IN the midst of debates about the Obama administration’s policy to grant federal benefits, protection and services to all married same-sex couples in America (equal to those accorded to their heterosexual counterparts), multi-talented actress and singer Aiza Seguerra just proposed marriage to the love of her life, model-actress Liza Diño in the Philippines.
Filipinos are generally more conservative and oppose same-sex marriage. However, just like many conservative Republicans here in America, the dynamics change when a member of the family admits to being gay and professes to marry his/ehr lover or partner.
It seems that the Aiza-Liza engagement was received quite well by many kababayans around the world, as indicated by the “feeling happy” response to the news on Rappler.com’s mood meter.
This proves that many Filipinos are considerate of Aiza’s situation because of her celebrity status. After all, many kababayans have been following Aiza from the time she was this cute funny little girl in Eat Bulaga, up to the present, as an openly gay, extraordinary musician.
While many are excited about the couple’s engagement, there are also those who ask (myself included) how they can possibly get married.
After all, same-sex marriage is not legal in the Philippines. And even if they tie the knot in California, as they reportedly plan to do, their marriage will not be recognized in the Philippines.
This means that in the event that Aiza and Liza will be married in the US and will be fully recognized as wife and wise in America,they still would not be able to enjoy the benefits and protection accorded by law to couples in a traditional marriage in the Philippines.
I asked Atty. Arnedo Valera (a Fil-Am community leader and lawyer who specializes in international law and human rights) what options Aiza and Liza have, given their circumstance.
Option 1: Be a US citizen first
Valera said when Liza (who is a US legal permanent resident/green card holder) becomes a US citizen, they can get married in a state where gay marriage is legal, they should able to enjoy all the benefits and protection Philippine laws give to heterosexual couples in the Philippines in a traditional marriage.
“A conflict of laws under international law can arise if you deal with marital rights and property rights of same-sex couples married outside of the US and are US Citizens, but have decided to live permanently in the Philippines, have several property investments in the Philippines, and one or two decide to embrace dual citizenship,” Valera added.
Atty. Valera pointed out that the closest conflict of laws under international law is between the law legally recognizing same sex marriage and Art. 26 of the Family Code which states, “All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country (let us say the US) WHERE THEY WERE SOLEMNIZED AND VALID THERE AS SUCH SHALL ALSO BE VALID IN THIS COUNTRY, except Articles 35(1), (4), and (6), 36,37 and 38(71a)…”
Valera argued: “It is to be clearly noted that Article 26 does not mention Same Sex Marriages as VOID as it is not included in the enumeration. However, the Family Code in Art. 1 defines this as ‘between a man and a woman’ and it is an essential requisite to marriage But this applies only to Filipino Citizens who contracted marriage in the Philippines.”
Valera explained that the Family Code of the Philippines is based on antiquated “siete partidas” codigo civil under our 300 years of being a colony of Spain.
“On the basis of a constitutional challenge anchored on the fundamental civil right and liberty of an individual or person, this portion of the Family Code on defining marriage between man and woman should be declared unconstitutional”, he said.
Option 2: Get married now and take legal battle to court
Valera took it further and said “Pakasal na sila [sa California as planned]”.
Valera explained that the Aiza-Liza marriage will “raise a constitutional challenge vs the Civil Code’s definition of marriage based on equal protection laws . The fact that the marriage was validly recognized where celebrated is enough.”
Atty. Valera was also pointing to how the Philippine Constitution does NOT define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman, citing Article XV:
Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.
Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.
Section 3. The State shall defend:
(1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;
(2) The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development;
(3) The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and
(4)The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them.
Section 4. The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the State may also do so through just programs of social security.
Valera said that it is the Family Code of the Philippines, which defines marriage “as a special contract of permanent union between man and woman.”
“It is a solid legal ground for the constitutional challenge of the Family code,” Valera pointed out. “The Constitution has primacy. It is the supreme law of the land.”
Should Aiza and Liza make history and challenge the constitutionality of the limiting definition of marriage in the Family Code, in the name of “equality for all?”
* * *
Gel Santos Relos is the anchor of TFC’s “Balitang America.” Views and opinions expressed by the author in this column are are solely those of the author and not of Asian Journal and ABS-CBN-TFC. For comments, go to www.TheFil-AmPerspective.com, https://www.facebook.com/Gel.Santos.Relos
