'It’s dangerous': Groups say

SOGIE equality bill

discriminatory
Dharel Placido, ABS-CBN News
Posted at Sep 04 2019 03:59 PM | Updated as of Sep 04 2019 04:01 PM

But this bill is facing stiff opposition from conservative groups who believe it would violate the
rights of people who do not belong to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
community.

The SOGIE Equality Bill is in itself discriminatory for being “one-sided,” said lawyer Lyndon Caña
of the Coalition of Concerned Families of the Philippines.

“We do not hate the LGBT community. We don’t condone any form of bashing… We, however,
have the strongest reservations and concerns or opposition to the SOGIE bill and I hope it will not be
misconstrued as hatred to the LGBT community,” Caña said in a Senate hearing on the bill.

“There is exclusion or non-mention of the other sector immediately affected by the bill. It is
immediately a one-sided bill which is supposed to be anti-discrimination.”

Caña also believes that in the SOGIE Equality Bill, “facts will yield to feelings,” as he noted that
one’s gender identity is based on an individuals “feelings.”

“We are very concerned that in this concept of the bill where facts will yield to feelings, na-
criminalize pa ang mga maninindigan based on fact (those who stand up for facts are criminalized),”
he said.

Cesar Buendia, who represents a group of “former homosexuals redeemed and changed by Jesus
Christ,” said the bill guarantees rights to its citizens “based on mere perceptions, beliefs and
mindsets.”

“It is dangerous,” Buendia exclaimed.

“What if a 12-year-old child believes and asserts he is already 21 years old? Should the child be
accorded the right to vote marry, and drink alcohol?” he said.

Buendia added the SOGIE Equality Bill is “excessively discriminatory [against] the majority of
Filipinos” who believe that there are only two sexes.

“We pray that no part of the SOGIE bill be passed. If the framers of the bill only seek protection for
people who are discriminated upon, then pass a law that will protect all people from discrimination
and not only a group of people,” Buendia said.

Addressing Buendia’s concern, Hontiveros said the intention of the hearings on the proposed
measure is to “eventually pass a law that indeed protects all.”

“It is the belief that each individual has a SOGIE, even cisgender, even heterosexual people,” she
said.

“But certainly [it seeks to provide] protections against discrimination to all and especially at this
point in time the LGBT+ community who historically suffer the greatest amount of discrimination.”

Obed Dela Cruz of the Christian group Intercessors for the Philippines said a SOGIE Equality Bill
may not be necessary as there are already several laws protecting a person’s rights.

“The laws are already enough to be applicable to all, and if ever a court or a public officer will refuse
to apply this law to the LGBT, let that public officer be [made] liable,” he said.
FIGHT VS DISCRIMINATION

But Sister Mary John Mananzan, St. Scholastica College's Vice President of External Affairs and
Director of the Institute of Women's Studies, said she supports the bill because it fights for the rights
of a group of people who have been victims of discrimination.

Mananzan said while issues on sexual orientation are highly debatable, one must not ignore the fact
that many people who have chosen to freely express their gender identity face discrimination.

She explained that heterosexual men would not normally demand equal treatment because "it is a fact
that they are not discriminated against as gender."

"Therefore, it is really the one that is discriminated against that is the focus of our attention,"
Mananzan said.

"Even if we are really against discrimination of anybody, sometimes you have to focus on groups of
people that are actually suffering discrimination and violence."

Koko Alviar of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, also known as the Aglipayan Church, said the
church supports the SOGIE Equality Bill because "we believe the full realization of human rights is
our way of establishing heaven on earth."

"We believe God wants us to exist in a community of love," said Alviar, an openly gay man.

"'Love the sinner,' we are told by our anti-SOGIE Christian siblings, but how do you say you love the
sinner when you are refusing them secular, universal rights to jobs, education, and healthcare based
on their dissonance from your expectations?" he added.

The SOGIE Equality Bill recently became a hot-button issue after transgender woman Gretchen
Custodio Diez was arrested following an altercation with a mall personnel for her use of a woman’s
restroom.

The proposed measure has deepened divisions among various sectors in predominantly Catholic
Philippines.

