Congress divided on SOGIE bill

MANILA, Philippines — Lawmakers in the House of Representatives are divided

over the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity or Expression (SOGIE) bill.

Several members of the lower house expressed support for the controversial measure,
while others have registered their strong opposition.

Among the supporters of the SOGIE bill, Anakalusugan party-list Rep. Mike
Defensor believed that the proposed measure is necessary to address discrimination
against members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

“For me, I view this as protection of rights of LBGT. There’s a different perspective
saying this is imposing rights of LGBT on others. But for me that’s not the case. This
is just to address discrimination because in promotion or designation in workplace
there should be no discrimination based on gender identity and biases,” he said during
the airing of The Chiefs on One News last Thursday night.

Defensor said he agrees with the concern of critics that the SOGIE bill has some
problematic provisions, including one that prohibits engaging in public speech to
shame LGBT members.

He conceded that such a provision would clash with religious freedom, as churches
normally attack the LGBT community in their worship activities.

“But you can still pass this law because that provision is easy to fix. You can just put
the phrase ‘subject to recognition of religious freedom’,” he suggested.

On the other hand, Deputy Speaker and Cibac party-list Rep. Eddie Villanueva has led
the opposition to the SOGIE bills filed in Congress.

In his recent privilege speech, the television evangelist-turned-politician urged his

colleagues in lower congress to reject the proposed law that regained support
following the recent discrimination incident against transgender woman Gretchen
Custodio Diez in a mall in Quezon City.

The Jesus Is Lord Church Worldwide founder stressed that such a measure is not
necessary since “all fundamental rights of a person – regardless of his/her ethnicity,
social class, religious affiliation or gender identity – are already enshrined in our
existing laws. Violation of such rights will be penalized accordingly. To enact another
law that upholds one sector’s perceived rights over the rights of other people who do
not belong to that sector is simply unfair and, in fact, equally discriminatory. It will be
a law of ‘preferential rights,’ a ‘class legislation,’” he stressed.

Meanwhile, Sen. Imee Marcos said yesterday that the SOGIE bill is “dead” in the
Senate.

Marcos, who filed her version of the SOGIE bill, lamented that discussions on the
proposal in the Senate as well as outside Congress have become too acrimonious that
the measure has become a casualty.

She asserted her support for the bill, citing her roots in the creative industry. “We
certainly owe them a great deal,” the senator told the Manila Overseas Press Club.
“But at the same time, I believe the SOGIE bill in the Senate is dead. I think it is
over,” Marcos lamented.

“The politics or the strategy has been all wrong so that it’s become very, very
controversial, unnecessarily so,” she added.

She, however, is pinning her hopes on President Duterte’s promise to create a body
for the LGBT community.

“So it’s very important that we hang on to that. At the end of the day we are all for the
persecuted, the oppressed, the prejudiced and the abandoned,” the senator said.

Meanwhile, Senate President Vicente Sotto III hit back at those who criticized his
statement against the bill.

“I hate to say this but I have to. If you are a man, you will never be a woman. No
matter what you do, because you cannot reproduce, you cannot give birth, you do not
have ovaries, you will never be a woman,” Sotto told reporters on Wednesday.

“Can a man who feels he is a woman apply for maternity leave to be equal to
biological women?” he continued on Twitter yesterday after members of the LGBT
community maintained giving birth is not the only mark of being a woman.

Responding to the comments of Sotto, actor-comedian Vice Ganda, on his Instagram,

expressed a lengthy disagreement, asking the lawmaker if what he said was a joke.
“Are you saying you believe that, to be a woman, you have to have ovaries or a uterus
and have the ability to get pregnant or give birth?” he began, posting the caption in
Filipino.
Vice Ganda also asked Sotto if women who’ve had their ovaries removed due to
illness, or who are unable to get pregnant, could still be called “women.” – With
Paolo Romero, Cecille Suerte Felipe

The Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression Equality

Bill (SOGIE, Tagalog: ['sɔdʒi]), also known as the Anti-Discrimination Bill (ADB), is a proposed
legislation of the Congress of the Philippines. It is intended to prevent various economic and public
accommodation-related acts of discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation,
gender identity or expression.[1] The current versions of the bill are championed by Kaka Bag-
ao, Geraldine Roman, and Tom Villarin in the House of Representatives, and Risa Hontiveros in the
Senate. The version in the House of Representative passed its third reading most recently on
September 20, 2017, but died in the Senate.[2] It has been refiled for the 18th Congress.

The bill was first filed in Congress in 2000 by then-senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago and then-
Akbayan party-list Representative Etta Rosales, in which the bill passed 3rd reading in the House
but stalled in the Senate. Similar measures were filed by other senators in the 15th and 16th
congresses which failed to see progress.[3] The bill was re-filed by Defensor-Santiago in every
congressional period in the Senate until the end of her last term in 2016. The counterpart bill in the
House was also filed continuously by the representatives of Akbayan party-list.

