: i flecourr g $ Phy & REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES | SUPREME COURT : fe a MANILA { ENBANC JESUS NICARDO M. FALCIS 11, G.R. No, 217910 Petoner CIVIL REGISTRAR-GENERAL, Respondent. COMMENT rik CF (AD CAUTELAM) Respondent Civil Registrar-General, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), respectfully states: STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. ‘The Honorable Court is being asked to decide whether the Constieution confers petitioner a fundamental right wo seek dhe nullification of legislation that defines martiage asa “contract...between a ‘man and a woman...” 2 While the Honorable Court is not constitutionally disabled from answering, grave questions of law, the principle of separation of powers and existing jurisprudence require conditions precedent for their proper resolution—the presence ofa “ease or controversy.” presented by’ Tikgants with standing, and invoking sights that are legally demandable and enforceable against accountable parties. 3. The present petition, however, i so intrinsically awed that it is incumbent upon the Honorable Court to summarily dismiss the easeComment if Cam 2 GR.No, 217910 4. In light of the fundamental defects in the petition, the Honorable Court's resolution of the merits of this ease would simply be an advisory opinion,’ without binding effect on real parties that were not impleaded, 5, Even as reasons for an expanded judicial review remain open for the Coust, those justifications cannot be invoked without “concrete aadverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions..." 6. ‘This Comment is therefore being filed ad catlam in view of the basic errors in the petition, which fundamental jurisdictional flaws preclude the Honorable Court ftom addessing the substantive matters it purports to raise, 1, MATERIAL DATES On 18 May 2015, petitioner Jesus Nicardo M. Faleis TH Llcecly fled before the Honorable Court a Petition for Cenorar’ and Peohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court 8. ‘The present petition secks to (declare Anicles 1, 2, 46(4), and $5(6) of the Family Cogle as unconstitutional on the ground that Congress gravely abused its dseretion in “defining and liming marriage as between man and woman" and (©) “prohibie the civil registrar general from enforcing the portions of Amicles 1 and 2 of the Family Code in processing applications for and in issuing marriage licenses ayainst homosexual couples" Petitioner claims that “homosexuals are deprived of their right to due process, equal protection, the right to decisional nd marital privacy, and the right to found a family in "Vn Sli oo GR. No 1895728 Ap 2 onComment id Cave 3 GR.No, 217910 accordance with their religious or ireligious convictions 9. On 22 June 2015, Femando P. Perito filed an Answerin- Intervention, which the Honorable Court treated as a Motion to Intervene with Answer in-Intervention® 10, On 28 July 2015, the OSC received 4 copy of the present petition dated 18 May 2015. In a resolotion dated 30 Jone 2015, the Honorable Court, without giving due course «0 the petition, directed respondent to file its Comment to the petition MH. ISSUE, WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT HAS JURISDICTION ‘TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION WV. ARGUMENTS A. PETITIONER LACKS LEGAL STANDING FOR FAILURE TO SHOW HE SUFFERED “INJURY IN FACT.” B. THE PETITION IS A REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION. ° PETITIONER FAILED TO IMPLEAD CONGRESS, AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY IN ‘THIS CASE. D. PETITIONER ERRONEOUSLY IMPLEADED. ‘THE CIVIL REGISTRAR-GENERAL. PETITIONER VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS. Pesan ‘Resto et 28 Jy 2915Comment Ad Cate 4 F, PETITIONER'S INVOCATION OF THE. DOCTRINE OF ‘TRANSCENDENTAL. IMPORTANCE CANNOT REMEDY THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS OF THE CASE HE PRESENTED. v. DISCUSSION I, Lack of Stand. Petitioner comes before the Honorable Court as an “open and self identified homosexual” who is “interested in the unconsttutionaity of the provisions of the Family Code disallowing same-sex marrage."” However, mere “interest” academic or otherwise, is aot enough. Law students readily recognize these allegations as insufficient justifications for impugning the consttuionality of Articles 1, 2, 46(4), and 55(6) of the Family Code. This is an invitation to a debate ot scittional ligation, What we have coffee shop conversation, not a co here isa failure to distinguish between a “cause” and a “cause of action,” fo between filing a “case” and, in constitutional parlance, having a “case ‘or controversy." 