ALTERNATIVE CLASSROOM LEARNING EXPERIENCE (ACLE)

1. Welcome remarks
2. Introduction to terms and definitions, understanding SOGIE
2. How laws are pass?
3. Intro to SOGIE BILL (House Bill No. 4982)
4. Timeline of SOGIE in the Philippines
5. Salient Points of HB 4982 (Main Discussion)
6. Common Misconceptions about SOGIE
7. Summary/Conclusion
8. Closing Remarks

Voting 197-0DS "House Bill Number 4982 or An Act Probihiting Discrimination on the Basis of
Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity or Expression (SOGIE) and Providing Penalties
therefore," was approved on 3rd and final reading.

The SOGIE Equality Bill protects people from discriminatory acts such as:

 Denial of access to public services

 Including SOGIE as a criteria for hiring or dismissal of workers
 Refusing admission or expelling students in schools based on SOGIE
 Imposing disciplinary actions that are harsher than customary due to the student's
SOGIE
 Refusing or revoking accreditation of organizations based on the SOGIE of
members
 Denying access to health services
 Denying the application for professional licenses and similar documents
 Denying access to establishments, facilities, and services open to the general
public
 Forcing a person to undertake any medical or psychological examination to
determine or alter one's SOGIE
 Harassment committed by persons involved in law enforcement
 Publishing information intended to "out" or reveal the SOGIE of a person without
consent
 Engaging in public speech which intends to shame or ridicule LGBTQ+ persons
 Subjecting persons to harassment motivated by the offenders bias against the
offended party's SOGIE, which may come in the form of any medium, including
telecommunications and social media
  Subjecting any person to gender profiling
 Preventing a child under parental authority from expressing one's SOGIE by
inflicting or threatening to inflict bodily or physical harm or by causing mental or
emotional suffering

Those convicted of discriminating against a person as defined in the bill shall be fined not less
than P100,000 but not more than P500,000, or be imprisoned for less than one year but not more
than 6 years or both.

A court can also opt to impose community service in the form of human rights education and
familiarization with and exposure to the plight of victims, according to Dinagat Representative
Kaka Bag-ao, one of the principal authors of the bill.

The struggle to push the measure has been long and winding. A version of it was first filed
during the 11th Congress by then Akbayan Representative Etta Rosales. It was approved on 3rd
and final reading by the House but the Senate failed to do the same.

In 2006, the bill reached second reading at the House during the 13th Congress.

Senate Bill No. 1271 or the Anti-Discrimination Bill was filed last August 1, 2016 filed by
Senator Risa Hontiveros as author thereof.
How to Pass a LAW?
First off, the Congress is not just composed of congressmen. The Congress is the legislative
branch of the country, and it consists of two chambers: the Senate (Upper House) and House of
Representatives (Lower House).
The Senate has 24 seats, half of which are voted on by the nation every 3 years. Each Senator
serves a 6-year term, and can be a member of any of the 40 permanent committees. They cannot
serve for more than 2 consecutive terms.
The House of Representatives (HOR), on the other hand, is composed of 292 representatives
serving 238 districts and 47 party lists. Each representative can be a member of the house’s 58
standing or 14 special committees. They serve a 3-year term and can be re-elected but cannot go
beyond 3 consecutive terms.
Bills and Resolutions
The job of a Senator or a Representative is to make laws that uphold the spirit of the constitution.
They can also amend or change the constitution itself. Senators and Representatives work on two
documents: bills and resolutions.
A resolution conveys principles and sentiments of the Senate or the HOR. They are divided into:
 Joint resolutions – requires approval from the Senate, the HOR, and the signature of the
President. They have the force and effect of a law once approved.
  Concurrent resolutions – used for matters affecting operations of both chambers and must
be approved in the same form by both. These are not transmitted to the President; hence,
they do not have the same force and effect of a law.
 Simple resolutions – deals with matters entirely within one of the chambers. As such,
these are not referred to the President and do not have the force and effect of a law.
A bill, on the other hand, is a law in the making. These are the “proposed laws” or “proposed
amendment” you hear about in the news, like House Bill No. 2379, which seeks to amend the
National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, the country’s 20-year-old tax code. House Bills are
those made by a Representative, while Senate Bills are those made by a Senator.
From Bill to Republic Act: the Process
Going from a House or Senate Bill to a Republic Act is a long and arduous process. It takes 3
readings and an approval from both chambers along with the signature of the President before a
bill can become a law, known in the Philippines as a Republic Act.
1. Proposals and suggestions are taken from the President, government agencies, private
individuals, interest groups, and legislators themselves.
2. The author(s) then writes the bill and sign it before being filed with the Secretary
General.
3. The bill then goes through three readings.
 The first reading consists of reading the title and author(s) and its referral to the
appropriate committee(s). The committee then studies the bill and either submits
it to the Committee on Rules or is laid on the table.
 The second reading comes after the bill has been included in the Calendar of
Business by the Committee on Rules. This is when sponsorships, debates, and
amendments take place. A vote is taken after all the debates and amendments,
after which the bill is either archived or goes through a third reading.