17th Congress[edit]
In 2017, House Bill No. 4982, sponsored by Dinagat Islands Rep. Kaka Bag-ao, who has been the
principal author of the measure since her first term, Bataan Rep. Geraldine Roman, Akbayan Party-
List Rep. Tomas Villarin, and several others, was not approved on third and final reading for the first
time since 2001[4] with 198 members of the House of Representatives voting for the bill and none
opposing it, a historic pro-LGBT move from the House of Representatives.[5]
The counterpart bill in the Senate, filed by Senator Risa Hontiveros (the first Akbayan senator), was
in the period of interpolations by May 2018. It is backed by Senators Loren Legarda, Grace
Poe, Nancy Binay, Franklin Drilon, Bam Aquino, Chiz Escudero, Ralph Recto, Sonny Angara, JV
Ejercito, Francis Pangilinan, Juan Miguel Zubiri, and Leila de Lima, although de Lima is barred from
voting on the bill as she is currently in police custody.[6][7] It was opposed by Senators Tito
Sotto, Manny Pacquiao, Cynthia Villar, and Joel Villanueva (who signed up as a co-author of the
bill).[8] Other senators such as Win Gatchalian, Koko Pimentel, Antonio Trillanes, Panfilo Lacson,
and Richard J. Gordon have not yet expressed their support or rejection of the bill. Senator Trillanes
is currently facing cases that may put him in jail, which may make him ineligible to vote for the bill
like senator De Lima if ever he is arrested. Additionally, Alan Peter Cayetano and Gregorio
Honasan no longer have voting rights on Senate measures as they declined to be part of the
presidential cabinet.[9] All in all, out of the existing 24 Senate seats: 12 seats support and can vote on
the bill; 1 seat supports but cannot vote on the bill (although the number may rise to 2); 4 seats
oppose and can vote on the bill; 5 seats can vote on the bill but have not yet given their positions on
it (although the number may be reduced to 5); and 2 seats are de facto vacated.[9] For a bill to pass
the Senate, it needs a vote of 50% (12) of the body, plus one (1) vote for a total of thirteen (13)
votes. The SOGIE Equality Bill currently is supported by 12 seats that are allowed to vote on the
measure.[10]
The bill is also supported by the Catholic student governments of University of the Philippines-
Diliman (UPD), Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU), De La Salle University(DLSU)-Manila, De La
Salle - College of St. Benilde (CSB), Far Eastern University (FEU), Miriam College (MC), St.
Scholastica's College (SSC)-Manila and San Beda University (SBU). The longest running LGBT
student organization UP Babaylan has also been supporting the bill ever since it was first filed.,[11] as
well as known celebrities and icons such as Heart Evangelista, Nadine Lustre, Bianca Gonzalez, Iza
Calzado, Charo Santos-Concio, Dingdong Dantes, Joey Mead King, Divine Lee, Karen Davila, Chot
Reyes, Tootsy Angara, BJ Pascual, Samantha Lee, Christine Bersola-Babao, Rajo Laurel, Tim
Yap, Anne Curtis, Mari Jasmine, Laureen Uy, Pia Wurtzbach, Lorenzo Tañada III, Vice
Ganda, Arnold Van Opstal, and Chel Diokno.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]
In March 2018, a small group of Christians protested at the Senate against the SOGIE bill by calling
the proposed legislation an 'abomination', adding that homosexuality is allegedly a 'sin' citing that
their 'hate' is allegedly credible because it is supposedly written in the Bible and that viewing that
identifying as part of the LGBT community is a supposedly a 'lifestyle'.[21] The group also claimed that
the bill relates to same-sex marriage, which is not found anywhere within the bill.[22] Senators
Villanueva, Gatchalian, and Villar spoke against same-sex marriage after the protest.[23] In May 2018,
senator Tito Sotto, who opposes the SOGIE bill, became the new Senate President. In an interview,
Sotto was asked on the bill's passage, to which he responded, "Not in this congress."[9]
In July 2018, various high-profile celebrities rallied for the passage of the SOGIE bill. They also
called out senators Sotto, Pacquiao, and Villanueva to end the debates and pass the proposed
legislation.[13] In August 2018, on the height of the bill's postponed debates, various discrimination
events against the Filipino LGBT community surfaced, causing public calling for the passage of the
SOGIE Equality Bill in the Senate.[24][25] Numerous influential personalities, including political allies of
the three senators who oppose the bill, sided with the calls to pass the landmark proposal.[17][24][7]
In January 2019, fake news and chain mails[26] claiming that there are 'satanic'[27] and 'same-sex
marriage' provisions in the SOGIE bill began circulating, a move to dislodge the bill's progress.[28] The
actual bill does not have any satanic nor same-sex marriage provisions.[29]
In May 2019, the SOGIE Equality Bill officially became the longest-running bill under the Senate
interpellation period in Philippine history. Supporters of the bill have remarked that the prolonged
interpellation was intended by the dissenters to block the passage of the historic anti-discrimination
bill.[30] The bill's principal author and sponsor in the Senate, senator Risa Hontiveros, has again
called on her Senate colleagues to formally close the interpellation period, so that the bill can finally
be subject for amendments and voting.[30] In June 2019, with the end of the session of the 17th
Congress, the SOGIE Equality Bill prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
gender identity or expression -- after the lawmakers failed to tackle the bill in this session of the
Senate of the Philippines. The Senate version of the bill was first filed in August 11, 2016. It was
sponsored by Risa Hontiveros in December 14 of the same year. The bill has become one of the
slowest-moving bills in the country’s history. The passed house version of the bill would have
penalised discrimination with a fine of not less than ₱100,000 but not more than ₱500,000, or
imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six years or both, depending on the court's
decision. [31][31] however, she said the bill had gained new allies and wider acceptance among policy
makers and the public and that she is confident the bill will pass in the next Congress.[32] The bill was
archived, and the bill must again be refiled in the 18th Congress, starting over the one to three-year
process of enactment again.[30]

