Legalizing Same Sex Marriage in the Philippines

The Philippines is ranked as the 10th most homophobic – friendly country in Asia
in 2013 and around countries have legalized same sex marriage all around the
world, so it would be quite surprising to know that it is one of the few countries
who has not legalized same sex marriage, yet. Over the years, the Philippines has
come to accept support the cry for equality and recognizance by the Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) community. Albeit numerous individuals of the
population is have conflicting ideas about it, gradually, the state has given its ears
to listen to the outcry for acknowledgement and even lend a helping hand to have
representatives of the LGBT community have a voice and seat in various social
and political platforms and since then, it seemed like there was only one thing
that was left to do to solidify the belief that the state does support and does not
discriminate the LGBT rights to legalize same-sex marriage; so why has there been
no law passed and approved to legalize same sex marriage in the Philippines?

Marriage equality is typically fought in Congress, and for years, the LGBT
movement has lobbied for the enactment of an anti-discrimination law and not a
law on same-sex marriage. According to Thomson Reuters Foundation new, 73%
percent of the Philippine population declared that society should “accept
homosexuality” according to the findings surveyed by the nonpartisan Pew
research Centre in 2013 and what was found more interesting is that 80 % of
Filipinos were actually catholic which stands on opposite views about
homosexuality and same sex marriage. However, it seemed that despite
discrepancies between views on acceptance of homosexuality and its morality,
Philippines indeed stood out as an exceptionally gay-friendly country.

Needless to say, it is evident that the country has long time been open to the
concept of same sex marriage. Just recently, the House of Representatives
conducted an online survey on Filipino’s views on same sex marriage. A vast
majority of Filipinos are still against the idea, despite the growing number of
countries that have introduced civil laws on marriage and partnerships that are
inclusive of LGBTs. It came as a surprise to everyone that more than 50% of the
Filipino ruled against the opposite, and a high percentage also ruled out that they
are still undecided. The survey comes ahead of the celebration of "Pride Month"
in June and days after same-sex marriage was legalized in Taiwan. LGBTQ
advocates and supporters have urged Filipinos to vote on the affirmative but
there were others who saw the move as “misleading and irresponsible” on the
Congress’ part. It easily became a social media frenzy when tons of individuals
were expressing their views and opinions on the thought of legalizing same sex
marriage. Many simply said that this would disrupt the image of a traditional
Filipino household and would create confusion on the younger generation, many
said that this should not be the focal point of the legislative branch as the country
has many other problems that are in dire need of urgency and action, and many
also used their religion as a reason; Biblical verses were thrown out and debates
about morality sprouted. It was not only spoken and discussed by average
citizens, even people from the media shared their thoughts and opinions about it
as well. As of writing, the survey has not yet ended, however, the initial results
comes as a shock. It begs the question on how Filipinos are welcoming of the
thought of homosexuality but opposes when their acceptance are being tested. It
can be connected from the early years when were colonized and Christianized by
the Spaniards, maybe even the Japanese had something to do with it. Ironically,
Spain, which introduced Catholicism to the Philippines when it colonized the
country during the 15th century, is the third country to legalize same-sex
marriage. We were subdued by ideals and concept on what should be appreciated
as socially acceptable, or what is immoral. For decades, we were captured under a
mental image of what should constitute a marriage; that is, between a man and a
woman. We did not question it, we were fine obeying, but then the world
gradually and eventually changed, more and more people spoke about
discrimination and the amount of freedom being stripped away from them simply
because society had a norm. From western to European countries, until recently
one country in Asia, these calls have been heeded. Law and statutes were passed,
revised and amendment to make way the acknowledgement and acceptance that
the LGBT community fought for. Sadly, it cannot be the same in our country. We
are still bound by this concept because the church plays a big role in society.
Father Jerome Secillano, executive secretary of the public affairs office of the
Catholic bishops' conference, said that Catholic bishops maintain that marriage
must be between a man and a woman as enshrined in the Philippine Constitution,
the Family Code and as ordained by God. “Marriage as willed by God is between a
man and a woman," said the priest. For some countries, it might come as a
question as to why the church has so much say on issues that should be
considered as a matter of law and legislation, but for us, that has always been the
case. The country will dare move for change but the church would put its feet
down and we the state would have so little to do anything about it. The church
has imprinted itself on our legislative, judicial, and even administrative system
that it’s hard to discharge away from them, that is one reason why the Philippines
is not ready for same sex marriage, yet.

But even after assuming that the barrier to marriage equality posed by the
Catholic Church is a convenient exaggeration and that the Church is hardly a
political leviathan, and that the country becomes adamant in recognizing the
separation of the church and the state, the end point would still be frustrating
and futile. The Philippines has numerous amount of laws and statues that have
been created over time to ensure that everyone is offered their protection and
right as an individual and a citizen of the country and that no one can trample on
that right. The definition of marriage adopted by the drafters of our Constitution
is guided by the teachings of history and the recognition of the traditions that
underlie our society. Marriage, as traditionally conceived in the Philippines, has
always been between a man and a woman. According to the family code, “Article
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. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution
whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject
to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations
during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code and 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.” It has also
been repeatedly emphasized that the state values the sanctity of marriage and
the Filipino family. However, there are conflicting views about the family code,
these are the provisions in the Constitution that the petition alleges to have been
violated by the aforementioned: “Section 1, Article III:  No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Section 3(1), Article XV:  The
State shall defend the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their
religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.”

We have here two statutes and laws before us, one that which has been relied
upon for issues on Persons and Family relations and one that which is considered
to be the highest form of law in the land. But both should be upheld at all times,
therefore, this is where the conflict lies.

The passing of the Family Code provisions limiting marriage to a man and a
woman only constitute grave abuse of discretion because the Constitution did not
define marriage as solely between a man and a woman. The Family Code was
signed into law on July 6, 1987, or 6 months after the Constitution was ratified in
February that year. Similarly, the marriage provisions in the 1949 Civil Code did
not limit marriages to a man and a woman only. Did Philippine laws intend
marriage for procreation?  Articles 2 and 3 of the Family Code states that it does
not require married individuals to procreate or have the ability to procreate which
is in contrast with Article 45(5) of the Family Code which lists as a ground for
annulment if either party “is incapable of consummating the marriage with the
other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable.” And Article
55(6): “A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following
grounds: Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent” but also, if marriage
between a man and a woman was created to ensure that procreation is met, then
why does the civil code also allow and support adoption and artificial
insemination? Would that also be equivalent to a same sex couple “procreating”
by having a legitimate child and bringing it into a family? The amount of technical
advances that science has given to society enables things such as a child born by
the sperm of a person and a egg of a donor, to which is perfectly legal in the
Philippines.

So who is to say which one is unconstitutional? Gathering from information, it is

maybe best to say that the very reason why the Philippines has not legalized same
sex-marriage is simply because its laws and statutes are not in synch and
perpetually in contrast when it comes to its provisions about marriage and civil
unions. Surely, the drafters have not taken into account that in the future, an
outcry like this would be brought up. But maybe also, they rested on the thought
that by then, the state would know better to enact its laws. The state has so freely
adapted and accepted the notion to normalize and moreover eradicate
discrimination against the LGBT community in all forms there is. However, it
simply cannot move forward in solidifying what seems to be the deal to total
acceptance and equality because it has laws that are in contrast with each other.
It has been decades since we have amended and revised our statues and
amending such laws may take time and must undergo though rough research and
various input to ensure that in giving one’s perception of acceptance and
freedom, does not take away others. In conclusion, the Philippines is not yet
ready for such change as it demands for time.