Experts want same sex marriage legalized

MANILA, Philippines - Legal experts yesterday pushed for a review of the 1987 Family Code that could pave the way for same sex marriage in the country.

During the 11th Metrobank Foundation Professorial Chair Lecture at the Court of Appeals auditorium yesterday, former University of the Philippines College of Law dean Pacifico Agabin said the concept of marriage under the Family Code as a contract between a man and a woman is obsolete.

He explained that this concept, which is considered a major stumbling block for same sex marriage in the country to prosper, violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

“In my opinion, to bar the lesbians, the gays and the transsexuals from the civil right to marry would violate the guarantee of equal protection,” Agabin told reporters in an interview.

He added that the denial of the right to marry insofar as LGBTs are concerned “also intrudes into the right to privacy which is a fundamental right.”

He also noted that same sex marriage, now recognized by a majority of states in the US, could be justified under Philippine laws that are also based on American jurisprudence.

Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Jose Vitug stressed that while he does not support same sex marriage, property relations in same sex relationships should also be recognized under the law.

He said Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code, which cover property relationship between couples without the benefit of marriage, could be extended to those in same sex relationships.

But Vitug believes that same sex marriage in the country still has a long way to go. He pointed out that while the trend worldwide is legalizing same sex marriages, the Philippines is taking the opposite path.

“A lot of countries really have legalized this [same sex marriages] and here in the Philippines, I agree with my colleagues in the panel that it may take a while before we would be able to be in that stage,” he told reporters in a separate interview.

“In fact, just the opposite, for instance, in the case of the bill pending in Congress, it is saying we should preserve the right of marriage between natural born males and natural born females. It may take a while before we can expect any possible changes,” he added.