SOGIE bill won’t promote

equality; only ‘special’
rights to LGBT – solon
Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1158635/sogie-bill-wont-promote-equality-
only-special-rights-to-lgbt-solon#ixzz62Bjuo7l5
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
Jesus is Lord Founder and CIBAC party-list Rep. Eddie Villanueva. INQUIRER FILE
PHOTO / RICHARD A. REYES
MANILA, Philippines — Instead of promoting equality, the Sexual Orientation and
Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE) Equality bill will only “unduly give special
rights” to some members of society at the expense of others, a lawmaker said
Wednesday.
Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) Partylist Rep. Eddie Villanueva
manifested his opposition against the SOGIE bill during a privilege speech on
Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

“Let it be put to record that this representation is in opposition to SOGIE bill. [In] its
current form and provisions, I believe, [it] will not promote equality but will, instead,
unduly give special rights to some members of our society at the expense of the rights
of other members and to the detriment of the social order in our community,”
Villanueva said.
He reasoned that the SOGIE bill “undermines the role of parents in the family,”
“threatens academic freedom,” “imperils freedom of speech and religion,” and “puts
into question the very foundation” of the country’s laws.
The lawmaker also said the SOGIE bill is “loaded with legal infirmities and unsettling
questions on social acceptability and feasibility of implementation.”
During his speech, Villanueva further put emphasis on the August 13 incident where a
transgender woman, Gretchen Diez, was barred by a janitress to use a women’s toilet
room in a mall in Quezon City.
He noted that the side of the janitress has been given “little, if any, attention.”
Villanueva came to the janitress’s defense, saying that she was “just doing her job.”
Villanueva said his party-list filed a resolution calling for a probe on the August 13
incident but will put particular attention to get the side of the janitress, “whose side
has not yet been comprehensively heard.”
“To guarantee impartiality and objectiveness in this issue, hearing all sides of the
story is a must,” the lawmaker said.
As interpellation on Villanueva’s speech was not allowed, Bataan 1st District Rep.
Geraldine Roman instead manifested her request for lawmakers to read the SOGIE
bills filed in the chamber.
“My request to all is to read the bills. Let us not be carried away by extrapolations nor
by fear by very far away scenarios from other countries,” Roman said.
ADVERTISEMENT

She added that lawmakers should also focus on the “essence” of the bills which is to
afford all Filipinos and LGBT community (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender)
members the same rights when it comes to work, schooling, receiving services from
the government, access to public establishments, and “not to be insulted in the
streets.”
“There is nothing to fear but everything to look forward to in a society that welcomes
everyone even people that is coming from the minority,” Roman said. /kga

Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1158635/sogie-bill-wont-promote-equality-

only-special-rights-to-lgbt-solon#ixzz62BjyVqEo
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Atienza: Law vs. discrimination

should not breach on 'natural
law'
Published September 12, 2019 3:12pm
By ERWIN COLCOL, GMA News

Buhay party-list Representative Lito Atienza on Thursday reiterated his

opposition to the SOGIE Equality Bill, saying that laws prohibiting and
penalizing discrimination should no longer breach on "natural law."

In a press conference, Atienza said he supports President Rodrigo Duterte

backing an anti-discrimination bill, and not the SOGIE Equality Bill, which he
was reportedly going to certify as urgent.

"No one should be discriminated upon, pero yung SOGIE bill marami kasing
sub-agenda doon. Hindi naman anti-discrimination lang yan," he said.

"Ang gusto ng SOGIE Bill, alisin yung gender identification para wala nang
segregation," he added.

According to Atienza, a great majority of women have already spoken against

the passage of the SOGIE Equality Bill.

But if an anti-discrimination bill will focus strictly on prohibiting discriminatory

practices and will have "nothing to do with gender identification," then many,
including him, would likely to support it, the former Manila mayor pointed out.

"Alisin natin yung pakikialam sa natural law. Yung babae, babae yan, yung
lalaki, lalaki yan, huwag na nating baguhin sa batas," Atienza said.
"May mga bagay na hindi na dapat pinapakialaman. Pero kung ikaw ay
nanakit ng sinumang Pilipino dahil lang sa kanyang kasarian, dapat
parusahan ka," he added.

Calls for the passage of the SOGIE Equality Bill were renewed following the
discrimination incident against trans woman Gretchen Custodio Diez, who
was arrested as she tried to use the women's comfort room in a mall in
Quezon City.

Last Congress, the House of Representatives approved on final reading the

SOGIE Equality Bill, but it did not get the same approval from the Senate. —
KBK, GMA News

If you oppose the Sogie bill

BY ANTONIO CONTRERAS
YOU say that you have no problem with lesbians, gays, bisexuals and
transsexuals (LGBT). You even claim that you have LGBT friends
and you love them. But you oppose the Sexual Orientation and Gender
Identity and Expression (Sogie) Equality bill.

