriage is a great public institution giving character to our
whole civil polity.
 Marriage remains a building block of our national
community.
 Just as couple vows to support each other, so does
society pledge to support the couple offering symbolic
recognition and material benefits to protect nourish the
union.
 While state are in general free to vary benefits they confer
 on marriage coupeles, they have throughout our history
made marriage the basis for an expanding lit of
governmental rights, benefits and responsibilities.
 ASPECTS OF MARITAL STATUS: Taxation, inheritance,
property rights, succession, spousal privilege, hospital
access, medical decision making authority, adoption
rights, rights and benefits of survivors, etc.
 There is no difference between same and opposite sex couples
with respect to this principle. Yet by virtue of this exclusion from
that institution, same sex couples are denied the constellation
of benefits that the states have linked to marriage.
 Same sex couples are consigned to an instability many
opposite sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives.
 It demeans gays and lesbians for State to lock them out of a
central institution of Nation’s society.
 If rights were defined by who exercised them in the past, then
received practices could serve as their own continued
justification and new groups could not invoke rights once
denied.
 Right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and
tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone.
 They rise too from a better informed understanding of how
constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in
our own era.
 Right of same-sex couples to marry is a part of liberty promised
by the 14th amendment is derived too from Amendment’s
guarantee of equal protection of laws.
[DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
ARE CONNECTED IN A PROFOUND WAY THROUGH THEY SET
FORTH INDEPENDENT PRINCIPLES]
 Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection
may rest on different precepts and are not always co-extensive
yet in some instances each may be instructive as to the
meaning and reach of the other.
 Equal protection clause can help to identify and correct
inequalities in the institution of marriage vindicating precepts of
liberty and equality under our constitution.
 Challenged law burden liberty of same sex couples and it must
be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of
equality.
 Imposition of disability on gays and lesbians serves to
disrespect and subordinate them. And the EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE, like due process clause, prohibits
unjustified infringement of fundamental right to marry.
 Constitution contemplates democracy is the appropriate
process for change, so long as that process does not abridge
fundamental right
 Illogical to think that state recognition of love and commitment
between same sex couples will alter most intimate relationships
between opposite sex.
 Court in this decision, holds same sex coupes may exercise
fundamental right to marry in all states. It follows that the Court
must hold and it now does hold that there is no lawful basis for
state to refuse to recognize lawful samesex marriage
performed in another state on ground of is same sex character
 No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the
highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
(internet digest)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS,
FOURTEENTH DISTRICT
No. 02—102. Argued March 26, 2003–Decided June 26, 2003
Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence,
Houston police entered petitioner Lawrence’s apartment and saw him
and another adult man, petitioner Garner, engaging in a private,
consensual sexual act. Petitioners were arrested and convicted of
deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding
two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual
conduct. In affirming, the State Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that
the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. The court considered Bowers v.
Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, controlling on that point.
Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same
sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due
Process Clause. Pp. 3—18.
(a) Resolution of this case depends on whether petitioners were
free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their
liberty under the Due Process Clause. For this inquiry the Court
deems it necessary to reconsider its Bowers holding. The Bowers
Court’s initial substantive statement–“The issue presented is whether
the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon
homosexuals to engage in sodomy … ,” 478 U.S., at 190–discloses
the Court’s failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To
say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain
sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it
would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just
about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved
in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular
sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching
consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual
behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to
control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal
recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without
being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution
allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon
relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives
and still retain their dignity as free persons. Pp. 3—6.
(b) Having misapprehended the liberty claim presented to it, the
Bowers Court stated that proscriptions against sodomy have ancient
roots. 478 U.S., at 192. It should be noted, however, that there is no
longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual
conduct as a distinct matter. Early American sodomy laws were not
directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to prohibit
nonprocreative sexual activity more generally, whether between men
and women or men and men. Moreover, early sodomy laws seem not
to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private.
Instead, sodomy prosecutions often involved predatory acts against
those who could not or did not consent: relations between men and
minor girls or boys, between adults involving force, between adults
implicating disparity in status, or between men and animals. The
longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy upon which
Bowers placed such reliance is as consistent with a general
condemnation of nonprocreative sex as it is with an established
tradition of prosecuting acts because of their homosexual character.
Far from possessing “ancient roots,” ibid., American laws targeting
same-sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th
century. Even now, only nine States have singled out same-sex
relations for criminal prosecution. Thus, the historical grounds relied
upon in Bowers are more complex than the majority opinion and the
concurring opinion by Chief Justice Burger there indicated. They are
not without doubt and, at the very least, are overstated. The Bowers
Court was, of course, making the broader point that for centuries there
have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as
immoral, but this Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to
mandate its own moral code, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa.
v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850. The Nation’s laws and traditions in the
past half century are most relevant here. They show an emerging
awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in
deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.
See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 857. Pp. 6—12.
