G.R. No.

 217910 - JESUS NICARDO M. FALCIS III, Petitioner v.

CIVIL REGISTRAR-GENERAL, Respondent; LGBTS CHRISTIAN
CHURCH, INC., REVEREND CRESCENCIO "CEEJA Y"
AGBAYANI JR., MARLON FELIPE, and MARIA ARLYN "SUGAR"
IBANEZ, Petitioners-in-intervention; A TTY. FERNANDO P. PERITO,
Intervenor; and ATTYS. RONALDO T. REYES, JEREMY I.
GATDULA, CRISTINA A. MONTES, AND RUFINO POLICAPRIO
III, Intervenors-oppositors.
Promulgated:
September 3,
X -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCURRING OPINION
JARDELEZA, J.:
Justice Scalia: "I'm curious... when did it become
unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from
marriage? Seventeen ninety-one? Eighteen sixty-eight,
when the Fourteen Amendment was adopted? xx x"
Ted: "When - may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical
question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit
interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional
to assign children to separate schools?" x x x Courts decide
there are constitutional rights when they have before
them a case that presents the issue, and when they know -
and society knows - enough about the issue to make
informed decisions.'  '
I'
I vote to DISMISS the petition, riot the idea of marriage equality.
I
Petitioner Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III (petitioner) is not the proper
party to assert a liberty interest in same-sex marriage. He did not suffer any
injury as a result of the enforcement of Articles 1 and 2 of Executive Order
(EO) No. 209, otherwise known as "The Family Code of the Philippines"
(Family Code). The subsequent intervention by Reverend Crescencio
"Ceejay" Agbayani, Jr. (Rev. Ceejay), Marlon Felipe (Marlon) of LGTBS
Christian Church (LGTBS Church), and Maria Arlyn "Sugar" Ibafiez
(Sugar),2 (collectively, the two couples), did not cure this defect in the
petition.
Exchange between United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and lawyer Theodore
Olson,
during the Oral Arguments for Hollingsworth et. al. v. Perry et. al., 570 U.S. 693 (2013), as
cited in
David Boies and Theodore Olson, Redeeming the Dream, Proposition 8 and the Struggle for
Marriage
Equality, (2014), p. 254.
2 Sugar is in a romantic and sexual relationship with Joanne Reena "JR" Gregorio. JR,
however, did not
join Sugar in filing the petition-in-intervention. See Rollo, p. 137.
/
Concurring Opinion 2 G.R. No. 217910
I also find dismissal to be proper because direct recourse to the Comi
in this case is unwarranted. Petitioner asserts that he raises legal questions,
principally that Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code violate his fundamental
right to enter into a same-sex marriage. This, however, cannot be farther
from the truth. The issues he raises implicate underlying questions of fact
which, in tum, condition the constitutionality of the legal provisions he
questions.3 In his exuberant rush to bring this case directly to the Court as
both lead party and counsel, petitioner chose to skip building a factual
foundation of record upon which the Court can make an informed judgment.
The underlying questions of fact that underpin his legal argument include
whether: (a) couples of the same-sex can satisfy the essential requirements
of marriage equally as heterosexual couples; (b) procreation is an essential
requirement of marriage; (c) couples! of the same-sex can raise children
 equally as well as heterosexual couples; ( d) Filipino tradition accepts samesex
marriage; and (e) the LGBTS Church is a religion whose members,
including the two couples, hold a sindere belief in same-sex marriage as a
central tenet of their faith.
I
A
The petition presents no actual case or controversy.
There is an actual case or controversy when the case is appropriate or
ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the
court would amount to an advisory opinion. 4 This means that there must be a
conflict of legal rights or an assertion of opposite legal claims which can be
resolved on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. An abstract dispute,
in stark contrast, only seeks for an opinion that advises what the law would
be on hypothetical state of facts.5 Furthermore, a case is ripe for adjudication
when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the
individual challenging it. Something must have been accomplished or
performed by either branch of Government before a court may come into the
picture, and a petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or
threatened injury to him/her as a result of the challenged action. 6
On its face, it presents a hypothetical and contingent event, not ripe
for adjudication, which is hinged on petitioner's future plan of settling
down with a person of the same-sex.
Ermita-Ma/ate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. et al. v. The Honorable City
Mayor of
Manila, G.R. No. L-24693, October 23, 1967, 21 SCRA 449, 451-452, citing O
'Gorman & Young v.
Harford Fire Insurance, Co.,  283 U.S. 251 (1931).
4 Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council,  G.R. No.
178552, October
5, 2010, 632 SCRA 146, 176.
Guingona v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125532, July 10, 1998, 292 SCRA 402, 413-414.
6 Province of North Cotabato v. Government, G.R.1:-Jo. 183591, October 14, 2008, 586
SCRA 402,451.
(
Concurring Opinion 3 G.R. No. 217910
Petitioner alleged that "the prohibition against the right to marry the
same-sex injures [his] plans to settle down and have a companion for life in
his beloved country."7 Yet as of the filing of the petition, petitioner has no
partner. He lamented that his "ability to find and enter into a long-term
monogamous same-sex relationship is impaired because of the absence of a
legal incentive for gay individuals to seek such relationship."8 Significantly,
however, even if he has a partner, petitioner admitted in open court that it is
not automatic that his partner might want to marry him.9 Thus, petitioner
cannot, did not or even attempted to, file an application for marriage license
before the civil registry of his residenc~.
Consequently, the Civil Registrar General (CRG) or any other official
in any of the branches of the government has nothing to act upon. They
could not and have not performed an act which injured or would injure
petitioner's asserted right. It is clear that petitioner's cause of action does not
exist.
B
Petitioner has no legal standing to file the suit.
Standing or locus standi is defined as the right of appearance in a
court of justice on a given question. 10 To determine whether a party has
standing, the direct injury test is applied. 11 Under this test, the person who
impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial
interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as
a result of its enforcement. 12
Despite this, however, there have been cases wherein the Court has
allowed the following non-traditional suitors to bring a case before it despite
lack of direct injury:
1. For taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of
 public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional;
2. For voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the
validity of the election law in question;
3. For concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues
raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled
early;
4. For legislators, there must be a claim that the official action
complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators; 13
5. For associations, its members must be affected by the action; 14 and
7 Rollo,  p. 12.
8 Id.  at 12. I
9 TSN of the Oral Arguments dated June 19, 2018, pp. 67-68.
10 Davidv. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 160,216.
II /d.at217.
12 People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56, 89 ( 1937).
13 David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, supra note IO at 220-221.
'f
Concurring Opinion 4 G.R. No. 217910
6. For those bringing suit on behalf of third parties, the litigant
must have suffered an 'injury-in-fact,' thus giving him or her a
"sufficiently concrete interest" in the outcome of the issue in
dispute; the litigant must have a close relation to the third party;
and there must exist some hindrance to the third party's ability to
protect h1. s or h er own m. terests. 15
In this case, petitioner is not in a long-term monogamous same-sex
relationship. He has not attempted to marry nor was prevented by the State
from doing so. This makes his lack of direct interest in the enforcement of
the assailed provisions of the Family Code patent.