12, In the language of docteine, petitioner has not demonstrated ny “injury in fact” from the operation of the Family Code, Injury in fact is the litigants “personal and substantial interes in the ease such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of [the law's] cenforcement.”* Whatever injury petitioner feels is non-pasticulatized for the reason that his interest is shared with the entice universe of people who agece with his advocacy 13, Petitioner also argues chat his “ability w fine and enter into Jong, teem monogamous same-sex relationships is impaired because of the absence of a legal incentive for gay individuals to seck such relationship.” Not only is this non-syuair,talso demeans the eapacity of homosexuals to emter into committed rcationships. Even if this claim rises «o the level of an argument, no additional argument is presented as to why the creation of an across-the-board, systemic incentive through the recognition of same-sex marviage will lead specific guy individuals 10 ‘choose petitioner over any other homosestual > Peon p18 "Sumo Cals GR. No. MAST, 21 Soper 205.Comment Ad Caen 5 GR No. 217910 14, Ieis notable that petitioner has also failed co cou his suit in the form of a class action, Given that petitioner does not seek (© represent the class of human beings who my have been injured by the absence ofa law recognizing same-sex marriages, the merits of his petition must be judged on the basis ofthe particular details of his ease which, on its face, are devoid of allegations of injury in fac. 15, Other than political dispute with the terms of the Family Code, petitioner does not provide any evidence of how the law was specifically brought to bear upoa his person. For one, he does not show hhow an act of his chosen respondent-—the Civil Registrar-Gi impaired any of his rights. For another, he makes no claim that any officer supervised by the Civil Registae-General—any local civil registrar in the country-—has been ordered in any manner 10 impede petitioner i the exercise of his rights such as, for example, by way of denial of his request forthe issuance of a marsiage license eral—has 16, ‘Thus, apart from the other fundamental defects in the ppiiton, this suit fils 10 show a nexus between the petitioner and the respondent which is usually established by evidence of (or, at leat, an allegation of) an injury-causing act oF respondent that gives petitioner a ‘cause of action. The ordinary sanction for defective pleadings is summary dismissal, and petitioner has not shown any cause for specil treatment 17. _Adviory Opinion. ‘The absence of a ease or controversy in this suit is highlighted by the scant averment of “fact entirety of petitioner's “antecedent facts” is as follows in the petition, The 4 On June 18, 1919, shen President approved Republic Act 1No. 386, otheewise known a8 the “Civil Cade of the Philipines” (the “Civil Code”) 5. Arucles $2, $3, and 54 of the Civil Code did aot define and Limit mariage a between man and woman 6 On July 6, 1987, chen President Corazon C. Aquino insved, under her legislative posers, Executive Onder No. 209, ‘othervse known as the Family Code. The Family Code took effect ‘on August 3, 1988 7._Artces 1 and 2 ofthe Family Code repealed Artices 52, 53, and 54 of the Civil Code, thus changing. and liiting the definition of mariage as beoween nna al womanComment Ad Caan 6 GRNo.217910 18. Evidently, petitioner makes no attempt to provide any factual anchor for triggering the exercise of the Honorable Court's jurisdiction, “expanded” or not, “traditional” or otherwise, The allegations of fact in a petition serve the important