(c) Bowers’ deficiencies became even more apparent in the years
following its announcement. The 25 States with laws prohibiting the
conduct referenced in Bowers are reduced now to 13, of which 4
enforce their laws only against homosexual conduct. In those States,
including Texas, that still proscribe sodomy (whether for same-sex or
heterosexual conduct), there is a pattern of nonenforcement with
respect to consenting adults acting in private. Casey, supra, at 851–
which confirmed that the Due Process Clause protects personal
decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family
relationships, child rearing, and education–and Romer v. Evans, 517
U.S. 620, 624–which struck down class-based legislation directed at
homosexuals–cast Bowers’ holding into even more doubt. The stigma
the Texas criminal statute imposes, moreover, is not trivial. Although
the offense is but a minor misdemeanor, it remains a criminal offense
with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged, including
notation of convictions on their records and on job application forms,
and registration as sex offenders under state law. Where a case’s
foundations have sustained serious erosion, criticism from other
sources is of greater significance. In the United States, criticism of
Bowers has been substantial and continuing, disapproving of its
reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical assumptions. And,
to the extent Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization,
the case’s reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European
Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action
consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual
adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. There has been no
showing that in this country the governmental interest in
circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent.
Stare decisis is not an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501
U.S. 808, 828. Bowers’ holding has not induced detrimental reliance of
the sort that could counsel against overturning it once there are
compelling reasons to do so. Casey, supra, at 855—856. Bowers
causes uncertainty, for the precedents before and after it contradict its
central holding. Pp. 12—17.
(d) Bowers’ rationale does not withstand careful analysis. In his
dissenting opinion in Bowers Justice Stevens concluded that (1) the
fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular
practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law
prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the
intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to
produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by due process.
That analysis should have controlled Bowers, and it controls here.
Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and
is hereby overruled. This case does not involve minors, persons who
might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse
consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults
who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices
common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under
the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private
conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The
Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its
intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life. Pp. 17—18.
41 S. W. 3d 349, reversed and remanded.
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens,
Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. O’Connor, J., filed an
opinion concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting  If the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of an
opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined. Thomas, J., individual, married or single to be free from unwarranted
filed a dissenting opinion. government intrusion into matters fundamentally affecting a
person.
(Aleezah Digest)  Facts in Bowers had some similarities to the instant case. A
police officer, whose right to enter seems not to have been in
 Question before the Court is the validity of Texas statute making it question observed Hardwich in his own bedroom, engaging in
a crime for 2 persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate secual conduct with another adult male. Conduct was in
intimate sexual conduct. violation of Georgia statute making it criminal offense: engage in
 Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private sodomy.
residence, Houston police entered petitioner Lawrence’s Bowers This case
apartment and saw him and another adult man, petitioner Garner, Prohibited conduct WON Applies only to participants of
engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. participants were of same sex same sex
 Complaint described their crime as deviate sexual intercourse WON FEDERAL WON CRIMINAL
“anal sex with member of same sex” CONSTITUTION CONFERS CONVICTIONS UNDER THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TEXAS HOMOSEXUAL
 Petitioners were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual
UPON HOMOSEXUALS TO CONDUCT LAW—WHICH
intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons ENGAGE IN SODOMY AND CRIMINALIZES SEXUAL
of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. HENCE INVALIDATES LAWS INTIMACY BY SAME SEX
 Petitioners challenged the Statute as a violaton of equal protection OF MANY STATES THAT COUPLES BUT NOT
clause in 14th amendment and of a like provision of the Texas STILL MAKE SUCH IDENTICAL BEHAVIOR BY
constitution CONDUCT ILLEGAL AND DIFFERENT SEX COUPLES
HAVE DONE SO FOR A VERY VIOATE 14TH AMENDMENT
ISSUES: LONG TIME,
 When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with
1. WON CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS UNDER THE TEXAS another person, conduct can be one element in a personal bond
HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT LAW—WHICH CRIMINALIZES SEXUAL that is more enduring. Liberty protected by the Constitution allows
INTIMACY BY SAME SEX COUPLES BUT NOT IDENTICAL homosexual persons the right to make this choice.
BEHAVIOR BY DIFFERENT SEX COUPLES VIOATE 14TH  Historical grounds relied upon in Bowers are more complex than
AMENDMENT GUARANTEES OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF AWS the majority opnion and the concurring opinion by CJ BURGER
indicate Their historical premise are not without doubts and at the
2. WON PETITIONER’S CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS FOR ADULT very least, overstated.
CONSENSUAL SEXUAL INTIMACY IN HOME VIIOLATE THEIR  Court in Bowers was making broader point that for centuries
VITAL INTERESTS IN LIBERTY AND PRIVACY PROTECTED NDER there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF 14TH AMENDMENT conduct as immoral.

HELD
 The issue is WON majority may use the power of state to enforce
these views on the whole society through operation of criminal
law.
 Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our
own moral code.
 When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law os the
state, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject
homosexual persons to discrimination both in private and public
spheres
 Stigma this criminal statute imposes moreover is not trivial.
 Still it remains a criminal offense with all the imports of dignity of
the person charged.
 Present case does not involve minors. It does not involve
persons who might be injured or coerced r who are situated in
relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does
not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve
whether government must give formal recognition to any
relationship that homosexual persons seeks to enter.
 The case involve two adults who with full and mutual consent,
engage in sexual practices common to homosexual lifestyle.
 State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by
making their private sexual conduct a crime.
 Right to liberty under Due Process clause gives them full right to
engage in their conduct without intervention of government.
 It is a promise of the constitution that there is a realm of personal
liberty which the government may not enter.
 The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interests, which
can justify its intrusion into personal and private life of individuals.