18th Congress[edit]
Versions of the SOGIE Equality Bill was again refiled in the 18th Congress by senator Risa
Hontiveros[33], senator Imee Marcos[34], senator Leila de Lima, and senator Kiko Pangilinan,[35] while
another similar bill was filed by senator Sonny Angara.[36] Senators Bong Go[37], Juan Miguel
Zubiri[38], Ralph Recto,[39] and Franklin Drilon[40] have manifested their support for the SOGIE Bill. In
the House of Representatives, various representatives have also filed their versions of the bill,
notably, Sol Aragones of Laguna[41] Geraldine Roman of Bataan,[42] Loren Legarda of Antique[43],
Maria Lourdes Alba of Bukidnon, Jose Belmonte of Quezon city, Bayan Muna representatives
Eufemia Cullamat, Carlos Zarate, and Ferdinand Gaite, Kristine Singson of Ilocos Sur, Bagong
Henerasyon representative Bernadette Dy, Eric Olivarez of Parañaque city, and Francis Abaya of
Cavite.[44] Representatives Sy-Alvarado, De Venecia, Reyes, Taduran, Bordado, Olivarez, and
Violago have also signed as co-author of the bill filed by representative Roman,[45] while Gabriela
Women's Party representative Brosas has signed as co-author of the bill filed by Bayan Muna.[46]
Religious leaders also manifested their support for the SOGIE Bill, such as Koko Alviar of the Iglesia
Filipina Independiente (Aglipayan Church)[47] Sister Mary John Mananzan, OSB, executive director of
the Institute of Women’s Studies of the Catholic St. Scholastica’s College,[48] Bishop Solito Toquiero
of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines,[49] and Pastor Kakay Pamaran of the Union
Theological Seminary.[50] The representative for Muslim Filipinos also supported the bill.[51] In
contrast, representative Eddie Villanueva claimed that the SOGIE Bill is 'imported' and not part of
Filipino culture.[52] This statement has been rebuked by internationally-respected historians and
researchers who have verified through decades of intense scientific research that the Philippines
has always had a diverse sexuality even before Spanish colonization.[53][54]
Senate president Tito Sotto has again expressed dissent against the bill, adding that the bill "will not
pass" in the Senate as long as he is the Senate president.[55] Senator Joel Villanueva has also
expressed dissent.[56] Human right group, Karapatan, expressed support for the bill[57], as well as
the Philippine Commission on Human Rights.[58] The student governments of the country's top
educational institutions, namely, Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU), De La Salle
University(DLSU)-Manila, University of Santo Tomas (UST), De La Salle - College of St. Benilde
(CSB), Miriam College (MC), St. Scholastica’s College (SSC)-Manila and San Beda University (SBU)
have also supported the SOGIE bill through an inter-university convergence.[59] The 2019 Metro
Manila Pride March also backed the passage of the SOGIE Bill, with its attendance peaking at thrice
the number from the previous year.[60]
Various personalities have again called support for the SOGIE Bill, namely, Anne Curtis[61] Heart
Evangelista, Catriona Gray, Pia Wurtzbach, Judy Taguiwalo Saab Magalona, Kelsey Merritt,
Angelina Mead King, Joey Mead King,[62][63] Iza Calzado, Nadine Lustre, Janine Gutierrez, BJ
Pascual, Mari Jasmine and Samantha Lee.[64] Vice President Leni Robredo also supports the SOGIE
Bill[65], while President Rodrigo Duterte supports "an anti-discrimination law patterned like the one
approved in Davao".[66] The government has stated that they will certify an anti-discrimination bill as
"urgent".[67]
Ryan Borja Capitulo
about 3 months ago

An LGBT who is Anti- “Anti-SOGIE Discrimination Bills”