purpose of predicating the grounds for a ccou’s assumption of jurisdicion over a case. ‘The paucity of the allegations here is a ground for summary dismissal because i effectively prevents the Honorable Court from assessing the procedural and substantive posture ofthe issue inthis suit 19, For the Honorable Coutt to indulge petitioner would be an “attempt at abstraction [that] could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities” Any judgment in this case “amounts io face 10 90 more than an expression of opinion upon the valiity of the acts in question.” As a prudential ‘matter, the Honorable Coust must seriously consider whether a question fof such far-reaching implications as the constitutional status of hhomosexsal marriage should be resolved theough the lens of a petition such as the one brought here. 20. Pailare to Implead Congress. In essence, this suit s fashioned as a legal challenge to the current legislative policy on same-sex macrage. The relief it seeks isthe nullification of certain provisions of law on the ground hac there exists an incompadbilty berween Congress? obligation toa class of citizens and its current code of family relations. And yet, petitioner has ‘not impleaded! Congress. This blatant omission is addtional cause for an ‘outright dismissal 21. ‘The Congress is an indispensable party in this case because the pettion’s cause of action is directed against a legislative policy, not aa administrative concem that the respondent Civil Registrar-General can act upon. In Pepi, Ine Emerald Pigga, Inc," the Honorable Court euled that [a] inispeasable pay is partyin interest without what no final Aleternination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined cither as phiniff or defendant. The jinder of indispensable paris is mandatory... The absence of an indispensable party renders ll subsequent actions ofthe court null and void for vant of athority * Ag Fed Cian 6 Pi 1381936, Murs Une Sty 20908. 6 (11.Comment id Catan GR No. 21790 to act, not only as to the absent partes but even a6 to those present. 22. ‘The peinciple of separation of powers and interdepartmental courtesy among coordinate andl co-equal branches of government compel the Honorable Court co, atthe very east, give Congress the opportunity to putticipate in the proceedings and present its side of the controversy 23, Policies on social organizations—their basie forms and details, privileges and responsibilities —from families to cosporations are istincly legislative concerns, Capacity to entet into contenets, in particular, has traditionally been within the legislature's sphere of competence, within constitutional limits. Whether by neyliges ignorance, petitioner has failed to summon Congress in this ease. He cannot be allowed t0 seek judicial review of a defiitionally-fundamental aspect of marriage as we know it today without impleading the institution DF government responsible for that policy. 24. Ever in Inphading she Cieil Registrar Geral. Although. the petition is couched as one for ersiora, petitioner does not show how the Civil Reyistrr-General could have acted in grave abuse of discretion in ‘lation to applications for a marriage license, In fact, petitioner did not show any particulae instance when the Civil Registrar-General acted in any ‘manner with eespect to aa application for a marrage license, ‘The realty is that petitioner and his suit have no factual connection with the Civil Registrae-General 25. Undler Rule 65, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, a petition for aviorari must allege with specificity the jurisdictional errors committed by the respondent in the performance of its functions, ‘The petitioner can only avail of a writ of tone’ “fuhen any teibunal, board oF officer ‘exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in ‘excess its of his jurisdiction, of with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction, and there is 0 appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course ofl" 26, Prohibition is also not the appropriate remedy because respondent is not exercising any ministerial fonction, Under Rule 65, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, a petitioner may fle a petition for prohibition whee the “tibunal, corporation, board, officer or person [is]Comment Ad Cain 5 ‘exercising judicial, quasi-judicial of ministerial functions” and its acts ae “without oF in excess oF its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law”. The Civil Reyisrar-General is neither exercising a judicial for quasi-judicial fametion nor a ministerial function in elation t0 petitioner’ allegations. 