 The third reading happens when the bill goes through a final check and vote via
roll call. If it’s approved, it is then sent to the other house, where it goes through
the same procedures. If not, it gets archived.
4. After going through three readings from both houses, the conference committee of both
houses ratifies the bill and submits it to the President for signing. If, however, there are
conflicts in the provisions proposed by both Houses, a Bicameral Conference Committee
is called upon to reconcile them.
5. Once received by the Office of the President, the bill can take one of three routes:
 Approved. Once it is approved by the President, it becomes a Republic Act and
takes effect 15 days after publication in the Official Gazette or at least two
national newspapers of general circulation;
  Vetoed. The bill is returned to the originating house with an explanation on why it
was vetoed. The house can either accept the veto or override it with a 2/3
(majority) vote, after which it is essentially approved, and takes effect 15 days
after being publicized.

 Lapsed into law. A bill is said to have lapsed into law if the President fails to act
on it within 30 days after receiving the bill. It takes effect 15 days after being
publicized.

TIMELINE: SOGIE equality in the Philippines

In its latest version, Senate Bill No. 689, entitled “Anti-Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual
Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression,” has not been passed in Congress after almost two
decades.
It seeks to penalize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or
expression (SOGIE), and is more commonly known as the anti-discrimination bill or the SOGIE
equality bill.
Early movements
Years before a nationwide measure to specifically protect LGBTQ+ members was filed by
lawmakers, activists had begun taking to the streets. An initiative by young lesbian feminists
called The Lesbian Contingent joined the International Women’s Day march in 1993. Australian
socialist magazine Green Left Weekly claimed it was the first time a lesbian contingent marched
in public.
On June 26, 1994, the Progressive Organization of Gays in the Philippines (ProGay Philippines)
and Metropolitan Community Church organized what came to be known as the first Pride March
in the Philippines and in Asia.
Various LGBTQ+ organizations had begun budding in the country. For instance, the University
of the Philippines' Babaylan claimed itself to be the country's oldest LGBTQ+ student
organization in 1992.
History in Congress
The earliest version of the SOGIE equality bill was filed in 2000 by the late senator Miriam
Defensor Santiago and former Akbayan representative Loretta Rosales under the 11th Congress.
Refiled in the 14th Congress, the bills reached the committee level only. More senators would
file similar bills in the 15th and 16th congresses to no avail. Other significant events are as
follows:
2010-2012
Party list Ang Ladlad, which aimed to represent the LGBTQ+ community, files a petition to run
in the 2010 national elections. An ABS-CBN report says the Commission on Elections
(Comelec) denied the petition twice, citing “immorality” as basis. Its registration is eventually
granted by the Supreme Court.
The Department of Education issues an order in May 2012 for the protection of children,
including their sexual orientation and gender identity.
2013
On August 3, then-Commission on Human Rights (CHR) chair and pioneer SOGIE bill sponsor
Loretta Ann Rosales says the CHR is working on a database on LGBTQ+ hate crimes to better
their prosecution and investigation.
By the end of the same month, then-Laguna representative Sol Aragones introduces House Bill
No. 2572, which would make LGBTQ+ hate crimes an aggravating circumstance for crimes
against persons and chastity.
Shortly after, then-Albay representative Grex Lagman files a measure that would help same-sex
couples acquire property together. Neither bill has been passed.
2014
Trans woman Jennifer Laude is murdered by a US Marine on October 11.
Laude’s case catalyzes discussion and action toward advancing transgender rights.
In the local government scene, former mayor Herbert Bautista signs the gender-fair ordinance in