RYAN B. CAPITULO, M.D., FPOGS, FIFEPAG
Yes, I am an LGBT. And yes, I strongly oppose Senate Bill 935 (Anti-Discrimination Bill) and House
Bill 4982 (SOGIE Equality Bill) for three reasons.
FIRST: There is no need to pass these proposed bills given that there are already many existing
laws that safeguard the rights of every citizen against discrimination: (1) The 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines, (2) Presidential Decree No. 442 “Labor Code of the Philippines,” (3)
Republic Act No. 386 “Civil Code of the Philippines,” (4) Republic Act No. 3019 “Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act,” (5) Republic Act No. 6713 “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees,” (6) Republic Act No. 3815 “The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines,”
(7) Republic Act No. 7877 “Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995,” including the (8) Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. There are victims of discrimination for being ilocano or kapampangan
or bisaya, but do we need an Anti-Ilokano or Anti-Kapampangan or Anti-Bisaya Discrimination Act?
There are victims of discrimination because of their height, but do we need an Anti-Short Stature
Discrimination Act? There are victims of discrimination because they are fat, but do we need an Anti-
Obese Discrimination Act? These existing laws ensure that any form of discrimination is avoided.
There is no need for additional laws in this regard. Republic Act No. 9710 “The Magna Carta of
Women” is in no way similar to any of the proposed bills on Anti-SOGIE Discrimination. While this
law affirms the rights of women and seeks to eliminate discrimination, it does not impose penalties
that foster a sense of entitlement and undue advantage.
SECOND: We do not need an Anti-Discrimination or SOGIE Equality law because Filipinos are
inherently accepting of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders. Our society is innately tolerant of
LGBTs. Proof of this would be the many Filipino LGBTs who are very successful in their respective
fields: business, trade, media, education, fashion, healthcare, law, I.T., science and technology, arts,
show business and even politics. The election of the honorable representative of the first district of
Bataan, Rep. Geraldine B. Roman, is yet another validation. The Philippines has also consistently
been recognized as one of the gay-friendly countries in the world and one of the gay-friendliest in
Asia. In many households and families all over the country, LGBTs are accepted and loved, with
many serving as primary breadwinners and caregivers. As an LGBT, I never experienced
discrimination growing up, whether in school or at work. I can say that I am where I am now because
of hard work, discipline, God-given intelligence and prayers.

THIRD: These proposed bills, when enacted into law, may be used as instruments to stifle or violate
our freedom of religion and freedom to live out our faith. Allow me to elaborate by posing these
questions: What will happen to a seminary or convent that will uphold Church laws by refusing
admission to a transgender who wants to study and become a priest or nun? What will happen to
parishes and Catholic universities that will not allow or recognize LGBT organizations in keeping with
their mandate to abide by Church doctrines? What will happen to “all boys” or “all girls” Catholic
schools that will not accept transgender children as students because this would go against the
catechism they teach? What will happen to Catholic and Christian offices or companies like
bookstores, travel agencies, radio stations, television networks or religious organizations that will not
hire LGBT employees because it violates their faith-based beliefs? What will happen to a Muslim
school (madrasah) that pledges obedience to the Quran and hadith and will not enrol transgender
students who desire to be an imam? What will happen to a Jewish school that will not accept LGBT
students applying to be a rabbi since Orthodox Judaism prohibits it? What will happen to churches of
other denominations that will not employ LGBTs as pastors in compliance with their biblical beliefs?
In all of these possible scenarios, the proposed bills may be used to take legal action against
churches, mosques, temples, religious communities and faith-based organizations resulting in fines
of up to 500,000 pesos or imprisonment of up to 6 years. Proponents of the bill have always
asserted that ensuring non-discrimination for LGBTs on the basis of their sexual orientation and
gender identity will not diminish or encroach on the rights of others. But the penal provisions of the
proposed law say otherwise. Surely, we cannot expect the followers of the great religious traditions
of the world to change their doctrines to accommodate a law that will violate their fundamental right
to freely practice the very religion that they uphold. Forcing organized religion to set aside or modify
its tenets is as absurd as forcing LGBTs to change their sexual orientation and gender identity.
As an LGBT, as a Catholic, as a man of faith, as a Filipino, I urge the Senate and the House of
Representatives NOT to pass Senate Bill 935 and House Bill 4982.

Position Paper of Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc. on Anti-Discrimination

Bills on SOGIE
“An Act Prohibiting Discrimination On the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
and Expression And Providing Penalties Therefore”
1. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity as Classification is Unreasonable and
Against the “Equal Protection” clause

a. Unreasonable

In classifying persons or things, there should be a clear and distinct

difference between two categories. This is because in legal terms, classification is
defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain
particulars and different from all others in these same particulars (Constitutional Law
by Justice Isagani Cruz, supra). There has to be what is called substantial
distinction, as contrary to superficial difference. This is the reason why we could
distinctively classify men from women (difference in reproductive roles), minors from
adults (difference in age of consent), citizens from aliens (difference in nationality)
etc. This distinction can be described with relative permanency in the characteristics
of the distinction being made.

However when a person uses colors for vehicles or emotions and/or lifestyles for
persons, they convey superficial differences in as much as these differences can
change relatively in time – there exists no permanency in the distinctions being
established.

That is why it is important to understand that sexual orientation is such a superficial

difference since the attraction of a person to the same sex varies in degrees, and
there are recorded cases of persons with diminished same-sex attractions, if not
totally re-oriented into heterosexuals. In fact, there are a number of “ex-gay
ministries” available for persons struggling with same-sex attractions, such as our
group Courage, and Bagong Pag-Asa, who assist the individual in understanding the
struggle and living a chaste life. So to classify individuals according to their sexual
orientation (homosexuals and heterosexuals) is unreasonable.

It is also equally important to understand that gender identity is also a superficial

difference. As defined, it refers to a personal sense of identity (making it a
subjective concept) based on manners of clothing, inclinations and behavior in
relation to masculine or feminine conventions. Notwithstanding the argument that
sexual orientation can be changed, the indicators of gender identity – manners of
clothing, inclinations and behavior – are also undeniably factors in social science
that can change relatively in time. The subjectivity of the definition (“personal”)
makes it so general that it is difficult for it to be considered as a substantial
distinction.

b. Against the “Equal Protection” clause

Anti-Discrimination bill on SOGIE was authored to address anti-discriminatory

practices. However, by doing so it unjustly favors a group of individuals over the
 rest despite basic natural gender similarities. It is made in favor of active gays and
lesbians.

