CJ details why Falcis v. Civil Registrar got dismissed

Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin explains why the petition filed by Atty. Jesus Falcis against the Civil Registrar General, seeking to allow same-sex marriage in the Philippines, was dismissed by the Supreme Court. What was missing, according to the Chief Justice, was "standing" and "actual controversy."

He added that the resolution of the Court did not dive into the substantive issues regarding same-sex marriage or the constitutionality of the Family Code which limits marriage between two persons of the opposite sex only.
In political and constitutional law, one of the requisites for judicial review is that there be an actual controversy involving the protection or enforcement of rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. Also, "locus standi" or "standing in court" requires that the person petitioning the Judiciary be the one who stands to be benefited or injured by the controversy or that he should have actual and material, not merely academic, interest in the resolution or settlement of the case or the question involved.

In the same decision, the Court let Atty. Falcis have some choice words: "[t]o forget [the bare rudiments of court procedure and decorum] – or worse, to purport to know them, but really, only to exploit them by way of propaganda – and then, to jump headlong into the taxing endeavor of constitutional litigation is a contemptuous betrayal of the high standards of the legal profession."

NEWS 5: 'NO CASE' | Idinetalye ni Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin kung bakit ibinasura ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon ni Atty. Jesus Falcis para payagan ang same-sex marriage sa Pilipinas. Ayon kay Bersamin, walang "actual controversy" ang petisyon ni Falcis. For more latest stories, visit us at www.news5.com.ph; https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1175337125988642.

In constitutional litigations, the power of judicial review is limited by four exacting requisites, viz: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy; (b) petitioners must possess locus standi; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case. https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2017/05/shen-v-anti-terrorism-gr-no-178552.html