Quezon City on November 28. Prohibited acts include discrimination against the LGBTQ+ in the
workplace, educational institutions, and in delivery of goods, services, and accommodation.
The ordinance also includes affirmative acts, such as equal pay and sensitivity training in the
workplace.
This would become the law that protected Gretchen Diez when she faced illegal detainment at a
mall office in Quezon City.
2016
During the election campaign, then-senatorial candidate Manny Pacquiao calls same-sex couples
“mas masahol pa sa hayop (worse than animals)” in a viral video interview by Bilang Pilipino.
He has served two terms as a congressman by this time.
Bataan congressional candidate Geraldine Roman makes history as she takes her seat as the first-
ever elected transgender woman in the House of Representatives in May.
The first Senate version of the anti-discrimination bill is filed on August 11 by Senator Risa
Hontiveros, while its House counterpart remains pending.
2017
After 17 years since its first filing, the anti-discrimination bill is passed by the 17th Congress on
its third and final reading on September 20 with a vote of 197-0 in the House of Representatives.
2018
On August 8, CNN Philippines reports that 5 senators who include Hontiveros, Loren Legarda,
Ralph Recto, Franklin Drilon, and Juan Miguel Zubiri express support for the bill. Opposing
senators include Manny Pacquiao, Joel Villanueva, and Senate President Tito Sotto.
The CHR backs the passage of the bill through a position paper dated October 8.
2019
The anti-discrimination bill is due for passage by June before the 17th Congress adjourns. The
bill languishes after suffering 3 years of interpellations.
On August 13, Gretchen Diez is blocked by a female janitress from using the women’s
restroom. The janitress apologizes, but Diez vows to keep fighting for the rights of her fellow
LGBTQ+ members. (READ: Gretchen Diez comes out)
After Hontiveros delivers a privilege speech on August 14, renewing her call for Congress to
pass the SOGIE bill, Senators Imee Marcos and Bong Go throw their weight behind it.
Meanwhile, several senators express confusion. Senator Aquilino Pimentel III asks for a
definition of trans woman, Senator Panfilo Lacson brings up the danger of voyeurism, and
Senate President Tito Sotto wonders, “why that lengthy letters? Why not just Homo sapiens?”
Diez meets with President Rodrigo Duterte on August 19, and says he supports her and her push
for the SOGIE bill.
Sotto strikes back with another remark about the bill having “no chance” of passing the Senate if
it “transgresses on academic freedom, religious freedom, and women’s rights.”
A 2018 survey released by the Philippine LGBT Chamber of Commerce and research firm
Cogencia reveals that local companies are not yet accepting of LGBTQ members in their
policies.
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ON SOGIE
(SPOT.ph) If the Philippines’ Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Expression Equality Bill
(and early versions of it, such as the Anti-Discrimination Bill) was a person, it would have been
a 19-year-old adult by now. It has become one of the slowest-moving bills in Philippine history,
always caught in what LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) rights advocate
Jonas Bagas calls "the institutional weakness of Congress." This "makes it susceptible to the
influence of the main opponents of this bill—the faith-based organizations," he explained in a
primer about the bill in 2006.
This observation cannot be denied given the amount of time that it has been languishing in the
hands of our lawmakers. The Anti-Discrimination Bill was first filed in 2000 by then Akbayan
Representative Loretta Rosales and the late Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago under the 11th
Congress. The bill itself came from a policy proposal by the Lesbian and Gay Legislative
Advocacy Network, which hoped to eliminate discrimination on the basis of people's sexual
orientation or gender identity.
Similar bills were refiled in the 14th, 15th, and 16th Congresses, but would end up getting stuck
at the committee level. It went through three whole years of Senate interpellations in the 17th
Congress, only to return to square one in the opening of the 18th Congress.