Neither does petitioner qualify as a taxpayer as he has not alleged
illegal disbursement of public funds or that a tax measure is involved in this
case. He does not assail the validity of an election law, so he also does not
have standing as a voter. Finally, he is not a legislator nor an association and
therefore cannot claim standing as such.
C
The petition-in-intervention cannot cure the defects of the petition.
An intervention is merely ancillary and supplemental to an existing
litigation. It is not an independent action. It presupposes the pendency of a
suit in a court of competent jurisdiction; in other words, jurisdiction over the
same is governed by jurisdiction over the main action. Perforce, a court
which has no jurisdiction over the principal action has no jurisdiction over a
complaint-in-intervention. 16
i
I
I
As stated earlier, the petition b~fore Us lacks the essential requisites
for judicial review. This ousts the Court of jurisdiction to take cognizance of
the same. More, jurisprudence instructs that a petition-in-intervention cannot
create an actual controversy for the main petition. The cause of action must
be made out by the allegations of the petition without the aid of any other
pleading. 17
In any event, the petition-in-intervention is, in itself, wanting and
cannot lend any validity to the main petition. The LGBTS Church, while
claiming to intervene on behalf of its members, failed to satisfy the
following requirements to successfully maintain third-party standing: ( 1) the
14 Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131719, May 25, 2004, 429 SCRA 81,
96. See also
Godinez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154330, February 15, 2007, 516 SCRA 24 and Purok
Bagong
Silang Association, Inc. v. Yuipco, G.R. No. 135092, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 382.
15 White light Corporation v. City ~f Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009, 576
SCRA 416, 430-
431.
 16 Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Campa, Jr., G.R. No. 185979, March 16, 2016, 787 SCRA
476, 498,
citing Asian Terminals v. Bautista,  G.R. No. 16690 I, October 27, 2006, 505 SCRA 748, 763.
17 De Borja v. Pinalakas na Ugnayan ng Maliliit na Mangingisda ng Luzon, Mindanao at
Visayas, G.R.
Nos. 185320 & 185348, April 19, 2017, 823 SCRA 550,570.
0
Concurring Opinion 5 G.R. No. 217910
litigant must have suffered an 'injury-in-fact,' thus g1vmg him/her a
"sufficiently concrete interest" in the outcome of the case in dispute; (2) the
litigant must have a close relation to the third party; and (3) there must be
some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his/her own interests. 18
The first and third elements are missing. As will be discussed in detail later,
the LGBTS Church failed to show how the challenged law injures it and its
members. On the other hand, the filing of the petition-in-intervention by the
two couples, who are members of the LGBTS Church, proved that they are
sufficiently capable to acting to protect their own interest. Any invocation of
third party-standing is thus misplaced.
D
i
I
Neither can the transcendental importance doctrine save the petition
I
and the petition-in-intervention. This doctrine dispenses only with the
requirement of locus standi. It does not override the requirements of actual
and justiciable controversy, a condition sine qua non for the exercise of
judicial power. 19
Very recently in Gios-Samar, Inc. v. Department of Transportation
and Communications,20 the Court held that mere invocation of the
transcendental importance doctrine cannot, absent a showing that the issue
raised is one of law, excuse a violation of the rule on hierarchy of courts.
Hence, when a question before the Court involves the
determination of factual issues indispensable to the resolution of a legal
issue, the Court will refuse to resolve the factual question regardless of the
invocation of the transcendental or paramount importance of the case. 21
II
As stated at the outset, the petition and the petition-in-intervention
raise issues which the Court cannot resolve in the absence of a factual
foundation of record. Their decision to bring the case directly before the
Court is unwarranted and constitutes ground for the outright dismissal of the
petition.
While the Court has original and concurrent jurisdiction with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) over petitions
seeking the issuance of writs of certiorari and prohibition, litigants do not
have unfettered discretion to invoke the Court's original jurisdiction. The
doctrine of hierarchy of courts dictates that direct recourse to this Court is
allowed only to resolve questions of law.22
18 White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009, 576
SCRA 416, 430-
431.
19 De Borja v. Pinalakas na Ugnayan ng Mali/iii na Mangingisda ng Luzon, Mindanao at
Visaya.s·, supra
note 17 at 578. Citations omitted.
20 G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019.
21 Id.
22 Gios-Samar, Inc. v. Department of Transportation and Communications, supra note 20.
I
Concurring Opinion 6 G.R. No. 217910
I note that petitioner did couch his petlt10n and the petltlon-inintervention
in a manner as to purport to present a pure legal question, that
is, whether Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code are constitutional. He argued
that the assailed provisions are unconstitutional because they violate his ( and
 other homosexuals'): (1) due process right/liberty to marry a person of the
same-sex;23 (2) right to equal protection of the laws;24 and (3) right to found
a family within a marriage in accord with their religious convictions under
Section 3(1), Article VX of the Constitution.25 Before this Court can reach
the issue of constitutionality, howevei, it first needs to determine whether
petitioner's asserted liberty interest :exists. The query at the outset is,
therefore, is: "Did petitioner lose something that fits into one of the three
protected categories of life, liberty, o'r property?"26 If in the affirmative,
the next question to ask is: "Is it a fundamental right protected by the
Constitution?"
I had occasion to express my views on the concept of fundamental
rights under constitutional law in my Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in
Versoza v. People of the Philippines, et al.27 decided today. They bear some
repetition here.
A
The concept of fundamental rights, once described as "liberties that
operate as trumps,"28 was first extensively covered by the Court, through
Chief Justice Puno, in Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas.29  There, the Court, citing Gerald Gunther, traced its
history and development in the context of American constitutional equal
protection analysis.30
The recognition of an asserted liberty interest as "fundamental" has
significant legal consequences. Traditionally, liberty interests are protected
only against arbitrary government interference. If the government can show
a rational  basis for believing that its interference advances a legitimate
23 Rollo,  p. 16.
24 Id.  at 20
25 Id.  11-12; Section 3 provides: The State shall defend:
(1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and
the demands
of responsible parenthood; x x x
26 See People v. larraiiaga, G.R. No. 138874, February 3, 2004, 421 SCRA 530, 555-556
(2004).
x x x In evaluating a due process claim, the court must determine whether life, liberty,
or
property interest exists, and if so, what procedures are constitutionally required to protect
that right.
Otherwise stated, the due process clause calls for two separate inquiries in evaluating an
alleged
violation: did the plaintiff lose something that fits into one of the three protected
categories of life,
liberty, or property?; and, ifso, did the plaintiffreteive the minimum measure of procedural
protection
warranted under the circumstances? (Emphasis supplied.)
27 G.R. No. 184535, August 28, 2019. i
28 Easterbrook, "Implicit and Explicit Rights of Association," Vol. 10 Harvard Journal of
Law and Public
Policy (1987), pp. 9 I -92. ]
19  G.R. No. 148208, December 15, 2004, 446 SCRA 299.
30 /d.at371-374.