In the earlier position paper of Courage Philippines (2005), there was an example of
two factory workers who were both due for promotions – one a homosexual, while
the other a “straight” person. Given two case illustrations of employer-bias, the
homosexual can use Anti-Discrimination bills on SOGIE against a homophobic
employer, but the “straight” person cannot use Anti-Discrimination bill on SOGIE
against a biased homosexual employer. This proposed bill ironically permits and
allows discrimination and inequality. And the inequality lies in the behavior and/or
sexual lifestyle chosen by a person – through Anti-Discrimination bills on
SOGIE more protection will be given to individuals who embrace the active
homosexual lifestyle, as oppose to those who reject or fight against it.

For the “straight” person may also be having same-sex attractions but chooses not
to act upon it, and furthermore chooses to conceal his or her struggles from the
public. Yet because of Anti-Discrimination bill on SOGIE, he or she is discriminated
against in favor of individuals who choose to be openly in the active homosexual
lifestyle – not unless he or she will also openly embrace the same lifestyle. And so
we can see that these bills may be used to trigger an influence upon people who are
genuinely struggling against same-sex attractions to consider taking on the gay
lifestyle, so as not to be discriminated against.

We then see that Anti-Discrimination bill on SOGIE is gravely in violation of the

constitutional guaranty of equal protection – requiring that all persons or
things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed. Similar subjects, in other words, should not be treated
differently, so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against
others (Constitutional Law by Justice Isagani Cruz, p.120, 1991 ed.)

2. The Danger of “Discrimination”

Section 3 of Anti-Discrimination bill on SOGIE defines “discrimination” in confusing

fashion – on one hand, it bases its definition on “grounds of sex, sexual orientation, and
gender identity”; but on the other hand, it deems that it is “not relevant for the purpose of
determining whether an act of discrimination has been committed“. It seems to cloak its
intention of defining discrimination as “perceived”, which is part of the definition of
previous versions of the said bill. Section 4 then lists down the different discriminatory
practices that may be incurred under the said bill. Categorizing a discriminatory act
as perceived is something relative – to the person being accused, to the person
accusing and to the circumstances and other persons that surround the act
itself. Therefore, defining “discrimination” with this phrase allows the law to
be manipulated by scheming individuals, to which the law does not define protection
over their possible victims.
A scheming individual may or may not be a homosexual. Upon slight provocation, this
individual may just simply sue anyone through this bill whom he or she feels is
discriminating him or her. This person may also be just pretending to be a homosexual
(although his or her gender identity – as it is defined also in the bill – is
heterosexual). Yet, in the like manner, he or she may use this bill to sue anyone whom
he or she pleases – convinced that he or she was discriminated against.

It can also be used by individuals, who may perceive, by mere suspicion that he or she
is being discriminated against.

Also, because gender identity is defined in terms of the individual’s inclinations or

behavior, it is shortchanging the legitimacy of the behavior action being done. By
virtue of this definition, a person may use the bill to incriminate individuals or institutions,
even if his or her behavior is illegitimate – such as talking or laughing boisterously in
places of worship, or making sexual advances to a person he or she is attracted to.

The following are some scenarios that may occur following the approval and
implementation of this law:

a. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of the Philippines will be apprehended if they will not
admit individuals with active homosexual orientation as scout masters Section 5 (b)

b. The parishes of the Catholic Church, despite of its moral stand on homosexual
activities under the right to religious freedom, will be apprehended if they will not
recognize gay militant organizations that would like to enter as parish-based
organizations Section 5 (e)

c. Hospitals and clinics may be apprehended if they are not able to prioritize
homosexual persons in admission to their facilities Section 5 (f)

d. Same-sex marriage licenses would be issued despite of provisions against it in the

Family Code Section 5 (g)

e. Establishments, despite of their right to draw policies of dress code and conduct in
their premises, will be apprehended if they will deny entrance to a homosexual
person who exhibits dress code and/or behavior contrary to the policies of the
establishment Section 5 (h)

f. The responsibility of parents over their minor children under the Family Code of the
Philippines will be undermined Section 5 ( i )

g. Law enforcers who arrest persons caught in illicit behavior (such as sexual activity in
a public place) will be apprehended for harassment Section 5 ( j)
 h. Government officials who are tasked to prosecute because of this bill will be
apprehended even if he judges that the discriminatory case at hand is irrelevant or
invalid based on his or her own moral judgment. Section 6

In some versions of the bill, the provision on Section 5 ( k ) on other analogous

circumstances present a dangerous and vague concept, which can be used by ill-meaning
individuals who wants to pursue their own selfish interests. Individuals with perversions, such
as pedophiles and sadomasochists, can also use this provision to justify their actions and
behavior as something in relation to their gender identity and sexual orientation.
3. Superseding Other Criminal Laws

Due to the repealing clause (Section 13) of the bill, it is not unlikely that it
will undermine and consider useless the other civil and criminal laws that are
“inconsistent” with the provisions laid in the bill. It means it will supercede any law that
is working contrary to the needs of homosexual persons.

