{"id":50399,"date":"2015-05-28T12:40:02","date_gmt":"2015-05-28T04:40:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=50399"},"modified":"2015-05-28T12:40:02","modified_gmt":"2015-05-28T04:40:02","slug":"sc-asked-to-void-family-code-provisions-prohibiting-same-sex-marriage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2015\/05\/28\/sc-asked-to-void-family-code-provisions-prohibiting-same-sex-marriage\/","title":{"rendered":"SC asked to void Family Code provisions prohibiting same sex marriage"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure id=\"attachment_38886\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-38886\" style=\"width: 1000px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/shutterstock_176634134.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-38886\" src=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/shutterstock_176634134.jpg\" alt=\"shutterstock\" width=\"1000\" height=\"692\" srcset=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/shutterstock_176634134.jpg 1000w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/shutterstock_176634134-300x208.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1000px) 100vw, 1000px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-38886\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">shutterstock<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>MANILA &#8212; A taxpayer has questioned before the Supreme Court (SC) some provisions of the Family Code prohibiting same sex marriage.<\/p>\n<p>In a 31-page petition filed by Jesus Nicardo Falcis III, who identifies himself as a homosexual, he asked the SC to declare as \u201cunconstitutional\u201d Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code, or Executive Order No. 209, which provide that marriage is limited only between a male and a female.<\/p>\n<p>The petitioner argued that the said provisions violate the right of homosexuals to raise their own family and that this right is guaranteed by Section 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.<\/p>\n<p>He added that based on the 1987 Constitution, marriage is not limited between a male and a female.<\/p>\n<p>Falcis claimed that the decision of the individuals, whether homosexual or heterosexual, to marry a person they like is a private matter which should not be hindered by the State.<\/p>\n<p>He also believes that the provisions of the Family Code being questioned deprive the homosexuals of their right to liberty and equal protection of the laws.<\/p>\n<p>Because of such provisions, Falcis said, the Filipinos who belong to the \u201cthird sex\u201d are merely considered as \u201csecond class citizens.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Likewise, Falcis also asked the SC to order the Civil Registrar-General not to implement the assailed provisions in processing the homosexual couples\u2019 application for marriage license.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>MANILA &#8212; A taxpayer has questioned before the Supreme Court (SC) some provisions of the Family Code prohibiting same sex &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":38886,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1482,9095,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50399","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-breaking","category-human-interest-lifestyle","category-news-ph","mauthors-philippines-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50399","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50399"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50399\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/38886"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50399"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50399"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50399"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}