Falcis V CIvil Registrar Case Digest

Arellano University – School of Law
TITLE OF THE CASE:
[ G.R. No. 217910, September 03, 2019 ]

JESUS NICARDO M. FALCIS, III, PETITIONER, V. CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL, RESPONDENT.
Ponente: J. Leonen
DOCTRINE OF THE CASE:
Requisites of Judicial Review:

1) there must be an actual case or controversy involving legal rights that are capable of judicial determination; (2) the
parties raising the issue must have standing or locus standi to raise the constitutional issue;
(3) the constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, thus ripe for adjudication; and
(4) the matter of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case, or that constitutionality must be essential to the
disposition of the case.
FACTS:
- May 18, 2015, Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III (Falcis) filed pro se before this Court sought to "declare Articles 1 and 2
ofthe Family Code as unconstitutional and, as a consequence, nullify Articles 46(4)2 and 55(6)3 of the Family Code.
- Falcis further argues that his Petition complied with the requisites of judicial review: (1) actual case or controversy;(2)
standing; (3) was raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) that the constitutional question is the very lis mota of the
case.
- He also asserts that the mere passage of the Family Code, with its Articles 1 and 2, was a prima facie case of grave
abuse of discretion, and that the issues he raised were of such transcendental importance as to warrant the setting aside
of procedural niceties (directly filed in SC and not in lower courts)
- As to standing, he claims that his standing consisted in his personal stake in the outcome of the case, as he "is an open
and self-identified homosexual"14 who alleges that the Family Code has a "normative impact" on the status of same-
sex relationships in the country. He was also allegedly injured by the supposed "prohibition against the right to marry
the same-sex which prevents his plans to settle down in the Philippines.
ISSUE: Whether the Petition is properly the subject of the exercise of our power of judicial review.
RULING:
NO – The Court through Justice Leonon held that for the SC to exercise the immense power that enables it to undo the
actions of the other government branches, the following requisites must be satisfied: (1) there must be an actual case or
controversy involving legal rights that are capable of judicial determination; (2) the parties raising the issue must have
standing or locus standi to raise the constitutional issue; (3) the constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity, thus ripe for adjudication; and (4) the matter of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case, or that
constitutionality must be essential to the disposition of the case.
1. In the case at bar, petitioner has no actual facts that present a real conflict between the parties of this case. The Petition
presents no actual case or controversy.
o A substantive portion of the Petition merely parrots the separate concurring opinion of retired Chief Justice Puno
in Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, concerning the concept of suspect classifications. Five (5) pages of the 29-page
Petition are block quotes from retired Chief Justice Puno, punctuated by introductory paragraphs of, at most, two
(2) sentences each.
o Despite a goal of proving to this Court that there is a continuing and pervasive violation of fundamental rights of a
marginalized minority group, the Petition is woefully bereft of sufficient actual facts to substantiate its arguments.
o Even petitioner's choice of respondent exposes the lack of an actual case or controversy.
 He claims that he impleaded the Civil Registrar General as respondent because "it is the instrumentality
of the government that is tasked to enforce the law in relation with (sic) marriage.
 Lest petitioner himself forget, what he asserts as ground for the allowance of his suit is the existence of
grave abuse of discretion, specifically, grave abuse of discretion in the enactment of the Family Code.
 Petitioner submits that a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion exists in the passage of Articles 1
and 2 of the Family Code. Limiting the definition of marriage as between man and woman is, on its face,
a grave abuse of discretion.
Case Digest by:

Lester Fiel Panopio
Juris Doctor - Level 1
Arellano University – School of Law
 Respondent Civil Registrar General was not involved in the formulation or enactment of the Family
Code. It did not participate in limiting the definition of marriage to only opposite-sex couples. That is the
province and power of Congress alone.
2. Petitioner has no legal standing to file his Petition.

o Legal standing is a party's "personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement
o Much like the requirement of an actual case or controversy, legal standing ensures that a party is seeking a
concrete outcome or relief that may be granted by courts.
 Petitioner's supposed "personal stake in the outcome of this case" is not the direct injury
contemplated by jurisprudence as that which would endow him with standing.
 Mere assertions of a "law's normative impact", "impairment" of his "ability to find and enter into
long-term monogamous same-sex relationships"; as well as injury to his "plans to settle down and
have a companion for life in his beloved country"; or influence over his "decision to stay or migrate
to a more LGBT friendly country" cannot be recognized by this Court as sufficient interest.
Dispositive portion:
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition and the Petition-in-Intervention are DISMISSED.
This Court finds petitioner Atty. Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III, his co-counsels Atty. Darwin P. Angeles, Atty. KeishaTrina
M. Guangko, Atty. Christopher Ryan R. Maranan, as well as intervenor-oppositor Atty. Fernando P. Perito,all GUILTY
of INDIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Atty. Falcis is sentenced to pay a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) within thirty (30) days from notice.
Atty.Angeles, Atty. Guangko, Atty. Maranan, and Atty. Perito are REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED to be
morecircumspect of their duties as counsel. They are STERNLY WARNED that any further contemptuous acts shall
bedealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be included in the personal records of Atty. Falcis, Atty. Angeles, Atty. Guangko,
Atty.Maranan, and Atty. Perito, and entered in their files in the Office of the Bar Confidant.
Case Digest by:

Lester Fiel Panopio
Juris Doctor - Level 1

Falcis V CIvil Registrar Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Falcis V CIvil Registrar Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Falcis V CIvil Registrar Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arellano University – School of Law

TITLE OF THE CASE:

[ G.R. No. 217910, September 03, 2019 ]

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE:

Requisites of Judicial Review:

Case Digest by:

2. Petitioner has no legal standing to file his Petition.

Case Digest by:

You might also like