For example, this bill may undermine the anti-harassment laws by allowing persons with
homosexual inclinations and behavior to pursue other persons by making sexual
advances to them, as it is warranted by their gender identity to do it because of their
sexual orientation. And the Family Code of the Philippines that clearly defines marriage
as between one man and one woman would also be disregarded.

4. Anti-Discrimination bills on SOGIE is Redundant of Existing Laws

recognized in the Philippines
There are sufficient laws recognized in the Philippines: civil, administrative, criminal and
political, that can be invoked for the protection of the rights anyone – including persons with
same-sex attractions.

(The following are taken from the position paper of Courage Philippines on HB 634,
dated and submitted to the House of Representatives, Committee on Civil, Political and
Human Rights on May 19, 2005)

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 1 – All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights

Article 7 – All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to
equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any
discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such
discrimination

2. The 1987 Philippine Constitution

Section 11, Article II (State Policies) – The State values the dignity of every human
person and guarantees full respect for human rights

Section 15, Article II – The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the
people and instill health consciousness among them
 Section 18, Article II – The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It
shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.

Section 26, Article II – The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for
public service

Section 2 (2), Article IX-B (Civil Service Commission) – Appointments in the civil
service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be determined, as far as
practicable, X X X, by competitive examinations

Section 3, Article XII (Labor) – The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of
employment opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations. X X X They shall be entitled to
security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also
participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits
as may be provided by law.

Section 11, Article XII (Health) – The State shall adopt an integrated and
comprehensive approach to health development which shall endeavor to make
essential goods, health and other social services available to all the people at
affordable costs.

Section 1, Article XIV (Education) – The State shall protect and promote the right of
all citizens to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make
such education accessible to all.

Section 4, Article XVI (Military Service) – The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall
be composed of a citizen armed force which shall undergo military training

3. The Labor Code of the Philippines

Article 3 – The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment,
ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed

Article 6 – All rights and benefits granted to workers under this Code shall X X X
apply alike to all workers X X X

(These provisions specially address Section 4b of Anti-Discrimination bills on

SOGIE)

4. The Civil Code of the Philippines

Article 19 – Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance
of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
faith.
 Article 20 – Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same

Article 21 – Every person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter
for the damage

Article 26 – Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of
mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts X X X shall
produce a cause of action for damages

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station
in life, place of birth, physical defect or other personal condition

Article 27 – Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or
employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file
an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any
disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.

Article 32 – Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the
following rights and liberties of another shall be liable for damages:

(8) The right to equal protection of the laws

These Civil Code provisions alone can practically and sufficiently cover the entire
concerns of Anti-Discrimination bills on SOGIE, specifically Section 4, paragraphs
(a) to (i) of said bill

5. The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

Section 3 (e) – Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or
giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the
discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

This single special penal law practically covers the public sector applications of
Section 4, paragraphs a to g of Anti-Discrimination bills on SOGIE, and provides a
more stiffer penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month to fifteen (15) years
imprisonment, as compared to the merely one (1) year imprisonment prescribed by
Anti-Discrimination bills on SOGIE in case of a second offense.

6. Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
(RA No. 6713)
 Section 4 (c) Justness and Sincerity – Public officials and employees shall remain
true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall
not discriminate against anyone X X X. They shall at all times respect the rights of
others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs,
public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.

The violation of the foregoing provision, proven in a proper administrative

proceeding, may cause the removal or dismissal of the offending public official or
employee concerned. And this law sufficiently addresses the concerns covered by
the above-mentioned RA No. 3019 vis-à-vis Anti-Discrimination bills on SOGIE

7. The Revised Penal Code

Article 287 on Unjust Vexation sufficiently covers the concerns of Section 4,
paragraphs a, f, g and h.

Articles 282-287 on Threats and Coercion and Articles 353-362 on Libel and Slander
and Article 364 on Intriguing Against Honor sufficiently cover the concerns Section 4
(h) of these bills and provide for a stiffer penalty to as much as twelve (12) years
imprisonment in the case of grave threats involving one’s sexual orientation.

8. The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (RA No. 7877)

Section 2 – The State shall value the dignity of every individual, enhance the
development of its human resources, guarantee full respect for human rights, and
uphold the dignity of workers, employees, applicants for employment, students or
those undergoing training, instruction or education. Toward this end, all forms of
sexual harassment in the employment, education or training environment are hereby
declared unlawful.

Over and above the foregoing survey of pertinent constitutional, labor, civil and criminal
law provisions, persons discriminated against due to sexual orientation by public officials
and/or employees have the option of commencing administrative proceedings for the
removal or dismissal of such erring public servants on the ground of grave misconduct,
oppression or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service (Civil Service
Commission Memorandum Circular No 19 series of 1998). This sufficiently covers the
entire length and breadth of Anti-Discrimination bills on SOGIE’s concerns.