!
Concurring Opinion 7 G.R. No. 217910
legislative objective, a claim to a liberty interest may fail. 31 Where, however,
a liberty interest has been accorded an "elevated" status - that is, by
characterizing it as a right ( or a fundamental right), then the government is
subject to a higher  burden of proof to justify intrusions into these interests,
namely, the requirements of strict scrutiny in equal protection cases32 and
that of compelling state interest in due process cases. 33 As the United States
Supreme Court (US Supreme Court) has warned, affixing the label
"fundamental" to such liberty interests would place them outside the arena
of public debate and legislative action.34 Resultantly, and as is also true in
this jurisdiction, fundamental rights have been deemed to include only those
 basic liberties explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the
Constitution. 35
B
There seems to me little disagreement as to the "fundamental" nature
of an asserted liberty interest when the same can be read from the text of the
Bill of Rights of the Constitution itself. Thus, when a state act is alleged to
have implicated an explicit "fundamental right," i.e., a right textually found
in the Bill of Rights, the Court has been wont to subject the government to a
higher burden to justify its challenged action: This the Court did in
Ebralinag v. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu,36 (on religious
beliefs); Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission,37 (on the right of the people to
information on matters of public concern); Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of
Justice, 38
( on the right to freedom of expression, right to privacy, and right
against unreasonable searches and seizures); Samahan ng mga Progresibong
Kabataan (SP ARK) v. Quezon City,3f ( on the right to travel); Chavez v.
Gonzales,40 (on the freedom of the press); Newsounds Broadcasting
!
31 Crump, "How do the Courts Really Discover U~enumerated Fundamental
Rights - Cataloguing the
Methods of Judicial Alchemy," 19 Harv. J. L. & Pub! Pol'y 795 (1996), pp. 799-800.
32 See Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Central ng Pilipinas, supra note
29.
33 See Obergefellv. Hodges, 576 U.S. _(2015).
34 Id.
35 Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018, citing J. Brion, Separate Opinion
in Biraogo v.
Philippine Truth Commission o/2010, G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010, 637 SCRA 78,
359-360.
36 G.R. No. 95770, March 1, 1993, 219 SCRA 256. The Court annulled and set aside orders
expelling
petitioners from school, thereby upholding their right under the Constitution to refuse to
salute the
Philippine flag as guaranteed under Section 5, Article Ill.
37 G.R. No. L-72119, May 29, 1987, 150 SCRA 530. The CSC was ordered, via mandamus,
to open its
register of eligibles for the position of sanitarian, and to confirm or deny, the civil service
eligibility of
certain identified individuals for said position in the Health Department of Cebu City, in
furtherance of
the fundamental right provided under Section 7, Article Ill of the Constitution.
38 G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014, 716 SCRA 237. The Court struck down as
unconstitutional
Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 of the Cybercrime Law for being violative of Sections 4, 3, and
2.
respectively, of Article III of the Constitution.
39 J. Leonen Separate Opinion in Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan
(SPARK)  v. Quezon City,
G.R. No. 225442, August 8, 2017, 835 SCRA 350. This case involved a challenge against
curfew
ordinances for minors for being violative of Section 6, Article Ill of the Constitution. There,
the Court
chose to apply the strict scrutiny !est and found that while the government was able to show a
compelling
state interest, it failed to show that the regulation set forth was the least restrictive means to
protect such
interest or the means chosen is narrowly tailored to accomplish the interest.
40 G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008, 545 SCRA 441. The Court nullified the official
government
statements warning the media against airing the alleged wiretapped conversation between the
President
 and other personalities. According to the Court, any attempt to restrict the exercise guaranteed
under
J
Concurring Opinion 8 G.R. No. 217910
Network, Inc. v. Dy,41 (on the right to free speech and freedom of the press);
and Kabataan Party-List v. Commission on Elections,42 (on the right to
vote).
C
How should the Court proceed if the right asserted to be fundamental
is not explicitly found in the Bill of Rights or other provisions of the
Constitution, or where the fundamental right is asserted to flow from
generally-stated rights such as due process and equal protection? Justice
Harlan of the US Supreme Court has famously noted that "the full scope of
the liberty guaranteed by the Due P~ocess Clause cannot be found in, or
limited by, the precise terms of the SRecific guarantees elsewhere provided
in the Constitution."43
I
I
I
In this jurisdiction, this Court ha1s had occasion to rule on assertions of
unenumerated fundamental rights:
In the 1924 case of People v. Pomar,44 and remm1scent of the
Lochner-era  rulings, this Court declared unconstitutional provisions of law
which required employers to pay a woman employee, who may become
pregnant, her wages for 30 days before and 30 days after confinement.
Citing a long line of US Supreme Court Lochner-era decisions, this Court
found that the right to liberty includes the right to enter into (and
terminate) contracts.45
Section 4, Article JII must be met with "an examination so critical that only a danger that is
clear and
present would be allowed to curtail it."
41 G.R. Nos. 170270 & 179411, April 2, 2009, 583 SCRA 333, 334. The Court held that
respondents'
actions, which ranged from withholding permits to operate to the physical closure of those
stations under
color of legal authority, failed to pass the test of strict scrutiny which it deemed appropriate to
assess
content-based restrictions on speech. According to the Court, "[a]s content regulation cannot
be done in
the absence of any compelling reason, the burden lies with the government to establish such
compelling
reason to infringe the right to free expression." Due to the government's failure to show a
compelling
state interest, the Court granted petitioner's prayer for a writ of mandamus and ordered
respondents to
immediately issue the requisite permits.
42 G.R. No. 221318, December 16, 2015, 777 SCRA 574. A challenge was made against a
COMELEC
resolution setting a shorter deadline for voter registration, one outside of the period provided
by Section 8
of Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise known as the "Voter's Registration Act of 1996." The
Court found
that existing laws grant the COMELEC the power to fix other periods and dates for pre-
election activities
only if the same cannot be reasonably held within the period provided by law. Since the
COMELEC was
unable to justify why the mandate of continuing voter registration cannot be reasonably held
within the
period provided, the Court nullified the deadline set by the COMELEC for being unduly
restrictive of the
people's right to vote.
 43 Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 543 (1961), .J. Harlan Dissenting Opinion; see also my
Concurring
Opinion in Versoza on how the US Supreme Court has given "fundamental" status to
otherwise
unenumerated rights.
44 G.R. No. L-22008, 46 Phil. 440 (1924).
45 x x x [S]aid section creates a term or condition in every contract made by every person,
firm, or
corporation with any woman who may, during the course of her employment, become
pregnant, and a
failure to include in said contract the terms fixed by the law, makes the employer criminally
liable
subject to a fine and imprisonment. Clearly, therefore, the law has deprived, every person,
firm, or
corporation owning or managing a factory, shop or place of labor of any description within
the Philippine
Islands, of his right to enter into contracts of employment upon such terms as he and the
employee may
agree upon. The law creates a term in every such contract, without the consent of the parties.
