Subject: Introduction to International Relations (IR)
Objective: Students of IR will develop skills in presenting legal arguments using
international law principles.
Written Memorials - Instructions
General
Every student must hand in two written Memorials, one on behalf of the Claimant and
one on behalf of the Respondent.
Note: Kindly include references (commentaries, textbooks, periodicals, case law) in
footnotes only (as opposed to including them in footnotes and a list of references section)
The form
1. Each written Memorial is typewritten on A4 paper sheets, the font is Times New
Roman,12 pt font size, 3 cm margin top and bottom, 2 cm margin each side, the
typeface is 1.5 spaced (interlinear space), with the exception of the Cover Page,
Table of Contents, Index of Authorities, headings, and footnotes (which can be
single-spaced).
2. Pages of the argumentation section are numbered concurrently at the bottom of
each page;
3. Footnotes are numbered concurrently at the bottom of the page, the font is Arial,
10 pt font size;
4. Written Memorials are submitted in the WORD format.
5. Written Memorials are submitted in PDF format.
6. If a student submits its Memorials in an unacceptable format it will not be
accepted.
Memorial content:
The Memorial must contain the following parts in the following order:
1. Cover Page
2. Table of Contents
3. Index of Authorities;
4. Statement of Jurisdiction;
5. Questions Presented;
6. Statement of Facts;
7. Summary of Pleadings;
8. Pleadings; and
9. Prayer for Relief (or Conclusion).
Note: Parts not included in the above are prohibited.
Cover Page
The front cover of each Memorial must have the following information:
1. Name of the student
Page | 1
2. The name of the court (Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines;
3. the name of the case (Falcis v. Office of the Solicitor General); and
4. the title of the document (i.e., “Memorial for Claimant” or “Memorial for
Respondent”).
Index of Authorities
The Index of Authorities must list all legal authorities cited in any part of the Memorial
and must indicate the page number(s) of the Memorial on which each is cited.
Statement of Facts
The Statement of Facts should be limited to the stipulated facts and necessary
inferences from the Competition Problem. The Statement of Facts should not include
unsupported statements, distortions of the facts provided, argumentation, or legal
conclusions.
Summary of the Pleadings
The Summary of the Pleadings should consist of a substantive summary of the Pleadings
of the Memorial, rather than a simple reproduction of the headings contained in the
Pleadings.
Oral Arguments and Instructions
Speaking Time and Number of Oralists
Each student shall have a maximum of 10 minutes to present its arguments. Each
student shall prepare a 5-minute presentation to argue both for the Claimant and
Respondent.
Page | 2
MOOT Problem
Questions Presented for the Claimant:
1. Limitation of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional under
international law as it violates the equal protection clause.
2. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry amounts to a denial of their right
to life and/or liberty under international law without due process of law and a
violation of equal protection clause.
3. Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code are unconstitutional under international law.
Statement of the facts:
Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis filed before the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. His Petition sought to
declare Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code as unconstitutional and, as a consequence,
nullify Articles 46(4) and 55(6) of the Family Code.
Falcis claims that a resort to Rule 65 was appropriate, citing Magallona v. Executive
Secretary, Araullo v. Executive Secretary, and the separate opinion of now-retired
Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion (Associate Justice Brion) in Araullo. Again citing
Associate Justice Brion's separate opinion, he claims that this Court should follow a
"'fresh' approach to this Court's judicial power" and find that his Petition pertains to a
constitutional case attended by grave abuse of discretion. 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.
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. 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" 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.
Falcis justifies the direct recourse to the Supreme Court by citing, in addition to the
alleged transcendental importance of the issues he raised, the supposed lack of need
for trial concerning any factual issues. He also insists that the constitutionality of
Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code were the very lis mota of his case.
According to Falcis, a facial challenge on Articles 1 and 2 is permitted as these two (2)
provisions regulate fundamental rights such as "the right to due process and equal
protection, right to decisional and marital privacy, and the right to found a family in
accordance with religious convictions."
Page | 3
Falcis further claims that strict scrutiny should be the test used in appraising the
constitutionality of Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code, and that the compelling state
interest involved is the protection of marriage pursuant to Article XV, Section 2 of the
Constitution, not the protection of heterosexual relationships. He argues that like
opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are equally capable of founding their own
families and fulfilling essential marital obligations. He claims that contrary to Chi Ming
Tsoi v. Court of Appeals, procreation is not an essential marital obligation. Because there
is allegedly no necessity to limit marriage as only between a man and a woman, Articles
1 and 2 of the Family Code are supposedly unconstitutional for depriving Falcis of his
right to liberty without substantive due process of law.
Finally, Falcis claims that Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code deny the existence of
"individuals belonging to religious denominations that believe in same-sex marriage"
and that they have a "right to found a family in accordance with their religious
convictions." He claims that the religious weddings conducted by these denominations
have been denied civil recognition "unlike the religious convictions of Catholics and
Muslims."
The Civil Registrar General, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Comment
(Ad Cautelam) on March 29, 2016. It prays that this Court deny due course to or dismiss
the Petition. It notes that the Petition was not in the nature of a class suit, but was
instead personal only to Falcis. Because of this, it claims that Falcis failed to show
injury-in-fact and an actual case or controversy, but was rather seeking an advisory
opinion that this Court cannot issue.
---Nothing follows---
KRF
Page | 4