27, To be sure, the Civil RegistracGeneral merely exercises technical supervision over local civil registrars, Under Section 2 of Act No, 3753, the Civil Registrar merely “gives ordess and instructions to dhe local civil registrars with reference to the performance of their duties as such.” This is an executive function—administraive, and oot quasi- judicial which is beyond the ambit of review under Rule 65. 28 ‘The Honorable Court, in numerous instances, has pronounced that Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rulet of Court confines the teiedy of artinuni to the tribunal, board or officers grave abuse of discretion in exercising judicial and quasi judicial functions 29, In Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Acsaiations, Ine. . The Seontary of Agrarian Rola petitioner filed a Petition for Cetra’ and Prohibition, which assailed the constiutionality of Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order (AO) No. 01-02, as amended. In dismissing the petition, the Honorable Court explained — ‘The Secretary of Ageatian Reform doesnot fll with the ambit ofa telnal, boatd, oF officer excrsing juicial ot gutstjudicia functions, ‘Ie issuance and enforcement by the Secretary of Agnian Reform of the questioned DAR AQ No, 01-02, a8 amended, sad Memoratuln No, 88 were done inthe exetcite of his ‘qusi-lepishtive and administative functions and not of judicial or ‘quasi functions. Furthermore, af thit Court has previously discussed, che instant petition in essence seeks the declaration by this Court of the Uuaconstinuonality oF legality oF the questioned DAR AO No, 0 (0, 8 amended, and Memorandum No, 88, Thus, the adequate and proper remedy for the petitioner therefor is 10 le a Petition for Declaratory Relief, which this Court has only appellate and not ‘orignal jurisdiction. Te is beyond the provinee of eertorat to “declare the aforesld administrative issuances unconstitutionalComment td Ctl ° GR No. 217910 and illegal because certiorari is confined only to the determination of the existence of grave abuse of diseretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction. Petitioner eatmot simply allege grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and then invoke certiorari to declare the Voresaid administrative issuances unconstitutional and illegal imphasis must be given ro the fact that the wit of eeriorat dale swith ia Rule 65 of the 1997 Reviged Rules of Civil Procedue i a pretogutive wit, never demandable as 4 matter of right, “never insved exeept inthe exercise of judicial discretion." 30. In Advocates jor Trt in Landing Ine. Bangho Sentral Monctary Bear the Honorable Court dismissed the Petition for Cetoran filed by petitioner, which sought to declaee the illegality of Central Bank (CB) Circular No. 905 for procedural infirmities. ‘The Honorable Const ruled thae soar will note ¢o assail CB Ciealar No. 905 since it was issued in the exercise of an executive function, According to the Honorable Court, {ihe (Centeal Bank Monetary Board] was ereated to perform executive functions with respect to the establishment, operation or liquidation of ‘banking and credit institutions, and branches and agencies thereof.” 31. In Dacudao » Secretary of Justo,” the Honorable Court held that the Petition for Casioray, Prohibition and Mandamus shovld be klsmissed since the “petition did not show that the Secretary of Justice was an officer exercising judicial or quasi judicial Runetions fin issoing Department of Justice Order No, 182)... The function involved was purely exeeative or administrative,” 32, "The Honorable Court further stated: “fhe burden of proof lies on petitioners to demonstsate that the assailed order was issued without oF in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of diseretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.” 