Perhaps it hasn’t crossed your mind, but allow me to inform you of the
things that you actually tolerate because you oppose the Sogie bill.

You agree that the LGBT, which include your friends, can be denied
access to public services, including military service, simply because of
who they are.

You do not have any problem if sexual orientation or gender identity

or expression, as well as the disclosure of sexual orientation, becomes
part of the criteria for hiring, promotion, transfer, designation, work
assignment, reassignment, dismissal of workers, and other human
resource movement and actions, performance review; and in the
determination of employee compensation, access to career
development opportunities, training and other learning and
development interventions, incentives, privileges, benefits or
allowances, and other terms and conditions of employment.

You support educational or training institutions refusing admission or

expelling a person on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity
or expression. In addition, you also support discriminating against a
student or trainee due to the sexual orientation or gender identity or
expression of the student’s parents or guardians. You also do not
oppose the imposition of disciplinary sanctions and penalties that are
harsher than customary or similar punishments, requirements,
restrictions or prohibitions that infringe on the rights of the students
because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or
expression, or that of his or her parents or guardians.

You do not have a problem if a group or organization is refused

accreditation, formal recognition or registration, or if such would be
revoked solely on the basis of the sexual orientation or gender identity
or expression of their members of their target constituencies.

You support denying your LGBT friends access to public or private

medical and other health services open to the general public on the
basis of their being LGBT. Moreover, you have no problem if your
LGBT friends are denied their application for a professional or other
similar kind of license, clearance, certification, or any other similar
document issued by the government, or if such could be revoked
simply because they are members of the LGBT.

You will also advise your LGBT friends to just accept it if they are
denied access to or the use of establishments, facilities, utilities, or
services, including housing, open to the general public on the basis of
their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

It is perfectly acceptable for you if your LGBT friends will be

subjected or forced to undertake any medical or psychological
examination to determine or alter, or both, their sexual orientation or
gender identity or expression without their consent. You also have no
problem if your LGBT friends will be harassed, coerced or threatened
by members of institutions involved in the enforcement of law and the
protection of rights such as the police, and the quasi-judicial and
judicial bodies.
You approve of your discreet LGBT friends being outed maliciously,
without their consent, and primarily motivated by a desire for
commercial profit.

You tolerate people who engage in public speech meant to shame,

insult, vilify, or which tends to incite or normalize the commission of
discriminatory practices against the LGBTs, and which acts or
practices in turn intimidate them or result in the loss of their self-
esteem. You have no problem if your LGBT friends are subjected to
harassment, which may be conducted through any form or medium,
and which could include acts that tend to annoy, insult, bully, demean,
offend, threaten, intimidate, alarm or create a hostile or distressing
environment, or put them in fear of their safety simply because they
are LGBT.

It is perfectly acceptable for you to subject your LGBT friends,

particularly those who have not publicly disclosed their identities, to
gender profiling or to any investigatory activities. This includes the
conduct of unnecessary, unjustified, illegal or degrading searches to
determine whether they are engaged in an activity presumed to be
unlawful, immoral or socially unacceptable, or of recording and
analyzing their psychological and behavioral characteristics to make
generalizations about their sexuality.

Finally, you tolerate children manifesting early tendencies of being

LGBT to be threatened with or subjected to actual bodily harm, or to
suffer mental distress through intimidation, harassment, public ridicule
or humiliation, or repeated verbal abuse.

If you truly have no problem with the LGBT, why would you tacitly
support these acts? These acts are precisely those that the Sogie bill,
which you oppose, would seek to outlaw and penalize.

You cannot say you accept the LGBT and then oppose the Sogie bill.
When you say you have no problem with the LGBT, and then follow
it with a “but,” then you are in denial. You have a problem. You
rationalize because deep in your heart you know that you are
prejudiced. You even use religion as your excuse with your
preposterous claim that the Sogie bill will prevent you from exercising
your faith. You claim to be straight. So how can the Sogie bill deny
you the free exercise of your religion? What kind of religion would be
violated just because you would fight for the rights of a cohort of
people against discrimination?
Acceptance of the LGBT is easier said. But it will remain hollow
unless you accept that sexuality is a continuum, that being LGBT is
not a disease that could be cured, or a sin that can just be exorcised or
prayed over with. You have to realize that your LGBT friends and
people like them do not just need acceptance or tolerance, but are
entitled to rights which the Sogie bill, which you oppose, vows to
protect and ensure.

Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, September 4)— The Philippine National Police (PNP)
on Wednesday said it opposes the proposed anti-discrimination measure for members
of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) community.

While the agency supports the protection of the LGBTQ community’s rights, PNP Police
Community Relations director Maj. Gen. Bong Durana said that the Sexual Orientation
and Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE) Equality Bill will “in effect discriminate”
other sectors of the society.

“We are 101 percent in support of protecting the rights of Filipinos in the LGBTQIA+
community. We will not allow them to be hated, discriminated, bullied, or inflicted with
harm,” Durana said during a Senate hearing into the SOGIE bill.

“You would see that while it prevents discrimination against our LGBTQIA+ community,
it in effect discriminates the rest of the people who are straight like me. And so I think
while we respect our LGBTQIA+ community, we don't promote that in the Philippine
National Police,” he added.

Durana, in opposing the measure, noted that the practice and protection of human
rights “should never be above another’s.”

Apart from penalizing discrimination, the SOGIE Equality Bill, which has been filed in
both chambers of Congress, seeks to give equal access to employment, education, and
social services to LGBT community members.

It also wants to ban the promotion and encouragement of stigma on the basis of SOGIE
in the media, educational textbooks, and other mediums.

Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III meanwhile said the bill is unlikely to pass in the
Senate, adding that it is unconstitutional. Sotto said the proposed measure violates
religious freedom, academic freedom, and women’s rights.

Some religious leaders have expressed support for the controversial bill, saying there is a
need to provide equal access to members of the LGBT community in terms of education
and other basic social services.

CNN Philippines' Alyssa Rola and Robert Vergara contributed to this report.

Being Right
By Jemy Gatdula

The problem with all the discussions surrounding the sexual orientation and
gender identity legislative proposals are many. But it’s on the fundamental
grounds that the flaws are truly significant.
One sees this in the opening portion, for example, of Senate Bill Nos. 159 and
689, defining the following terms:

“Gender Expression: refers to the outward manifestations of the cultural traits

that enable a person to identify as male or female according to patterns that,
at a particular moment in history, a given society defines as gender
appropriate.”

“Gender Identity: refers to the personal sense of identity as characterized,

among others, by manner of clothing, inclinations, and behavior in relation to
masculine or feminine conventions. A person may have a male or female
identity with the physiological characteristics of the opposite sex.”

The definitions are important because on them, along with the definition of
“sexual orientation”, are practically built the entire structure of alleged “rights”
that SBs 159/689 (or the “Anti-Discrimination” bill) are supposed to protect.

But one searches in vain for any factual or scientific data to back up the
definitions. Or serve as sufficient rationale why additional legislation is even
needed at all.

Being Right
By Jemy Gatdula

The problem with all the discussions surrounding the sexual orientation and
gender identity legislative proposals are many. But it’s on the fundamental
grounds that the flaws are truly significant.

One sees this in the opening portion, for example, of Senate Bill Nos. 159 and
689, defining the following terms:

“Gender Expression: refers to the outward manifestations of the cultural traits

that enable a person to identify as male or female according to patterns that,
at a particular moment in history, a given society defines as gender
appropriate.”

“Gender Identity: refers to the personal sense of identity as characterized,

among others, by manner of clothing, inclinations, and behavior in relation to
masculine or feminine conventions. A person may have a male or female
identity with the physiological characteristics of the opposite sex.”

The definitions are important because on them, along with the definition of
“sexual orientation”, are practically built the entire structure of alleged “rights”
that SBs 159/689 (or the “Anti-Discrimination” bill) are supposed to protect.
But one searches in vain for any factual or scientific data to back up the
definitions. Or serve as sufficient rationale why additional legislation is even
needed at all.

Instead, SBs 159/689 misleadingly refer to international law when no

international law recognizes SOGIE “rights.”

Then SBs 159/689 rely on a five-year-old Pew survey finding “73% of adult
Filipinos agree that homosexuality should be accepted by society.” But SB
689 fails to mention that “nearly two-thirds (65%) of Filipinos surveyed said
homosexuality was immoral” (Thomson Reuters, 2014).

This proves that Filipinos, while correctly believing homosexuality should be

tolerated, equally correctly don’t agree with it.

In the end, the SOGIE bills (House Bills 134 and 136 and Senate Bills 159
and 689) substantially base their “logic” on two UN studies without any
objective factual data.

