According to Justice Leonen

The decision, penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leoneon, on the case Jesus Nicardo
M. Falcis, III vs. Civil Registrar General, states that the petitioner did not follow the
“standards of legal practice” and came unprepared during the oral arguments in June
2018.

Leonen cited four procedural issues arising from the petition, two of which were:

1. Does the Family Code create an actual case or controversy reviewable by the
Supreme Court?

The high court did not find an actual case with the petition for it to conduct a judicial
review, the ruling said.

“In a proper case, a good opportunity may arise for this Court to review the scope of
Congress’ power to statutorily define the scope in which constitutional provisions are
effected. This is not the case.”

2. Does the self-identification of petitioner Falcis as a member of the LGBTQI+

community give him standing to challenge the Family Code?

It found that Falcis has no legal standing to file the petition, which means he has “no
personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain,
direct injury as a result of the Family Code’s enforcement.”

Leonen also defined “interest” as not mere interest in the question but a “material
interest” in seeking a concrete outcome or relief. Falcis’ future plan to settle down in the
country and get married to another man could not be recognized as sufficient interest as
these are not “legally demandable rights that require judicial enforcement.”

“This Court will not witlessly indulge petitioner in blaming the Family Code for his
admitted inability to find a partner… His fixation on how the Family Code is the
definitive cause of his inability to find a partner is plainly non sequitur.”
3. Does the petition-in-intervention meant to support the main petition cure its
procedural defects?

It does not. Both the petition-in-intervention, which Falcis also authored himself, and the
main petition suffer “from the same procedural infirmities.” Both pleadings name the
Civil Registrar General as a respondent, which the court finds as invalid.

It also saw through Falcis’ attempt to remedy the failures of his initial petition.

“This Court can only arrive at the conclusion that the Petition-in-Intervention was… not a
bona fide plea for relief, but a sly, tardy strategem. It was not a genuine effort by an
independent party to have its cause litigated in the same proceeding.”

4. Is the application of the doctrine of transcendental importance warranted?

Falcis invoked the doctrine of “transcendental importance” as an attempt to justify why

the case should be made an exemption to the question of whether or not the Supreme
Court is the proper forum to rule on the case.

The court did not see the case of a great significance enough that it should not be first
taken to lower courts, which are venues to resolve questions of fact.

“Transcendental importance is not a life buoy designed to save unprepared petitioners

from their own mistakes and missteps. Its mere invocation is not license to do away with
this Court’s own rules of procedure.”

Previous issues
It was only after three years of filing of the petition that the SC held oral arguments
on June 2018. However, it was outrightly dismissed due to procedural flaws.

At the same time, the SC found Falcis guilty of direct contempt for wearing improper
attire during the preliminary conference.
In September 2019, the SC unanimously denied it, citing lack of legal standing, failure to
raise an actual, justiciable controversy and violation of the principle of hierarchy of
courts.

The lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration in November. The High Court made the
final ruling in December.