33, _ealso beats emphasis that it isthe local civil registrar, aot the Civil Registrar-General, who issues a marriage license to couples who intend to marty in the Philippines. Article 9 of the Family Code provides that “[a] marriage license shall be issued by the local civil registrar of the city oF municipality where either conteacting party habitually resides...” In any case, the ministerial dury of local civil registrars is to ise snatiage licenses to heterosexual couples, and not to couples of the same sex Eph apt GIR No 1908 15 ny 2013, "GR Ns TT, 21Comment Ad Co 0 GR No. 217910 34, In any event, petitioners case challenges the Family Code, fot an act ofthe Civil Registrar General or of the local evil registas. No jurisdictional errors can be imputed against the respondent given the character of her celasionship with local civil egistars and since even the local civil registrar exercises only a ministerial duty in issuing, marriage licenses, Articles 11 to 19 of the Family Code! preserbe the actions that "Paty Coo, Ant 1. What a aig ene eid ech fhe ont pais hk Fi tpn seven apa for uc ene wh he pe a ci gt ach ha speci the loom (Fale of contacting pa Beiwc arty (3) Aprende oink (cena {G) it pecnaly mil part (Gy Prentice and hiss ()Degreofelatonsthy of he conacig paris (8 fame etece eno tether (ya mume retene ad sen the mer at {i as esa rp he an pe ig che The span die acntox gin sb oe essed to eit hi mins een fay conncion eth tet af he gee Ac: #2 Tela cng unc uh apo, hl oie the penta he eth ett en deta het pte eee He cee ate at oper of ech denen hy ated bythe pees long cnt the oc Tse erate eral eps of the dca by hr Arie nel not be saa hal be ‘Sang om the cue samp The ace ad ll io he pm i he ‘rea hl be ait pot a sent. Ie er of he contin pri mae pce io pn cif a ceed copy fer Dre te dics a of te oo of tty ‘lt of ch pro fy ther pron fm cao bane ces sn yet ben ‘mel hag ee ten se ese in el fen ee bl otic athe o adie oat Sch tne sal conti the nea eas | ‘hewitt he i ver of uch onan Pry and ot his cee pes tno ad he pc and eo th of th py The newest Sheena sb ced bey ee a ov The prsettion of oe bapl crit sal med he prs of the oman prs apps psa fete ese covemel ad tea the er oo a ei tte io oe ek ‘Scie dt chert efter hve sopicdage ‘rene fe 1. nce ter of he concn pti ht en prvi mi he pa al ‘spite ofa sea of he i bps eet nue he at vein te he dan certte af he deed pou the jal ecco th le doe, or he istic See af ani or declan of wtf lot ne peso mae Inne the death cect cmt es pty mk ai ein oe he dcp ads stl cat sl etre de of det of te eeeComment Ad Cat i GRNo.217910 the local civil registrar shall take in pencessing applications for a macrage license, ‘These are bureaueratic procedures, not quasi judicial actions, ‘There can be no grave abuse of dlcretion when a government office peefoms is ministerial duty under the law. [At Mc er or both ofthe contacting pai at ing bee act 3 pons ‘rg ere he ag ght and tesa, hy hal ain oe requ [Fhe pcos, it th loc ea, cose otha marge he es, these pret oe pao, or pve vn el cane ahem he onder eng. So coset sal be sulted wig by the rete pty, ho esol “pens ene th proper le esto he fr fa none he presence of (erties an sted ire ay i ur yw ister ns The peed ‘esi sh he meen pletion fringe ene and he al nee ‘Sected ted hl b achd apeeons ‘1. Any contain pany tense he gf tania md Seni fel be lige 0 tk ‘pte for ae on she ead ou If her tte nro a Ke unbvoae, he rnage noe all ot be el wer tee unl he ‘oman he fusion the apleaton shee sworn otret bye conten, Fort th ifs that nae be gh eer th he en ee pe, ‘ae woe esi fr aig ee Stl he ac pd eit ge nists sab otal ne nc ners ‘An 16 the ewes wre prea consent opt aie te the gy patie ‘ected dl son oe reemerged by futiage color Say creed bye proper gorenme agen 1o dhe fet that the “oncting res tne tyne merge ning are 0 wh ei of age uci il spend he ance of the mae Bee pes of ce ene fe he Compl of the patra ofthe spp. isaac of the mariage Hens win the rely hal aie the ong fer ose santos shal ale he ‘So