Former communist leader turned evangelist Rep. Eduardo Villanueva of CIBAC Party-list group on Tuesday lauded the Supreme Court decision denying the legalization of same sex marriage in the country.
In its 113-page decision, the High Tribunal denied with finality any motion for reconsideration of petitions requesting to legalize same sex marriage in the Philippines because “no substantial arguments were presented to warrant the reversal” of the previous decision upholding the constitutionality of Family Code provisions which confine marriage to just between man and a woman.
Villanueva, a deputy speaker, said the high court’s decision “reaffirms our belief that we are in the right path when we stand to defend that marriage is just and must be confined between man and woman.”
“It is not only the divine will of God, it is also the standing spirit and will of the laws of our land,” he added.
According to Villanueva, “the Family Code was crafted to mirror the historical, traditional and religious values of Filipinos on marriage. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution in Filipino life, has always been conceived between a man and a woman.
“Hence, to nullify such law which bears our values on marriage is tantamount to denying our identity as a people and betraying our deep-held morals. It is not only against God, it is also against ourselves as a people,” he said.
He said Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code limited marriages between man and woman while Articles 46 (4) and 55 (6) mention lesbianism or homosexuality as grounds for annulment and legal separation.
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen in his ponencia said that invalidating the Family Code provisions on who can marry may disturb a barrage of gender-specific laws in many Philippine statutes, such as taxation, family relations, labor, and even penal laws.
“The litany of provisions that we have just recounted are not even the entirety of laws relating to marriage. Petitioner would have this Court impliedly amend all such laws, through a mere declaration of unconstitutionality of only 2 articles in a single statute,” said the ponencia.
Villanueva stressed that the SC decision should also serve as warning “to all policymakers that to alter the current order where marriage is just between man and woman is not only legally troublesome but absolutely unnecessary and just a waste of time.”
“The confusion, disorder and disarray that might be created by altering the man-woman order on marriage will far outweigh any iota of advancement, if there’s any, promised by those wishing to change it,” he added.