Pathetically, SOGIE’s foundations are thus revealed to be merely self-

referential (e.g., Pew surveys), anecdotal, biased, or outrightly misleading.

Practically no effort was made to gather information from the relevant labor,
educational, judicial, or police agencies.

And yet Filipinos are expected to acquiesce to the wholesale reengineering of

Philippine society on this flimsiest of grounds?

Its congressional backers base their claim on gender being non-binary, like “a
rainbow.” If true, can they at least be identified and enumerated?

How can the proposed laws protect something if even their authors don’t know
what they are?

This is no way to make legislation.

The bills’ authors can’t identify the said genders because their proposed law is
based on fantasy not fact.

The gender identities and expression aren’t based on biology. Nothing

remotely scientific supports the claim of categorizing a gazillion genders
mutable through time. Not our history or culture. Not race, which is biological
as well.
What then? The only thing such “genders” are based on are the purely
emotional and subjective belief of whoever claims it.

Yes, at most that’s all what SOGIE is: feelings, idea, a belief.

But as beliefs, such are already constitutionally and legislatively protected. So

what reason could these additional legislation, these SOGIE bills, have?

Furthermore, not only are these proposed SOGIE laws completely

unnecessary, they are also constitutionally infirm.

One may have the constitutional right to believe something and express that
belief but legislation cannot be made to force you to agree to that belief or its
expression. Others are also entitled to such innate constitutional rights.

What is provided for under the Constitution is the guarantee to be left alone to
believe and speak as one wants, so long as such does not violate others’
rights.

To ask for more rights over and above that of others to protect your own
belief, ideas, and expression violates the neutrality that government is
constitutionally required to do. It violates individual property rights as well.

You are in effect asking for a privilege not available to other beliefs, speech,
or expression.

It may be argued that educational institutions, religion, and even media are
given dispensation but note this is mostly only as to taxes. And such is
neutrally available to all beliefs, religions, or expression. Nothing is taken
away from, confiscated, forced, or makes a specific belief or thought superior
to or treated with privilege over and above other beliefs, expression, or
religion.

Incidentally, public toilets have been long segregated based on privacy,

modesty, and safety. And definitely biology. One sees this in the design
difference between the toilets for men and women. Beliefs cannot be a
reasonable basis to segregate toilets. Certainly not such that would justify
putting one specific belief over all others.

The SOGIE bills should be defeated for their utter non-conformity not only with
our Constitution but also sheer common sense.

And conflict with many other laws, particularly those protecting women,
children, labor/business/property, schools, the military, as well as penal and
civil relations.
And the SOGIE bills become even more repugnant when read alongside the
ill-advised Safe Spaces Act.

So again: No to SOGIE.

And again: There are no SOGIE rights, just human rights.

Go reiterates PRRD for anti-

discrimination law, not SOGIE bill
By Che Palicte
DAVAO CITY -- Senator Christopher Lawrence Go reiterated the previous announcement of
Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo on Wednesday that President Rodrigo Duterte is not
pushing for the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE) Equality Bill.

Instead, Go said Duterte would support any anti-discrimination legislation that is patterned to a
similar ordinance that was enacted in Davao City when the President was vice mayor.

"There has been a misunderstanding during PRRD's previous press conference. What he is implying
is his support to the anti-discrimination law," Go said during an interview on Friday here.

The clarification came after Duterte bared on Tuesday night his plan to certify as urgent the SOGIE
bill. The news gained negative feedbacks from sectors opposed to the SOGIE bill.

Go said the President was misunderstood.

"He wanted the anti-discrimination law to be patterned like the one approved in Davao when he was
then the vice mayor," Go said.

In December 2012, the City Council approved the Anti-discrimination ordinance (ADO) which
penalizes all forms of discrimination. It defines discrimination as “acts committed when a person
impinges on the right or freedom of another on the basis of national or ethnic origin, religious
affiliation or belief, gender, descent, race or color.”

The ordinance enumerated several prohibited acts, such as refusing employment, admission in any
academic institution and entry in restaurants, bars, stores, movie houses, theaters, malls or other
business establishments by reason of ethnic origin, religious affiliation or belief, sex, gender, identity,
or sexual orientation, descent, race, or color.

"That is what he [Pres. Duterte] wanted. I think this law will be favored by the majority," he added.

Despite turning down the SOGIE bill, the senator disclosed that President Duterte will adhere to his
promise on the holding of a national convention for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer
(LGBTQ) community.