Such
persons are, therefore, deprived of their liberty to contract. The [C]onstitution of the
Philippine Islands
guarantees to every citizen his liberty and one of his liberties is the liberty to contract.
(Emphasis
supplied.) Id. at 454. I
6
Concurring Opinion 9 G.R. No. 217910
Philippine adherence to this ruling would, however, be short-lived.46
As Justice Fernando would later explain in Edu v. Ericta,47 the decision in
Pomar was largely brought about by the fact that "our Supreme Court had
no other choice as the Philippines was then under the United States," where
only a year before Pomar, a statute providing for minimum wages was
declared in Adkins to be constitutionally infirm. The Court ( and the
Constitutional Convention) would adopt a more deferential attitude towards
government regulation of economic relations and covering such subjects as
"collective bargaining, security of t~nure, minimum wages, compulsory
I arbitration, the regulation of tenancy as well as the issuance of securities,
and control of public services." 48
'
In the meantime, and taking its cue from the US Supreme Court, this
Court would also go on to recognize unenumerated, yet fundamental, noneconomic
rights. For example, although the Bill of Rights speaks only of a
right of privacy over communication and correspondence, the Court, in the
1968 case of Morfe v. Mutuc,49 adopted the reasoning in Griswold and
recognized a constitutional right to personal privacy. In Oposa v. Factoran,
Jr.,50  this Court accorded fundamental right status to an asserted liberty
interest in "a balanced and healthful ecology" under Section 16, Article II of
the 1987 Constitution. In Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., 51 which involved a number
of challenges against the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 10354,52 this
Court recognized the constitutional right of parents to exercise parental
control over their minor-child and a liberty interest in the access to safe and
non-abortifacient contraceptives hinged on a right to health under Section
15, Article Il53 and other sections of the Constitution. In Capin-Cadiz v.
Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc. ,54 the Court held that the constitutional
46 See Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940); Antamok Goldfields Mining Company v.
Court  qf
Industrial Relations, 70 Phil. 341 (I 940). See also J.  Fernando's Opinion in Alfanta v.
Noe, G.R. No. L-
32362, September 19, 1973, 53 ~CRA 76.
47 G .R. No. L-32096, October 24, 1970, 35 SCRA 481.
48 Id.  at 493. Citations omitted. Justice Fernando further writes:
 x x x [T]o erase any doubts, the Constitutional Convention saw to it that the concept
of laissez-faire was
rejected. It entrusted to our government the responsibility of coping with social and
economic
problems with the commensurate power of control over economic affairs. Thereby it
could live up to
its commitment to promote the general welfare through state action. No constitutional
objection to
regulatory measures adversely affecting property rights, especially so when public
safety is the
aim, is likely to be heeded, unless of course on the clearest and most satisfactory proof of
invasion
of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. xx x
xxxx
It is in the light of such rejection of the laissez-faire principle that during the Commonwealth
era, no
constitutional infirmity was found to have attached to legislation covering such subjects as
collective
bargaining, security of tenure, minimum wages, compulsory arbitration, the regulation of
tenancy as well
as the issuance of securities, and control of public services. So it is likewise under the
Republic this
Court having given the seal of approval to more favorable tenancy laws, nationalization of the
retail
trade, limitation of the hours of labor, imposition of price control, requirement of separation
pay for one
month, and social security scheme. (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.) Id. at 491-493.
49 G.R. No. L-20387, January 31, 1968, 22 SCRA 424.
50 G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 792. I
51 G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014, 721 SCRA 146. j
52 Also known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012.
53 CONSTITUTION, Art. II, Sec. 15: '
The State shall protect and pr0mote the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness
among them.
54 G.R. No. 187417, February 24, 2016, 785 SCRA 18. !
Concurring Opinion 10 G.R. No. 217910
right to personal liberty and privacy should be read to include a woman's
right to choose whether to marry and to decide whether she will bear
and rear her child outside of marriage. 55
Most recently, this Court in Republic v. Manalo,56 applying equal
protection analysis, upheld, pursuant to a fundamental right to marry, a
liberty interest on the part of a Filipino spouse to be recapacitated to marry,
in cases where a valid foreign divorce has been obtained.
III
Unlike the case of rights that can be located on the text of the Bill of
Rights, the rules with respect to locating unenumerated "fundamental"
rights, however, are not clear. According to Justice Harlan, speaking in the
context of identifying the full scope of liberty protected under the Due
Process Clause, the endeavor essentially entails an attempt at finding a
balance between "respect for the liberty of the individual x x x and the
demands of organized society."57
The question that presents itself then is how one determines whether
an implied liberty interest being asserted is "fundamental," as to call for the
application of strict scrutiny. For its part, the US Supreme Court has
attempted, over time, to craft principled formulations on how to identify
such "unenumerated" or "implied" rights:
x x x [T]he Court has used a wide variety of methods,
ranging from the restrained approach of locating protected
interests in the constitutional ltext to the generous test of
evaluating interests by the importance they have for
contemporary individuals. Because the Justices do not
 uniformly agree upon these methods, it is also
understandable that opinions for the Court rarely express
consensus about the way the methods are chosen, or
whether they fit into the hierarchy, or whether some
methods are preferable in some situations and others in
other situations.xx x
These methods lie along a continuum, all the way from
hair-trigger formulas that can support a cornucopia of
fundamental rights to stingy theories that protect virtually
nothing that is not undeniably enumerated. x x x [n]o one
method is comprehensive or exclusive, and indeed, the
Justices themselves often have used two or three different
theories in combination while analyzing a single interest. x
x x58 (Citations omitted.)
55  See J. Jardeleza Concurring Opinion, id. at 49-50.
56 G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018.
57 J. Harlan Dissenting Opinion in Poe v. Ullman, supra note 43 at 542.
58 Crump, "How Do the Courts Really Discover Unenumerated Fundamental
Rights - Cataloguing the
Methods of Judicial Alchemy,"  19 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 795 (1996), p. 839. In his article,
Crump
surveyed more than 10 methodologies used by the court for recognizing unenumerated
fundamental
rights. These include the "histC'fy and tradition" test under Washington v. Glucksberg, 521
U.S. 702
6
Concurring Opinion 11 G.R. No. 217910
This Court has not laid down clear guidelines on this matter. Thus,
reference to American scholarly commentary is again instructive.
In his article An Excess of Methods: Identifying Implied Fundamental
Rights in the Supreme Court, Robert Farrell wrote that the US Supreme
Court uses "a multiplicity of methods of identifying implied fundamental
rights."59 After a survey of US Supreme Court cases, Farrell has classified
the different methods used by the Court in categorizing certain rights as
fundamental. These are either because the asserted rights: (1) are
important;60 (2) are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty61 or implicitly
guaranteed by the Constitution;62 (3) are deeply rooted in the Nation's
history and tradition;63 (4) need pro~ection from government action that
I
' (I 997), the "essential requisite for ordered liberty" test under Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S.