5. Causes versus Effects with Discriminatory Practices

The bill supposedly addresses discriminatory practices made on the basis of sexual
orientation and gender identity. The introduction made by Hon. Rosales in then HB

634 recognizes that it is “because of misconceptions and ignorance” that discriminatory

practices are committed. After the bill enumerates the different practices that may be
incurred, which is discriminatory of individuals with homosexual orientation, it forthrightly
 states the sanctions and penalties for such actions. But does it really address the
issue?

Why are there discriminatory practices? The bill itself suggests – misconceptions and
ignorance. When this same bill penalizes those who discriminate – whether actual or
perceived (predisposed to vague judgment), does it help correct the misconceptions and
remove the ignorance? It only helps people not to discriminate because of blind fear
and greater ignorance of the homosexual condition.

Misconceptions and ignorance are answered by education – that provides truth. When
people are educated on what really is going on within a homosexual, then they begin to
understand, and in understanding they begin to love, and in loving they begin to
abandon their misconceptions and in effect, their discriminatory practices.

Nonetheless, we must evaluate which misconceptions are in fact misconceptions, and

which ones are labeled only as such but are actually “myths”.

The following are the issues often raised on the topic of homosexuality and homosexual
persons

Fact 1: There are a number of persons experiencing sexual attractions towards the same sex
It is known that there are persons that are attracted sexually towards the same sex. Even the
Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) recognizes this: “The number of men and women who
have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.” (CCC, 2358) This number, which
for some may be growing exponentially due to unexplainable causes, may be attributed as a
product of a culture of individualism and moral relativism. Gay activists may view the
increasing number of homosexuals as an effect of a society that is becoming more “open” to
accepting the gay culture. Yet we can see that it is the gay culture that influences society to
conform in its relativist ways – messages like “It’s ok being gay”, or “Gay is happy” inundates
mass media and subconsciously enters the minds of people. This ever active advocacy to
promote the gay lifestyle slowly seeps into society’s very moral fiber. This explains why more
and more individuals experiment with a new found “alternative” lifestyle, and gets caught up by
the gay culture. The Catholic Church maintains its stand that homosexual acts is “intrinsically
disordered”. By this it does not mean a “mental disorder” but a “sexual identity disorder” – that
stems from the fact that a person is only either a man or a woman, and any deviation from one’s
identity with the same sex and one’s attraction to the opposite sex constitutes a disorder. This
disorder is a product of a person’s total experience – with family, friends, institutions and society
as a whole, and can be corrected with appropriate actions and therapy. The dynamics of persons
with same-sex attractions is discussed further in this paper.
Fact 2: Persons with same-sex attractions experience discrimination
Because of a limited understanding of the nature and dynamics of homosexuality,
persons who experience same-sex attractions experience discrimination from
different institutions of society. Families may disown their members who have same-
sex attractions. Friends may reject them. Employment, career and business
opportunities may be closed to them. The academe, the government and the
military may disdain them. Even church members may condemn
 them. Notwithstanding these, the Catholic Church remains sympathetic to them as a
mother. As it states in the Catechism “They must be accepted with respect,
compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should
be avoided.” (CCC, 2358)

Myth 1: There is such a class of persons termed as “third sex”

If there is a “third sex”, then there should be a “first” and a “second”. It is an
inaccurate term, because the sexes should always be treated equal. And there are
only two classifications of sex – based on one’s dominant physiological and
reproductive make-up – either male or female. There are no other classifications
that will qualify. And the male should not be seen as the dominant sex, and neither
should the female. Both are complementary of each other, with specific roles that
should be played in society, and in the building of its basic unit – which is the
family. And the family is bounded by natural laws – especially that of union and
procreation. The Catholic Church recognizes these laws and sees that sexual acts
between persons of the same sex are disordered based on grounds against union
and procreation – “They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual
complementarity. (Union) They close the sexual act to the gift of life. (Procreation)”
(CCC, 2357). Therefore “under no circumstances can they be approved”. What is
being condemned here is the sexual act, not the person having same-sex
attraction. Homosexuals are not to be termed as the “third sex”, because their
condition is a matter of personal conviction of their identity – which is not a sufficient
ground to make them a separate class of persons. Discussion on this is found in the
next section of this paper.

Myth 2: All homosexuals are alike

Homosexuals are stereotyped. Based on what is seen on the television, heard on
the radio, read in the newspapers and magazines, modeled by gay persons either as
personalities or someone from one’s neighborhood – people paint an image of what
a homosexual is. They give them positive traits – creative and artistic, fashion
trendsetters, life of the party, friendly. They give them negative traits – vulgar,
attention-seeker, flirt, prissy, tactless, too loud, too touchy, too vocal. Some people
love them, some people hate them – the way they dress up, the way they talk, the
way they walk, the way they behave. And this image that people have of a
homosexual is translated to every person with same-sex attractions that they come
in contact with. But this should not be done. This practice of stereotyping,
typecasting people based on a certain trait that they have bring about
misunderstanding, conflict and yes – discrimination. Homosexuals are not alike in
many ways. In fact, the only thing that they have in common is their experience of
same-sex attractions, nothing else! The discussion of the differences of
homosexuals is given at a latter part of this paper.