Go was in the city as the guest speaker during the graduation rites of the 1st Fire Basic Recruit
Course (FBRC) class ‘Mawaraw” 2019-04.

About 265 graduates coming from regions 10, 11 and Caraga completed the 640 hours of training,
making them the first batch to finish the course. (PNA)

Eddie Villanueva claims

SOGIE bill 'threatens'
freedoms of non-LGBTQ+
'What happens to a Christian like me...if we are to be threatened by punishment every
time we share our Bible-based beliefs on matters of transgenders and homosexuals?'
asks Brother Eddie Villanueva

MANILA, Philippines – Jesus Is Lord (JIL) Church founder turned party-list lawmaker
Brother Eddie Villanueva is strongly opposing the bill prohibiting discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression (SOGIE).

In a privilege speech on Wednesday, August 28, the Citizens' Battle Against Corruption
representative claimed that the SOGIE equality bill would "undermine" the role of
parents, "threaten" academic freedom, "imperil" freedom of speech and religion, and
"puts into question the very foundation of our laws."

Villanueva said that out of the 13 versions of the SOGIE equality bill in the House, 10
would require parents to secure a family court order should they want their children to
undergo any medical or psychological examination in matters related to SOGIE.

"Since when has it become our official policy to give the government authority to decide
for our children's lives, especially on an issue as sensitive as their identity?" asked
Villanueva.

He also zeroed in on the provision that would penalize public speeches meant to shame
or insult the LGBTQ+ community. Religious speeches would be exempt from penalties,
but the JIL founder said there is a loophole in the bill.

"What happens to a Christian like me, and to the majority of the people in this chamber,
if we are to be threatened by punishment every time we share our Bible-based beliefs
on matters of transgenders and homosexuals?" asked Villanueva.

"Mr Speaker, we respect the lives they choose to live, but to make us conform to their
lifestyle with the threat of punishment under our necks if we do not is, in itself, a
violation of our own rights," he added.
Position Paper on the SOGIE Equality
Bill
Oct 1, 2019 | Homosexual Agenda, Issues, Statements & Letters | 0 comments