319 ( 1937),
to the "importance to the individual test" under Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
59 Farrell, "An Excess of Methods: Identifying Implied Fundamental Rights in the Supreme
Court,  26 St.
Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 203 (2007), p. 209.
60 Id.  at 217-221. The US Supreme Court used the "importance" test in Skinner v.
Oklahoma,  3 16 U.S.
535 (1942), in striking down a state statute providing for the sterilization of habitual
criminals, which by
law was limited to perpetrators of felonies involving moral turpitude. The US Supreme Court
did not
uphold the fundamental right to procreate on the basis of any language in the Bill of Rights;
rather, it
simply asserted, based on an incontrovertible fact of human existence, that marriage and
procreation are
fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. This appears to be the
test/approach
considered and used by the Court in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. l01083, July 30, 1993,
224 SCRA
792.
61 Farrell, "An Excess of Methods: Identifying Implied Fundamental Rights in the Supreme
Court, supra
 note 59 221-224. In Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), the US Supreme Court
confined
fundamental liberties to those that are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" such that
"neither
liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed." Palko concerned a state statute which
allowed for
the re-trial of an accused if made upon the instance of the State. There, the accused, who was
initially
convicted for the crime of murder in the second degree and sentenced to life in prison, was,
upon re-trial,
convicted for the crime of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. An action to
challenge said
state statute was brought before the US Supreme Court which thereafter upheld it, saying
"[t]he right to
trial by jury and the immunity from prosecution except as the result of an indictment may
have value and
importance. Even so, they are not of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty. To
abolish them is
not to violate a 'principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as
to be
ranked as fundamental."' See also Crump, "How Do the Courts Really Discover
Unenumerated
Fundamental Rights - Cataloguing the Methods of Judicial Alchemy,"  I 9 Harv. J. L. & Pub.
Pol'y 795
(1996), p. 871.
62 Farrell, "An Excess of Method~: Identifying Implied Fundamental Rights in the Supreme
Court, supra
note 59 at 224-225. The US Supreme Court also used the "implicit" test in San Antonio
Independent
School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. I, 135 (1973), where it rejected an asserted "implied
right to
education." In seeming rejection of the importance test, the US Supreme Court declared:
x x x [T]he importance of a service performed by the State does not determine whether it
must be
regarded as fundamental for purposes of examination under the Equal Protection Clause. x x
x
xxxx
It is not the province of this Court to create substantive constitutional rights in the name of
guaranteeing equal protection of the laws. Thus, the key to discovering whether education is
"fundamental" is not to be found in comparisons of the relative societal significance of
education, as
opposed to subsistence or housing. Nor is it to be found by weighing whether education is as
important as
the right to travel. Rather, the answer lies in assessing whether there is a right to education
explicitly or
implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution.
Education, of course, is not among the rights afforded explicit protection under our
Federal
Constitution. Nor do we find any basis for saying it is implicitly so protected. As we have
said, the
undisputed importance of education will not, alone, cause this Court to depart from the
usual
standard for reviewing a State's social and economic legislation. (Emphasis
supplied.) Id. at 30-35.
63 Farrell, "An Excess of Methods: /dent{fying Implied Fundamental Rights  in.  the Supreme
Court, supra
note 59 at 225-235. Under this approach, the test of whether or not a right is fundamental is to
be
determined by whether or not it is rooted in our Nation's history and traditions that is, whether
the
asserted liberty has been the subject of traditional OJi historical protection (See also
Crump, "How Do the
 Courts Really Discover Unenumerated Fundamental Rights - Cataloguing the Methods of
Judicial
I
Alchemy," supra note 58 at 860). In Bowers v. Hardwick, the US Supreme Court upheld a
Georgia
I t
Concurring Opinion 12 G.R. No. 217910
shocks the conscience;64 (5) are necessarily implied from the structure of
govemment65 or from the structure of the Constitution;66
( 6) provide
necessary access to government processes;67 and (7) are identified in
previous Supreme Court precedents.68
sodomy statute. It claimed that the right asserted, which it described as "the claimed
constitutional right
I
of homosexuals to engage in acts of sodomy" was not considered fundamental within the
nation's history
and traditions, as is evidenced by a slew of anti-sodomy acts from the time of the enactment
of the Bill of
Rights to about the time the case was decided. See ~lso the 1934 case of Snyder v.
Massachusetts.  291
U.S. 97 (1934 ), where an accused sought to chall~nge his conviction for the crime of murder
on the
I
ground that he was denied permission to attend a view, which was ordered by the court on
motion of the
prosecution, at the opening of the trial. The jurors, under a sworn bailiff, visited the scene of
the crime,
accompanied by the judge, the counsel for both parties, and the court stenographer. The Court
affirmed
the conviction as there was no showing that there was a history or tradition in the State of
Massachusetts
affording the accused such right. It held that "[t]he constitution and statutes and judicial
decisions of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts are the authentic forms through which the sense of justice
of the
People of that Commonwealth expresses itself in law. We are not to supersede them on the
ground that
they deny the essentials of a trial because opinions may differ as to their policy or fairness."
For more
recent applications, see Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. I 10, 130 (1989) and Washington
v.
Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). See, however, J. Kennedy's Opinion in Obergefell v.
Hodges, 576
U.S._ (2015), where the Court held that "[h]istory and tradition guide and discipline this
inquiry but do
not set its outer boundaries. x x x That method respects our history and learns from it without
allowing
the past alone to rule the present."
64 Farrell, "An Excess of Methods: Identifying Implied Fundamental Rights in the Supreme
Court, supra
note 59 at 235-237. In the case of Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), the US Supreme
Court held
that the act of the police in arranging to have a suspect's stomach pumped to produce
evidence of illegal
drugs constituted a kind of conduct that "shocks the conscience" and therefore violated the
Due Process
Clause of the Constitution. This test was again seen appropriate to evaluate "abusive
executive action,"
which in said case was a police car chase which resulted in the death of one of those being
chased. The
 Court eventually found in favor of government as what was determinant of whether the
challenged action
"shocks the conscience" was not negligence or deliberate indifference but whether there was
"an intent to
harm suspects physically or worsen their legal plight." Farrell, "An Excess of Methods:
Identifying
Implied Fundamental Rights in the Supreme Court, 26 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 203 (2007),
p. 236.
65 Farrell, "An Excess of Methods: Identifying Implied Fundamental Rights in the Supreme
Court, supra
note 59 at 237-239. In Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), the US Court considered
the
constitutional "right to travel interstate" which was alleged to have been infringed by a
Connecticut
statute which provided that residents cannot receive welfare benefits until they had lived in
the state for
at least one year. According to the Court, while unwritten in the Constitution, the right to
travel is
"fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union," which was, by and large, made up of
several
sovereign states coming together.
The New Union would not have been possible, and would have made no sense, unless
citizens of that
Union were free to travel from one end of it to another. Farrell, "An Excess of Methods:
Identifying
Implied Fundamental Rights in the Supreme Court, 26 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 203 (2007),
pp. 237-
239.