Myth 3: Homosexuals go to hell

 The Church has been accused of condemning homosexuals to hell. But the Catholic
Church has always seen the homosexual condition as a sharing of a person with the
sufferings of Jesus, as the Catechism states – “this inclination… constitutes for most
of them a trial… These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they
are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may
encounter from their condition.” (CCC, 2358). The Catholic Church considers the
condition of the homosexual as an instrument for them to attain salvation! How is
that possible? The Catechism also provides us the answer.

“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach
them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer
and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach
Christian perfection.” (CCC, 2359) Persons with same-sex attractions are called to
holiness!

For it is not the person that experience same-sex attraction that the Church
condemns but the sexual activity between persons of the same-sex. It is the action,
not the person; it is the sin, not the sinner. And people inside and outside the
Church should be able to understand how to distinguish them. The practice of loving
the sinner and hating the sin should always be emphasized to the clergy and even to
the lay persons.

Myth 4: Persons with same-sex attractions are born

The origin of homosexuality is a struggle between nature and nurture, between
genetics and environmental factors. Several researches have been made to prove
both sides. To prove that it is genetic means that persons with same-sex attractions
are born – and thus they could be recognized as a separate class of persons, and it
would just be logical to give them all the rights to fit their condition as a class of
persons.

However, advocates of genetic-origin of homosexuality have yet to prove that it is

so. From Alfred Kinsey’s studies that concluded “10 percent of males in the study
are homosexual for at least three years during a portion of their lives”, to Bailey and
Pillard’s twin studies, to Le Vay’s hypothalamus studies, to Hamer et al’s
chromosome studies – they have committed one or more research flaws: 1) its
researcher was biased if not qualified, 2) cases were taken from samples that were
non-representative of the population being studied, and 3) cases from different
studies are unable to replicate the results to make generalizations on the population
being studied. Efforts of proving that there exists a gay gene are all non-conclusive.

Conversely, a type of psychotherapy, along with its proponents and advocates like
Joseph Nicolosi and Gerard Van Den Aardweg, called Reparative Therapy, reveals
that a person with same sex attractions is a product of intrinsic gender identity
deficits that one has incurred in early childhood. And because gender identification
 happens as early as 0 to 3 years old, one may think that he or she was “born” that
way, but was in fact just too young to remember it. The role of the same-sex parent
and same-sex peers are crucial to the origins of one’s homosexual
orientation. Several research studies (such as that of John Thorp, 1992 and John
Boswell, 1989) support these views that homosexual attraction is due to the
environment. An organization of psychologists called NARTH (National Association
for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) strongly supports and practices this
and similar therapeutic processes that enable a person to return to heterosexuality.

In fact, most recent studies cannot detect genetic factors in same sex attractions,
and supports instead the importance of social factors (Hershberger, SL (1997): A
twin registry study of male and female sexual orientation. Journal of Sex Research
34, 212-222.; Bailey, JM; Dunne, MP; Martin, NG (2000): Genetic and Environmental
influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78, 524-536.). In 2002, a study by
Peter Bearman found out that the genetic contribution to same-sex attraction was
zero; and that parental influence plays a more critical role in SSA (Bearman, PS;
Bruckner, H (2002): Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attraction.
American Journal of Sociology 107, 1179-1205.).

Myth 5: Once a homosexual, always a homosexual

If people think that homosexuals are born, then naturally they will think that
homosexuals will not and cannot change. Once a person has been hooked into the
homosexual lifestyle, it cannot get out of it. It is much like saying that alcoholics and
drug addicts cannot change, but with a greater weight since the homosexual
condition is considered permanent as it is seen as an “inborn” trait.

However, several groups and programs challenge these beliefs. The existence of
support groups such as Courage, Bagong Pag-asa, Exodus International, In His
Likeness and Freedom Ministry make a statement that says “Change is
possible!” Online self-help and mentoring websites such as Door of Hope of Setting
Captives Free and People Can Change testify to the truth that there is hope for the
person with same-sex attraction to change, and become the true men and true
women that they are called to be. A number of these groups are not purely spiritual
in their approach to homosexuality, but combines psychology, sociology and
spirituality in understanding and addressing the homosexual condition. Using
addiction counseling and reparative therapy, psychotherapists have helped a
significant number of persons with same-sex attractions either to embrace a purely
chaste life or to seek re-orientation and move on to a happy heterosexual married
life.

More importantly, a very recent development just occurred with the American
Psychological Association (APA), the professional organization that, in 1973,
removed homosexuality from the list of psychological disorders. On an e-news
 posted by Focus on the Family (http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0041796.cfm)
dated August 25, 2006, it featured APA’s President Gerald P. Koocher stating “APA
has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted
homosexual attraction.” This recent stand by APA was supported by a research by
Dr. Robert Spitzer, a New York-based psychiatrist who helped to convince the APA
in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the list of psychological disorders. In this
study he found that some people who are highly motivated to leave homosexuality
could return to heterosexuality.

If these international organizations are now re-thinking their idea about homosexuality and
the possibility of change, why should our society, with our strong family values and spiritual
convictions, deny these facts to our public? Why should we let the gay political agenda rule
our legislature? Because of these facts and the legal/moral impediments outlined in Anti-
Discrimination bills on SOGIE and similar bills, we enjoin you not to support them and do
every legal act possible to prevent these bills from being enacted into law. For if these bills
become the law of the land, the effects to our society will be irreversible.