Position Paper on the SOGIE Equality Bill

September 30, 2019
Alliance for the Family Foundation (Philippines), Inc., respectfully submits the following discussion
for consideration with regard to the SOGIE Equality Bill and all its versions in the Senate (S.B. No.
159, S.B. No. 689, and S.B. No. 412) – all entitled “An Act Prohibiting Discrimination On The Basis
Of Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity or Expression (SOGIE) And Providing Penalties
Therefor.”
The Alliance for the Family wholeheartedly agrees that the State must respect its constitutional
obligation not to deny individuals equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed under Section 1, Article
III of the Constitution. The discrimination sought to be avoided by the Constitution encompasses all
discriminatory practices based on unreasonable classifications.
The SOGIE Equality Bill, however, does not protect equality before the law, but undermines freedom
by creating special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. The bill
is intended to prevent unjust discrimination by imposing legal sanctions against those who engage in
it, yet Chapter 2 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides sanctions against the same behaviors
which the Section for Discriminatory Practices of the proposed law seeks to eliminate.[1] Chapter
2 of the Civil Code of the Philippines does so for all victims of such behaviors by authorizing civil
actions for damages, including moral damages, and even allowing for exemplary damages. On the
other hand, the SOGIE Equality Bill sanctions the same behaviors with the same redress, but also
imposes severe criminal penalties, including hefty fines and jail. However, it applies these criminal
penalties only to persons victimized on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity or
expression. Section 9a of S.B. Nos. 159 and 689 & Section 8 of S.B. No. 412 even mandate the
inclusion of SOGIE concerns in all police stations, without providing any justification. As a result,
special status is afforded to some persons seeking redress for harm suffered, while it is denied to
others, such as those victimized because of disability, appearance, economic condition, language,
religion, etc. This creation of two types of victims is invidious, and history indicates that it is
dangerous to public order.
In addition, the proposed law is unwise and cannot be implemented fairly. Rather than eliminating
unfair discrimination, it will create additional instances because it encompasses concepts that are
not suitable for legislating. Under the Section for Definition of Terms in all versions of the
bill, Gender Identity is defined as “the personal sense of identity as characterized, among others, by
manner of clothing, inclinations, and behavior in relation to masculine or feminine conventions. A
person may have a male or female identity with the physiological characteristics of the opposite sex.”
Meanwhile, Gender Expression is defined as “the outward manifestations of the cultural traits that
enable a person to identify as male or female according to patterns, that, at a particular moment in
history, a given society defines as gender appropriate.” Both concepts—Gender Identity and Gender
Expression—are highly subjective. Giving lawful preference to the subjective self-expression of one,
irrespective of his or her sex is against the objective truth of basic biology known to the rest of the
world. This, in itself, is an act of discrimination.
Also, the bill is based on the premise that a biological male can become a female and vice versa, for
as long as they “self-identify” as one. Citing S.B. No. 159 Section 5f, proponents of the bill insist
that a “transgender woman” (a biological male who self-identifies as female) should be allowed to
use the female public restroom, since he self-identifies as a woman. S.B. No. 159 author Senator
Risa Hontiveros even went so far as to say that transwomen are real women. But science says
otherwise. The scientific fact of the matter is that in humans, biological sex is determined by five
factors present at birth: (1) The type of sex chromosomes. A person who has XX sex chromosomes
is female, while one who has XY chromosomes is male. Chromosomal anomalies do occur, but they
are extremely rare and make up only 0.1% of the population; (2) The type of gonads. Women have
ovaries while men have testes; (3) The sex hormone levels. Although we all have estrogen and
androgen in our bodies, women have much higher levels of estrogen, while men have much higher
levels of androgen; (4) The internal reproductive anatomy, such as the fallopian tubes and uterus in
females, and the epididymis and vas deferens in males; and (5) the external genitalia.[2] These
objective traits should be the basis for determining whether a person is male or female. When it
comes to legislation, facts must take precedence over feelings.
Once society has accepted (or has been forced to accept through legislation) the unscientific claim
that transwomen (biological males who self-identify as women) are real women, female-identifying
biological males will be allowed to freely enter female-only restrooms, locker rooms, and dormitories,
thereby violating women’s privacy and putting their safety at risk. Single-sex institutions (like all
girls/all boys schools) and organizations (like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts) will be forced to
accept opposite-sex applicants who identify as the gender of the institution’s/organization’s
population. Apart from these, female-identifying biological males will also be able to compete in
various women’s contests, including women’s division in sports. This is grossly unfair because men
are generally physically stronger than women. Females typically have 30-40% of muscle strength of
the upper body of males and 50-60% of the lower body strength. It is no wonder MMA female fighter
Tamikka Brents suffered a concussion and a broken skull after fighting with male-to-female
transgender Fallon Fox in 2014.[3] It is also no wonder male-to-female transgender Mary Gregory
won nine out of nine events in the women’s division of a world weightlifting competition on April 27
this year, though he was later stripped of his controversial records due to the weightlifting
organization’s ruling that Gregory was “actually a male in the process of becoming a Transgender
female”.[4] Ignoring the obvious biological differences between men and women leads to women
being judged against a male standard. This is real inequality.
Moreover, enacting a SOGIE law will create an open opportunity for men who do not actually self-
identify as women to claim that they do, in order to have access to women and/or girls in vulnerable
circumstances, such as public restrooms and locker rooms, in order to view or photograph them, or
engage in sexual assault. This has already occurred in the US, UK and Canada, and perhaps in
other countries that have adopted SOGIE legislation.
The existence of SOGIE laws and the associated climate of sexual questioning and experimentation
has led to an enormous increase over the past several years of persons requesting medical and
surgical treatment from the National Health Service in the UK to modify their appearance and
hormones to resemble the opposite sex. There are now waiting lists of thousands of people for such
services. Our Department of Health will be expected to institute programs to meet with a similar
demand here, in order to comply with the anti-discrimination provisions of the law, or face legal
action, the existence of such waiting lists in itself constituting illegal discrimination.
The bill lacks a stated exemption for religious institutions in the admission of clergy and educational
personnel based on policies anchored on religious beliefs and practices. This is certainly an issue
that must be dealt with in any version of the bill which is enacted into law, in order to comply with the
Constitutional mandate for free exercise of religion.
Section 5g of S.B. Nos. 159 and 689 & Section 4f of S.B. No. 412 state that it shall be unlawful to
“deny an application for or revoke a professional or other similar kind of license, clearance
certification or any other similar document issues by the government due to the applicant’s sexual
orientation or gender identity or expression.” We strongly believe this provision should be removed,
or at least changed to eliminate marriage licenses, domestic partnerships and the like. These should
not be sanctioned by the State without extensive national consultations, because they will
fundamentally change the nature of Filipino society, as has occurred in other nations where such
unions have been sanctioned. The numbers indicate that marriage itself is on its way to dying out in
Scandinavia, for example, where same-sex marriage or civil unions have been legal for some
time. Before the nation goes down this road of the practical abolition of marriage over the long term,
all sectors of the society should be aware of the choice being made, and seriously consider its
desirability, given the well-established negative effects on women and children of non-marital
cohabitation as the family unit.
We also strongly oppose Section 5j/k of S.B. Nos. 159 and 689 providing the illegality of “any other
analogous acts”, as it is overly broad and vague. Strict guidelines should be incorporated in the law
regarding when an action is considered to be an act of illegal discrimination. Otherwise, persons
could be convicted and endure fine and imprisonment for actions of which it is purely a matter of ex
post facto opinion that they are proscribed. This would make the law extremely invasive, intrusive
and broad in practice. No one could be sure they were not violating it any time they interacted with
someone of other than traditional heterosexual orientation. In fact, no one could be certain they are
not violating it even in dealing with persons who have a traditional heterosexual orientation, because
there is no way to know whether they do or not without enquiring. But under Section 5b of S.B.
Nos. 159 and 689 & Section 4b of S.B. No. 412 enquiring can itself be considered an illegal act of
discrimination. As a practical matter, this would be strong motivation for all government agencies,
businesses, institutions and even individuals to allow anyone who might conceivably be protected by
the bill virtually unlimited latitude, rather than risk fine or imprisonment. This certainly would produce
a backlash of resentment for special privileges and unfairness over the long term, conceivably
resulting in the law’s eventual repeal. This in turn would leave the persons to be protected by the
law even less protected than they are now, because of the consequent change in public sentiment.
This bill is intended to reduce isolation and stigma against the members of the LGBT community, but
we do not see evidence of such isolation and stigma in the Philippines, other than in a few isolated
instances. In fact, a survey conducted by Pew Research Center in 2013 revealed that the Philippines
was one of the most LGBT-friendly countries in the world.[5] One only has to turn to the mass media,
television, radio and film to see that LGBT personalities are among the most popular in the
country. Social media echo this. It is unwise to enact a law with severe penalties to address a
problem that does not appear to exist. More importantly, if it does exist, this law is significantly more
likely to increase rather than reduce it, due to its impact on the public. The proposed law’s effect on
typical Filipinos will be to require them to take great care in interacting with anyone whose identity is
unknown to them, because if that person happens to be a member of the LGBT community, anything
they say or do that upsets or disturbs that person could under law cause them to be arrested, jailed,
fined a large sum of money, and imprisoned for a year or more. It is likely that such incidents will be
rare, as most people regardless of their orientation or identity do not easily take offense to perceived
slights. However, some do, and with the consequences so severe no one will be able to discount
them out of hand. These considerations will add an additional layer of stress to the already stressful
lives of many of the citizenry. We all have experienced that stress leads to resentment, which will be
the end result. The proposed law will over time isolate the LGBT community far more than they have
 ever been in the Philippines, where they have always been generally accepted and welcomed,
despite the prejudices of a few.