de macnge. Sd ty oe of he contig pics oe pect tpt die, the ste pry te pent a tesa ere epee ee [An 17. The acc esta shall pie note which shall coon the fl ee an ‘cee of the pent ange Mes a oc dat pene pean Tenet ‘a be pone en cscs aps ln on susie the fe of he hes degen cin cng ple win the ig od sce othe gener Tle ‘ice dle al pasos acing Lng of sept to he mage ae he Ie it ep hao he rae Bees be nae ater th compton fe ped ok AW 18 In oe of iy engine! now i he a reir obo ois done Sta ete dow the pre eet oad hs ogy neon Be appx fo natige ite, tt sal ec sw sido ete empleon of the esa sc, Ink ole tere by x compte out at hs ow tines ot a nye py No ig ae ca rhe aon rapa ga eens he ‘Aes 17h local cri spar shal eget pent ofthe fo pres by rw epson befone he see the aig cre No ahr steed te mt fo tect ani othe ue fad meal ower die cae Wg ha thse wo are no vale camo ce or wwe ese it fo ‘besten et cbse by dai by ah ete th eal ep.Comment Ad Camtloe 2 GR.No. 217910 35. Eirarin Rol Sangh. Indeed, the grant of the reliefs sought in the petition will not lead co the establishment “of a legal incentive for gay individuals to seek [same-sex] eeltionshipls}.” This is because petitioner hhas not sought a wrt of mandamus as part of his requested set of telie 36, Even if the Honorable Court were to issue the writs of ‘artiorari aod peobibition, such relief would aot lead co the recognition of same-sex marriages, which sequites a positive act from Congeess 37, Petitioner disingenuously refers 10 Articles 52, 53, and $4 of the Civil Code to make it appear as if, prior to the passage of the Family Code, the state policy was same-sex macsiage-friendly. This is simply not rue, 38, The Civil Code only allows heterosesual marsiage, Pasties who are legally capac relation to Article 53,” of the Civil Code are “male...and...female,” aot “males or ferales"— ted to contract macsiage under Article 54, in Any male ofthe ape of sixteen years oF upward, nd any female of the age of fourteen years of upwards, aot under any of the impediments mentioned in articles Bt 84, may contract mariage, 3, A -marsiage certificate is only Hssued co contracting parties ‘who “shall state that they 5 uasbanel andl wife.” Tide V and Title VI of the Ci! Code, in fat, only governs the “rights and obligations Jxtueer husband and wife,” and the “property relations between husband and wie,” respectively take each other 40. That the Civil Code only sanctions heterosexual mactiage is farther bolstered by petitioners failure to cite a particulat instance when parties of the same sex were issued a marriage certificate and got mastied ‘under the Philippine law. 41, Hierarchy of coms, Petitioner diseegarded the hierarchy of courts by directly fling this case before the Honorable Court, ‘The Are 58. No util be olan lll he gai cold wits (0) Legal epoca the conta patlens (2) Thar cere, bey ove {@) A maemage Beene, exept in a mange of encepbnoal chasse (See. to, a ean tte aiComment Ad Canta 8 concurrent jurisdiction of the Honorable Coutt and the lower courts 10 issue wits of eriaran and probibition do ot give petitioner unrestricted choice of forum. Even in cases where the Honorable Court is vested ‘with original concurrent jurisdiction, it remains a court of last resort, not 2 court of fist instance 42, Lack of transcendental importance. While the question raised in the petition may be consequential, petitioners invocation of the doctrine ‘of transcendental importance cannot remedy the fundamental Naw in his petition, The lack of a conerete basis for triggering the Honorable Court's exercise ofits jurisdiction mili es against the claim that the resolution of petitioner's questions is a matter of wanscendental importance. “Courts te mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly donot si€ (0 adj interest therein, however intellectually solid the problem may be 43, In Chamber of Real Estate and Bailes" Asusatons, Ine . Energy Regustory Commnivson® the Honorable Coust adopted the standaeds suggested by Justice Florentino Feliciano in determining whether a case is a matter of transcendental importance: (lh the character of the funds or other assets involved in the