66 Farrell, "An Excess of Methods: Identifying Implied Fundamental Rights in the Supreme
Court, supra
note 59 at 240-241. In Griswo!d v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), which dealt with the
right of
married couples to use contraceptives, the US Supreme Court, speaking through J. Douglas,
"spoke of
the 'penumbras formed by emanations' from the guarantees of specific kinds of privacy in the
Bill of
Rights and used these x x x as a basis for finding a more generalized, more encompassing
right of
privacy." Farrell, "An Excess of Methods: Identifying Implied Fundamental Rights in the
Supreme Court,
26 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 203 (2007), p. 240.)
67 Farrell writes that the US Court has found implied constitutional rights to vote
(See Reynolds v. Sims,
377 U.S. 533 [1964]) and to some level of access to court processes (See Griffin v.
Illinois,  351 U.S. 12
[1956] and Boddie v. Connecticut,  401 U.S. 371 [1971]) on the ground that "legislation and
adjudication
in the courts are essential elements of a democracy and that a limitation on access to these
two
institutions is a threat to the institution of government itself." Farrell, "An Excess of Methods:
Identifying
Implied Fundamental Rights in the Supreme Court,126 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 203 (2007),
pp. 241-
245. i
68 In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (I 992), the
Supreme
Court used stare decisis, in particular its decision i~ the case of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113
(1093). to
explain the nature of the fundamental right to privacy as it related to abortion. Roe, in turn,
also
enumerated several cases from which it understood to have recognized a broad and
generalized right to
 privacy (which includes a woman's decision whethe~ or not to terminate her pregnancy) that
is part of the
Fourteenth Amendment "liberty." (Farrell, "An Excess of Methods: Identifying Implied
Fundamental
R;ghls ;n  the Supreme Court, 26 St. Lou;, U. Pub. L. Rev. 203 (2007), p 245-246.) Th;s
appmac/
Concurring Opinion 13 G.R. No. 217910
There is no one mode of constitutional interpretation that has been
recognized as appropriate under all circumstances. In fact, one would find
critiques for every approach in scholarly commentaries on the subject.69
Nevertheless, and despite the particular shortcomings of each individual
approach, it is my view that the Court should endeavor to be deliberate and
open about its choice of approach in fundamental rights cases. This, to my
mind, would help greatly not only in furthering the public's understanding of
the Court's decisions in complex constitutional cases; it would reinforce the
credibility of Our decisions, by exacting upon the Court and its members the
duty to clearly and consistently articulate the bases of its decisions in
difficult constitutional cases.
A
The method by which the US Supreme Court determined the existence
of the fundamental right to same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges 70
( Obergefell) is instructive.
There, the US Supreme Court considered not only the ancient history
of marriage but also :ts development through time. To quote Justice
Kennedy: "The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change."71
The US Supreme Court also noted the legal and societal progression of the
rights of homosexuals from being condemned as immoral to being accorded
protection under the law, as depicted in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. 72 It
must be stressed, however, that the US Supreme Court did not receive and
evaluate evidence on these matters for the first time on appeal. The plaintiffs
I
in Obergefell did not file a suit directly to the US Supreme Court. Rather,
they instituted original actions before t4eir respective Federal District Courts
which conducted trials and hearings. Thus, the facts upon which the US
Supreme Court based its decision were already a matter of record.
In DeBoer v. Synder (DeBoer),73 one of the cases that comprised
Obergefell, plaintiffs April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse challenged the validity
of the Michigan Marriage Amendment (MMA) which prohibited same-sex
marriage on the ground of violation of the due process and equal protection
clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. They claimed that they and their
children were injured by their ineligibility to petition for joint adoption
appears to have been used by this Court in People v. Pomar, 46 Phil. 440 ( 1924)
and J.  Jardeleza in his
Concurring Opinion in Capin-Cadiz v. Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc., G.R. No. 187417,
February 24,
2016, 785 SCRA 18.
69 For in depth discussions of the different methods and approaches, see Crump, "How do
the Courts
Really Discover Unenumerated Fundamental Rights - Cataloguing the Methods of Judicial
Alchemy,"
19 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 795 (1996); and Farrell, "An Excess of Methods: Identifying
Implied
Fundamental Rights in the Supreme Court,"  26 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 203 (2007).
70 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015).
71 Id.  at 2595.
72 539 U.S. 558 (2003). In Lawrence, the US Supreme Court reversed its earlier ruling
in Bowers v.
Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) and recognized a liberty of consensual sexual conduct.
73 772 F.3d 388 (2014). The District Court declared MMA and its implementing rules
unconstitutional
for violating the equal protection clause.
!
 Concurring Opinion 14 G.R. No. 217910
because the State of Michigan permits only a single person or, if married,
couples of opposite-sex, to adopt. 74 Thus, they argue that each of their three
children can have only one of them as his/her legal parent. In case tragedy
were to befall either DeBoer or Rowse, the other would have no legal rights
over their children. 75
The District Court assumed that the appropriate level of scrutiny is
rational basis test; hence, it framed the issue as whether the MMA
proscribed a conduct in a manner that is rationally-related to any conceivable
legitimate governmental purpose.76 It then declared that whether the
rationales for the Michigan laws furt~ered a legitimate state interest is a
"triable issue of fact" and held a nine-day trial on the issue. 77 The State
of Michigan offered the following reasons for excluding same-sex couples
from marriage: (1) to provide children with "biologically-connected" rolemodels
of both genders that are necessary to foster healthy psychological
development; (2) to avoid the unintended consequences that might result
from redefining marriage; (3) to uphold tradition and morality; and ( 4) to
promote the transition of "naturally procreative relationships into stable
unions."78
Both parties presented expert witnesses (which included
psychologists, sociologists, law professors, and historians) to prove their
respective arguments. The psychologist testified with respect to the
relation/non-relation of the quality of a person's child-rearing skills to
his/her sexual orientation. The sociologist testified about the stability of
same-sex couples and the progress of the children they raised as compared to
children raised by heterosexual married couples. The law professor spoke
about the effect of the MMA to children raised by same-sex couples if the
sole legal parent dies or is incapacitated. The historian narrated the history
and bases of civil marriages not only in Michigan but in every state in the
country.79
Meanwhile, similar to Deboer and also instructive here, is Perry v.
Schwarzenegger, 80 which involved two same-sex couples who challenged
the validity of "Proposition 8," a voter-enacted amendment to the California
Constitution restricting marriage to one between a man and a woman. Perry,
et al.  alleged that they were denied marriage licenses by their respective
county authorities on the basis of Proposition 8, which, in tum, deprived
them of their rights to due process and equal protection of the laws.81
Specifically, they asserted that the freedom to marry the person of one's
74 Deboer v. Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757, 760-761 (2014).
75 Obergefellv. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015).
76 Deboer v. Snyder, supra note 74.
77 Deboer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388,397 (2014).
78 Deboer v. Snyder, supra note 74 at 760.
79 Deboer v. Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757, 760, 761-768 (2014).
80 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (20 I 0). Note that Peny  is not :one of the cases that
comprise Obergefell.