Men and women, regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, are
already equal before the law and enjoy the same rights.[6] We also already have existing laws that
will protect everyone from unjust discrimination, harassment, and abuse (e.g. The 1987 Philippine
Constitution, Labor Code of the Philippines, Civil Code of the Philippines, Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, The
Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, and the Safe Spaces
Act).[7] It would be unjust to grant special privileges to some persons at the expense of the basic
rights of others. We can show respect and compassion towards our brothers and sisters in the
LGBT community without having to sacrifice truth and common sense. No need for a SOGIE law.
References:
1. Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386)
2. Hughes, Ieuan A. (1 August 2001). “Minireview: Sex Differentiation”. Endocrinology. 142 (8): 3281–
3287.
3. It Is Now Okay For a Man To Hit a Woman. https://medium.com/@r.smith42371980/it-is-now-okay-
for-a-man-to-hit-a-woman-5d00c47c8aea
4. ‘Actually a male’: Transgender weightlifter stripped of world records.
https://ph.news.yahoo.com/transgender-weightlifter-mary-gregory-raw-powerlifting-federation-
094109354.html
5. Pew Research Center (4 June 2013). “The Global Divide on Homosexuality”
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/
6. The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines – Article III (Bill of Rights)
7. Why an LGBTQ member strongly opposes the SOGIE bill: http://www.interaksyon.com/politics-
issues/2019/08/29/154073/sogie-bill-opposition-arguments/