eae: 2) the presence of a clear case of disegird of a constuional oF statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency oF instrumentality of the govemment and () the lack of aay other pny with a more diect and specific interest in dhe questions being, raised “The petition does not fall under any of these standards, 44, In Oberg Hodge the United States Supreme Court held that “same sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to met in all States"= in the context of “States [that are divided on the issue of same sex martiage:”® ‘The Olenyf! decision was rendered in view of “{njumerous cases about same-sex marriage [that] have reached the 2 Baw Cann, GH, Now 290, oT, Ajo 203. Spe An Cl SG No. 1497, ay 00, 2 Conoting Opi in Ket ns 2 Le Sip Ope acy 1983; Da» Sy Ran! Gore Uniti Satan Esti, GR. No. L529, 31 October No 4875, 5 Map 198,Camera uw GR No. 217910 United States Couet of Appeals in recent yents."® Thus, the U.S. Supreme (Court stated that In accordance with the judicial duty (0 base thei decisions on principled seasons and neutral discussions, without scomfl ot sparging commentary, coutts have writen » substantial body of law consicering all sides of these issues. That case law helps 0 explain and formulate dhe underling principles this Coure now must consid." 45. _ In the present ease, the Honorable Court would have no case law, much less any factual elernents mixed in the ju ‘would help it “explain and formulate the underlying principles” about the constitutional status of same-sex marriage in the Philippines. To decide here would be to brew with missing ingredients cauldron, thae 46, Aa attempt to “Yormulate...undetlying principles” would be more problematic in & proceeding without an actual case or controversy The US, Supreme Court in Oberg! was faced with concrete situations where parties “Sustained, oF will sustain, ditect injury" as a result of State laws prohibiting same-sex matriage— Petitioner James Olvergel a plinilfi the Ohio ease, met John Anur over two decides ago. ‘They fll in love andl stared ie together, esblshing a lasting, committed tclation, In 2011, hoseever, thus was diagnosed with amsottophic eal elerosis, ot ALS. This debiltating disease is progressive, with ao known cue Two yeaes ago, Obetgetell and Athn decided to commit one another, resolving to macry before Arhur died. ‘To full thee ‘mutual promise, hey eaveled 20m Ohio to Mryind, where sme sex mage was legal. 1 was difficult for Authur to move, and s0 the couple were wed inside a medical tunspore plane as it mained sac in Babiote. Three wows liter, Arthur died, Obio law does not pesnit Obergeel to be listed asthe eurvving spouse fom Arthur death ceifeate. By strut, they mast remain strange ‘even in death, a state-imposed separation Obergeell deems “hurl, forthe test of time”...He broght si o be shown as the sucviing spouse on Arthur's death corifcate April DeBler and Jayne Rowse are eo plainifs in the ease from Michigan. They celebrated commitment cetemony to honor their permanen ration in 207, They both wore as nurses, Deltoer Pager Vi GR. No.8, 1684Comment Ad Conte 15 GR No. 217910 Jina neonatal unit and Rowse in an emergency unit. In 2009, DeBoer and Rowse fostered and then adopted a baby boy. Lac that same yeas, they weleomed another vm into their family. The new babs, bom prematurely and abandoned by is biological mother, eequied atound-che-clock cate, The next yeas, a baby gil with special needs joined their Fail. Michigan, however, permits only opposite-sex ‘matted couples oF single individuals 10 adopt, so each child can Ihave only ane woman as his ot her legal patent. 1F an emergeney ‘were to ats, selinols and hospitals ay teat dhe the ciken a they had only one parent. And, wete tragedy to het either DeBoer fo Rose, the other would have o legal sights over the chldeen she Fnad not been permitted to adopt. This coupe secs tle from the contin acertainy heir wmatied seats creates in thee ives. Anny Reserve Seageant Fitst Class Tipe DeKve and his patence Thomas Kostira,co-paiaif in dhe Tennessee ease lin love. In 2011, DeKoe received otdets to deploy to Afghanistan ‘Before leaving, he and Kostura married in New York. A week late, DeKoe began his deployment, whieh lasted for almost a eat. When he vemmed, che two settled in Teanessee, where DeKoe works fill time forthe Army Reserve. Thee lawful marsage is stipped from them whenever they reside in Teaneste,retuming and disappearing as they uavel across state nes. DeKoe, who served this Nation 10 ppresere the firedom the Constitution protees, must endte substan burden? 