81 Id.  at 927. The elected state officials of California, on the other hand, refused to defend the
constitutionality of Proposition 8, so this task was taken up by its proponents.
I
I
I I
Concurring Opinion 15 G.R. No. 217910
choice is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause.
Proposition 8 should thus be subjected to a heightened scrutiny under the
equal protection clause because gays and lesbians constitute a suspect class,
singled out for unequal treatment and discriminated based on sexual
on•e ntatl•o n. 82
Since the factual premises underlying Perry, et al. 's claim were
disputed, the US District Court for lthe Northern District of California
(California District Court) set the matter for trial. The action was tried for
more than two weeks (or from January 11 to 27, 2010).83 The California
District Court determined the following issues: ( 1) whether any evidence
 supports California's refusal to recognize marriage between two people of
the (same) sex; (2) whether any evidence shows California has an interest in
differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions; and (3) whether
the evidence shows Proposition 8 enacted a private moral view without
advancing a legitimate government interest. The parties were given full
opportunity to present evidence in support of their positions and
engaged in significant discovery procedures, including third-party
discovery, to build an evidentiary record.84
Perry, et al.  presented nine expert witnesses, which include historians,
economists, psychologists, political scientists, and a social epidemiologist,
who, inter alia,  testified that there is no meaningful difference between
same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. 85 Proposition 8 proponents, for
their part, presented only two expert witnesses. In the end, the California
District Court found that Proposition 8 proponents "failed to build a credible
factual record to support their claim that [the law] served a legitimate
government interest."86 It thereafter proceeded to declare Proposition 8
82 Id.  at 929.
83 Id.  The California District Court asked the parties to submit evidence to address
19 factual questions:
(I) the history of discrimination gays and lesbians have faced; (2) whether the characteristics
defining
gays and lesbians as a class might in any way affect their ability to contribute to society; (3)
whether
sexual orientation can be changed, and if so, whether gays and lesbians should be encouraged
to change
it; (4) the relative power of gays and lesbians, including successes of both pro-gay and
antigay
legislation; (5) the long-standing definition of marriage in California; (6) whether the
exclusion of samesex
couples from marriage leads to increased stability in opposite-sex marriage; (7) whether
permitting
same-sex couples to marry destabilizes opposite-sex marriage; (8) whether a married mother
and father
provide the optimal child-rearing environment; (9) whether excluding same-sex couples from
marriage
promotes this environment; (I 0) whether and how California has acted to promote these
interests in other
family law contexts; (11) whether or not Proposition 8 discriminates based on sexual
orientation or
gender or both; (12) whether the availability of opposite-sex marriage is a meaningful option
for gays
and lesbians; (13) whether the ban on same-sex marriage meaningfully restricts options
available to
heterosexuals; (14) whether requiring one man and one woman in marriage promotes
stereotypical
gender roles; (15) whether Proposition 8 was passed with a discriminatory intent; (16) the
voters'
motivation or motivations for supporting Proposition 8, including advertisements and ballot
literature
considered by California voters; ( 17) the difference in actual practice of registered domestic
partnerships,
civil unions, and marriage; (I 8) whether maITied couples are treated differently from
domestic partners in
governmental and non-governmental contexts; and (I 9) whether the right [to marriage]
asserted by Peny,
et al.,  is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and thus subject to strict
scrutiny under the
due process clause. Cited in David Boies and Theodore Olson, Redeeming the Dream,
Proposition 8 and
the Struggle for Marriage Equality, (2014), pp. 77-78.
84 Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 932.
85 Id.  at 934.
 86 Id.  at 932. ;r
Concurring Opinion 16 G.R. No. 217910
unconstitutional because the evidence shows, among others, that it does
nothing more than to enshrine in the Constitution the notion that oppositesex
couples are superior to same-sex couples.87
B
In this case, pet1t10ner and petitioners-in-intervention, as professed
homosexuals, gays and lesbians, assert a fundamental right to enter into
same-sex marriage. 88 They argue that the legal requirement that marriage be
a union between a male and a female violates their rights to due process89
and the equal protection of the laws.90 On the former, they claim that there is
no rational nexus between limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples and the
state interest of protecting marriage as the foundation of the family.91 They
assert that: homosexuals can fulfill the essential marital obligations,
heterosexuals are no better parents than homosexuals, and homosexuals can
raise children well in the same manner that heterosexuals can.92 With respect
to their equal protection claim, petitioner asserts that classification on the
basis of sexual orientation is suspect,93 because, among others, sexual
orientation is an immutable trait. Since the classification is suspect, strict
scrutiny review must be resorted to. Petitioner further argues that even
applying the rationality test, no substantial distinction can be made between
same-sex and opposite-sex couples, because gay couples can do everything
that opposite-sex couples are required to do by the Family Code, even if they
cannot by themselves procreate. 94
'
I To my mind, however, these conflated claims to violations of due
I
process and equal rights are uniformly anchored on assertions that present
triable questions of fact, the resolutfon of which needs the reception of
evidence. These questions, among oth6rs, include: (a) whether homosexuals,
I gays and lesbians can fulfill the essen~ial marital obligations; (b) whether or
how procreation is an essential marital obligation; ( c) whether homosexuals,
gays and lesbians can raise children in a manner as well as heterosexuals
can; ( d) whether Filipino tradition can accommodate/accept same-sex
marriage; and ( e) whether homosexuals are, and should be, treated as a
separate class.
87 Id.  at 1003. The defendant public officials of California elected not to appeal from the
ruling of the
California District Court. The proponents of Proposition 8, however, filed an appeal with the
Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court found the proponents have standing under federal
law to
defend Proposition S's constitutionality, but nevertheless affirmed the California District
Court on the
merits. On further appeal, the US Supreme Court found that the proponents have no standing
to appeal
the California District Court's ruling. It consequently vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit
Court of
Appeals and remanded the case to said court with the directive to dismiss the appeal for lack
of
jurisdiction. Hollingsworth et al. v. Perry et al., 570 U.S. 693 (2013).
88 Rollo,  p. 21.
89 Id.  at 16-20.
90 Id.  at 20-28.
91 Id.  at 16.
92 Id.  at 19.
93 Id.  at 27.
94 Id.  at 28. i
Concurring Opinion 17 G.R. No. 217910
With particular reference to equal protection, petitioner maintains that
classifying individuals by sexual orientation and gender, so as to distinguish
between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, is a suspect classification, thus
triggering strict scrutiny.95 He is reminded, however, that in Ang Ladlad
LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections,96 We withheld ruling, in the
absence of sufficient evidence, on whether homosexuals should be treated
as a separate class, viz.:
x x x We disagree with the OSG's position that
homosexuals are a class in themselves for the purposes of
the equal protection clause. Wr are not prepared to single
out homosexuals as a separ~te class meriting special or
differentiated treatment. :we have not received
sufficient evidence to this: effect, and it is simply
unnecessary to make such a ruling today. x x x97 (Emphasis
supplied; citations omitted.)
