SC: Justice Leonen Advocates Marital Autonomy as a Human Right

SC: Justice Leonen Advocates Marital Autonomy as a Human Right

By Bing Jabadan – TheNATIONWEEK.com | August 12, 2026

MANILA, Philippines – In a potentially paradigm-shifting deliberation before the Philippine Supreme Court, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen asserted that the fundamental human right to choose whom to love and when to separate may not require legislative sanction but is intrinsically protected by the nation’s Constitution. This profound argument emerged as the Court concluded its oral arguments on recognizing foreign divorces for Filipino citizens, challenging deeply entrenched interpretations of family, marriage, and the state’s role in personal relationships.

During a compelling interpellation of Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe, Justice Leonen posited: “Would you agree with me that our capacity to love and our choice of whom to love and not love is a human right?” Berberabe’s affirmative response set the stage for a critical examination of the state’s interest in compelling individuals to remain in “troubled relationships.”

Leonen forcefully argued that the Constitution offers an interpretation that champions individual autonomy, suggesting that the power to choose separation is a “fundamental human right,” with legislation merely needed to address its effects. He anchored this perspective in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which guarantees that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

Expanding on a prior Court ruling, Leonen emphasized that “life, liberty, or property” must not be construed narrowly. Instead, they encompass the “autonomous choice of every individual regarding how or whom to choose as an intimate partner,” including the profound decisions surrounding relationships and intimacy itself. “The choice of a relationship and the choice of intimacy, the choice of the partner, all of this is part of life and liberty, correct?” he pressed, reiterating the expansive reach of constitutional freedoms.

While acknowledging the state’s current interpretation of marriage as an “inviolable social institution” under Article XV, Section 2, Leonen offered a counter-narrative. He argued that “inviolable” signifies protection against external interference, not a mandate for the state to control the inner dynamics of a marriage. “It acknowledges the agency of individuals in it,” he asserted, suggesting that the state should not “pretend that every marriage, just because it was solemnized, is a good foundation of the family.”

Redefining “Family” Beyond Traditional Constructs

Beyond the confines of marriage, Justice Leonen challenged the conventional definition of “family.” He underscored that a “Filipino family… is defined by Filipinos” and is not limited to a singular model. He then presented the Solicitor General with a series of examples: a widow and child, a single parent, a single parent with an unmarried partner, unmarried couples with children, same-sex partners with adopted children, and an orphan raised by grandparents. Berberabe conceded that each scenario constituted a “family.”

“Therefore, when we read family there, that is to be strengthened as an autonomous social institution. It does not mean… only a married couple with children,” Leonen concluded, citing Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution, which states: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution…”

His profound implication: “A family is not necessarily dyadic, meaning there is a man and a woman in it; heterosexual, meaning that there has to be a man and a woman; there can be a mother and child, a father and child; and blessed by the state.” He further clarified that some families, while robust and functional, may not receive the state’s formal “blessing” through legal recognition, yet still serve as vital foundations of society. Leonen underscored that these “basic social institutions work and are the foundation of the State because they enhance and empower rather than cause misery.”

Citing Article II, Section 11, which proclaims, “The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights,” Leonen reaffirmed that the State, including the Judiciary and the Supreme Court, is bound by this principle.

The oral arguments, spanning four sessions since August 19, 2025, have now concluded. Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo has requested parties and amicus curiae to file their respective memoranda within 20 days. This landmark case, stemming from a petition by a dual citizen seeking recognition of his foreign divorce, has undeniably ignited a critical conversation on the evolving nature of personal liberty, familial structures, and the very interpretation of human rights within the Philippine legal framework. The Court’s impending decision could redefine the contours of marital freedom and the state’s involvement in the most intimate choices of its citizens.

*         *         *

Influence the Influential. Power Truth. TheNATIONWEEK.com

More than news: we are a defining force in independent journalism, delivering rigorous, unbiased reporting to an engaged, opinion-shaping audience that values integrity. Partner with us to align your brand with trust, reach discerning leaders, and amplify your impact. Your message. Our mission. Unrivaled engagement. Email nationweek@yahoo.com today.