47, In Oberg, there were actual cases where persons were being injured by State laws which targeted the rights of a marsied couple, The suits therein took decades of litigation, planning, political advocacy, legislative debates, and coaltion-building. In contrast, petitioner—all by hionself, unassisted —puts ow the line dhe Futute of soci inovennent aud gambles the right of homoseruals in an illtimed suit that might uunderwhelin even well-meaning sympathizers 48. Acthe tum of the 20% century, James Bradley ‘Thayer wrote thar the “[HJendency of a common and easy resort to [the] great Function [oF judicial review), now kmentably too common, is to dwar? the politcal ‘capacity of the people, and deaden its sense of moral responsibilty” We invoke Thayer's wisdom in seeking the dismissal of the present suit S rgrsnte 2,46 29} Ths oman. 106107908).Comment AM Canteen 6 GR No.21790 PRAYER It is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court DENY DUE, COURSE TO or DISMISS the petition for its jurisdictional defects ‘Other just and equitable reliefs ate likewise prayed for. ‘Makati City for Manila, 28 Magch 2016, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorzolo St, Legaspi Village 1229 Malai City “Tel. Nos 8186301 «0 09 Crunkling) ax No 8176037 Website sncoszgos.ph Brnail dacket@osegov.ph hls Soliior Gene Roll Ne. 44957 IBP Lifetime No. 08505 MCLE Exemption No, V-000908, 12.05.15, 22 =— MaxryS-eAOLget-SISON TH Ofer Chons, Lorne Tad Dinton Roll No 39301 WP Lifetime No, 012977 MELE Compliance No, 1V-0025306, 08-13-2015 GERMAINE L. CHUA Atsocate Selitor Roll No. 59797 IBP No. 987719; 1-07-2015, MCLE. Compliance No, V-0011787; 11-1Comment Ad Catan 0 GR No, 217910 Roll No, 62428 TBP No, 1005409, 7-715, MCLE Exempt, Admitted 2013 ‘Jesus Nicardo MPa 1 Coil Pier {74 Scout Rll St Bg Laing Hae Qucrom iy 41 vt Registra General Pb Renda 3 Foo, NSO-CVES Hl ‘st Avene, Dla Queso Cy eanand P. Pesta 4 Bk 2, la Pact Bry. Noes, Pca Compe San Poe, Lage EXPLANATION (Pursuant ro Role 13 Seton 11 ofthe Rules of Cm ‘the OSG to effet personal seve. BETH C, PEREZ Asie Slior his i being serve by tester mail die to Ik of safcient personnelVERIFIED DECLARATION 1, LILIBETH C. PEREZ, hereby declare that che documents hereto submitted eleetonically in accondance with the Efficient Use of Paper Rale are ‘complete and tm copics of the documents filed with the Supreme Auta Salitr 29 March 2016 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO bifore me on this 29° day of March 2016, fant eshibiting his OSG Employee ID No, 2015-07002, sandy PEPrTO sft Solicitor[REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE ascent a scolfaise a8 of Ape 1952) GSISUMID #0060065.21570 _ OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, ith fee 288058 al 14 Arreola St, Legaspl Vilage Maka City, afr being swom to depot and say ‘Taton 002972010 __, caused ta be served copy ofthe following pleadinalparer NATURE OF THE PLEADING Comment Ince No,_ORNO.217910_ontind_JESUS NCARDO M.FALCIS I pursuant to Soetion 3.45 and 10, Rue 13 of the Rules of Court as flows: Mia, Paioes Sty Ni rat Sg — ‘Sn Pei, Lene. Pins $e Sand Rats Ory Lag Handa Set ocr NSO-CVEA By. Et chue Omar Queso PME {By depositing a copy tothe party histher attorney {() By leaving 2 copy in histner clerk or with person ca en ‘shown on p (ram LAlpnna coon 0) 8y depasting copy on in the Post otic at 135 ovidenced by Reglaty Receipts) hereto altacned and Indicated efter the name (a) ofthe addresses), ad ‘wh istoton to tho posimastrt eum he malo the seer ater (10) day unastveredat, Me ana. Pte sores in hy. A saevia Fo Soa ‘Soler, OlcerAinistrng the Oath (Ofice ofthe Sato General SUBSCRIBED AND SWORD to bofore me his Cy, Phiipines. Ata exnbiing to mes