Petitioner's reference to Chief Justice Puno's Separate Concurring
Opinion in Ang Ladlacf8 does not help his cause. In fact, it only underscores
the need for the reception of evidence, before homosexuals, gays and
lesbians can be considered a suspect classification with respect to marriage
rights. Particularly, evidence need to be received on: (a) whether there is a
history of invidious discrimination against the class; (b) whether the
distinguishing characteristic of the class indicate a typical class member's
ability to contribute to society; ( c) whether the distinguishing characteristic
is immutable; and (d) the political power of the subject class.99
Petitioner alleges that even if only the rational basis test is applied, the
assailed provisions will fail since there is no substantial distinction between
opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples respecting marriage. Both can
perform the essential marital obligations under the Family Code. These are:
(a) the obligation to live together, observe mutual love, respect, and fidelity,
and render mutual help and support; (b) fix the family domicile; and ( c)
support the family and pay the expenses for such support and other conjugal
obligations. 100 To reiterate, this argument still requires the presentation of
documentary and testimonial evidence. It cannot be assumed especially
since there are conflicting claims on these assertions. 101
With respect to petitioner's claim that same-sex couples can raise
children as well as opposite-sex couples, 102 We note that the intervenorsoppositors
expressed a strong contrary view and argue that children raised
by heterosexual couples fare better than those who are not. 103 The reception
95 Id.  at 21.
96 G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010, 618 SCRA 32.
97 Id  at 65.
98 Rollo,  p. 2 I.
99 Id.  at 22.
100 Id.  at 28.
101 See rollo, pp. 49-50.
102 Rollo,  p. 9.
103 Id.  at 285. Paragraph 24 ofOpposition-In-Intervei:,tion.
,, /
i'
t::
Concurring Opinion 18 G.R. No. 217910
of scientific and expert opinion is probably necessary to assist the Court in
resolving this issue.
C
Petitioner and petitioner-intervenors' argument that the Family Code,
by excluding same-sex couples from ~arriage, have placed an undue burden
on their religious freedom by failing toilegally recognize their relationship104
similarly calls for the reception of evid~nce.
Petitioner contends that Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code are
unconstitutional because they prohibit same-sex couples from founding a
family through the vehicle of marriage in accordance with their religious
convictions, a right protected under Section 3(1) Article XV of the
Constitution. 105 Petitioners-intervenors, meanwhile, claim that they are of
the religious conviction that Christianity does not treat homosexuality as a
sin, and that Christianity does not prohibit same-sex marriage; hence, gay
 and lesbian Christians can also enter into marriage. 106 They further submit
that there exists no substantial distinction between their religious convictions
and the religious convictions of Filipino Catholics and Filipino Muslims,
and yet the latter's religious beliefs enjoy legal recognition from the State. 107
For its part, the CRG argues that sex-based conceptions of marriage
do not violate religious freedom. It claims that the limitation of marriage to
opposite-sex couples is a valid state regulation grounded on a purely
legitimate secular purpose. The compelling state interests in procreation,
foundation of the family, and preservation of the tradition and history of
marriage, are enshrined in the Constitution. The CRG maintains that limiting
civil marriages to opposite-sex couples is not unconstitutional simply
because a particular religion or religious group claims that it goes against
their religious beliefs. According to the CRG, allowing such situation will
render the State subservient to the beliefs of said religion or religious
group. 108
Relevant to the Court's consideration of the religious argument is the
free exercise clause of the 1987 Constitution. 109 This clause guarantees the
liberty of religious conscience and prohibits any degree of compulsion or
104 Id.  at 558. Paragraph 44, Petitioner's opening statement, oral arguments.
105 Id.  at 1 1-12. Section 3 provides: The State shall defend:
(I) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and
the demands
ofresponsible parenthood; x x x
106 Id.  at 144.
107 /d.atl50-151.
108 Id.  at 329. Paragraphs 106 and 109, OSG's Suppl~mental Comment with Leave of Court,
p. 36.
109 Section 5, Article III of the I 987 Constitution declares that "[n]o law shall be made
respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and
enjoyment of
religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed." It
likewise declares that "no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political
rights." This
provision in the Bill of Rights encapsulates the Religion Clauses of our Constitution - the
NonEstablishment
Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. I
Concurring Opinion 19 G.R. No. 217910
burden, whether direct or indirect, in the practice of one's religion. 110 In
Estrada v. Escritor, 111 the Court established benevolent neutralityaccommodation
as the regime under which a claim of violation of religious
freedom should be considered. The following factual questions should be
resolved through the presentation of evidence: (1) whether the claimant's
right to religious freedom has been burdened by the government regulation;
(2) whether the claimant is sincere in his/her belief, which in turn constitutes
a central tenet of their proclaimed religion; and (3) whether the State has
compelling interest to override the claimant's religious belief and practice.
Applying the foregoing analysis to this case, petitioner must first
show how the assailed provisions of the Family Code created a burden on
their right to the free exercise of religion; while on the part of the LGBTS
Church, it must prove, foremost, that it is a religion and that same-sex
marriage is a central tenet of its faith. Second, petitioner and the petitionersintervenors
must demonstrate that they hold a sincere belief in this tenet.
Third, the CRG must establish that the state has a compelling interest to
limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. As was shown earlier, these are
factual matters requiring the presentation of evidence.
Final Words
It is my view that the case before Us presents a cautionary tale of how
not to prove a fundamental right in the context of public interest litigation. I
believe though, that with the dismissal i of their petitions, concerned counsel
have been punished enough. Nevertheless, the pursuit (and, maybe, ultimate
 acceptance) of the idea of marriage ~quality need not end here. Rather,
zealous fealty to the Constitution's st~ictures on case and controversy and
the hierarchy of courts should give the: idea of marriage equality a sporting
chance to be, in time, vigorously and properly presented to the Court.
For the reasons above-stated, I vote to DISMISS the petition.
Associate Justice
110 Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 00-1021-P), August
4, 2003, 408
SCRA 1, 134.
111 A.M. No. P-0 2- 1651 (1c: ormerly OCA LP.I. No. 00-1021-P), June 22, 2006, 492
SCRA I, 66. In
Escritor, the Court is confronted with the issue of whether Escritor's claim of religious
freedom could
warrant carving out an exemption from the Civil Service Law. Escritor, a court interpreter,
was charged
with immorality because she cohabited with a man other than her husband during the
subsistence of her
marriage. In her defense, Escritor countered that Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious sect to
which she is a
member, legitimizes a union which is otherwise adulterous or bigamous provided that the
parties sign a
Declaration of Faithfulness. She and her partner executed and signed a Declaration of
Faithfulness in
1991, thus they are regarded by their Church as husband and wife. In resolving the case, the
Court
inquired into three things: (I) whether Escritor's right to religious freedom has been burdened;
(2)
whether Escritor is sincere in her religious belief; and (3) whether the state has compelling
interest to
override Escritor's religious belief and practice.
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
O.ARICHETA
Clerk of Court En Banc
Supreme Court