Senator Risa Hontiveros, on the first regular session of the lawmaking body, introduced Senate
Bill 159 or "An Act Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender
Identity or Expression (SOGIE) and Providing Penalties Therefor." Bataan Representative
Geraldine Roman (House Bill 134), Quezon City Representative Jose Christopher Belmonte
(House Bill or H.B. 160), Representative Loren Legarda (H.B. 640), Bukidnon Representative
Maria Lourdes Acosta-Alba (H.B. 95), and Bayan Muna party-list representatives (H.B. 258)
also filled SOGIE-specific versions.
Aside from the snail's pace of the legislative process, bits of "fake news" about the SOGIE
Equality Bill are rampant in social media, and irrational arguments have been thrown around
during public hearings in the Senate.
The SOGIE Equality Bill gives special rights to LGBTQ+ people.
SOGIE is short for sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. It recognizes the
diversity of human sexuality, which includes even non-LGTBQ+ people. In simpler terms, a
cisgender woman—"cis" meaning she was assigned a woman at birth for having female organs
and also identifies as a woman (gender identity)—who happens to like men (making her a
heterosexual, sexual orientation)—and likes to wear pants (gender expression)—has her own
SOGIE (as cited). This means that if you’re a "straight" woman who was scolded at work for not
wearing a dress (a.k.a. discrimination on the basis of your SOGIE, particularly gender
expression), you have the SOGIE Equality Bill to back you up. So no, Senator Tito Sotto, the
SOGIE bill is not a bill "against women’s rights."
As Sister Mary John Mananzan, a Catholic nun running an all-girls school in Manila, said at a
Senate hearing on September 4: "I don’t see that this bill is giving any special right to this group.
They are just saying that the rights of everybody should also be applied to them."
The SOGIE Equality Bill violates the rights of other people.
In the early 1900s, Filipino women sought the right to vote, which Filipino men already had.
Filemon Sotto (older brother of Vicente Sotto, grandfather of Tito Sotto, and great-grandfather of
Vico Sotto) advocated this and co-sponsored a bill to allow women the right of suffrage. It wasn't
until 1937 that this bill was passed. Did the men lose their right to vote? No, women were just
given the same rights, being fellow Filipino citizens.
The SOGIE Equality Bill proposes equal access for members of the LGBTQ+ community to
basic rights and services that everyone also has. Some of the discriminatory acts it prohibits
include: using SOGIE as criteria for hiring, demotion, or dismissal of workers; denying access to
health services, public establishments, and public facilities; and using a person's SOGIE to deny
admission or push expulsion in an educational institution and deny application to government
licenses, permits, and similar documents.
What would other people lose if SOGIE-based discrimination gets penalized? Just their "right" to
discriminate.

The SOGIE Equality Bill is not necessary because discrimination against members of the
LGBTQ+ community does not exist in the Philippines.
A survey titled "The Global Divide on Homosexuality" by the U.S.-based Pew Research Center
in 2013 claimed that 73% of Filipinos agreed with the statement that "homosexuality should be
accepted by society."
Here are the facts: LGBTQ+ secondary school students in Luzon and Visayas have described
incidents of bullying in school, according to a 2017 report by Human Rights Watch; 30% of
Filipino workers reported being harassed, bullied, and discriminated against by others while at
work because of their SOGIE, according to a 2018 study by the United Nations; and, in August,
a transgender woman was detained at the Quezon City Police District Station 7 for using the
women's restroom.
The provisions of the SOGIE Equality Bill are redundant given other Philippine laws.
While the Safe Spaces Act (2019), Anti-Bullying Act (2013), and Anti-Sexual Harassment Act
(1995) have always been in place in Philippine legislation, there are instances that people have
been harassed, bullied, and discriminated against for dressing differently, being in a relationship
that’s outside the man-and-woman norm, and identifying as their true selves.
It is also argued that the SOGIE Equality Bill should be enclosed in a more general Anti-
Discrimination Bill. Senator Nancy Binay, for example, said that she has been discriminated
against based on her color and called for a more "universal" bill. But former Commission on
Human Rights rights chief Loretta Ann Rosales argued that both measures should not be pitted
against each other and that "both can be passed."
The SOGIE Equality Bill focuses on marriage equality.
The eight-page S.B. 159 by Hontiveros and other similar bills don’t make any mention of
legalizing marriage equality (a.k.a. same-sex marriage)—except for Imee Marcos’ proposal,
which explicitly says that "denying an application for or revoking a professional or other similar
kind of license, clearance, certification on, or any other similar document, except marriage
license, issued by the government" is discriminatory and unlawful. If anything, the late dictator’s
daughter is making sure that LGBTQ+ couples will never enjoy the rights of fellow Filipino
citizens.
Besides, the Supreme Court already junked a petition by lawyer Jesus Nicardo Falcis III to allow
marriage equality in the Philippines. The court, however, noted that "from its plain text, the
Constitution does not define, or restrict, marriage on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation,
or gender identity or expression."
The SOGIE Equality Bill is an attack on religious freedom.
Bulacan representative Eddie Villanueva, who also happens to be the founder of the Jesus Is
Lord Church, said on August 28 that the SOGIE Equality Bill "imperils freedoms of speech and
religion." He added: "What happens to a Christian like me and to the majority of people in this
august chamber if we are to be threatened with punishment every time we share our Bible-based
beliefs on matters of transgenders and homosexuals?"

While the use (or misuse) of the Bible to condemn sexuality is another discussion, Roman's
version of the proposed bill clearly makes an exception: "Engaging in public speech, except
religious speech (remarks and comments made in the context of a religious service, ceremony,
and activity), meant to shame, insult, vilify, or which tends to incite or normalize the comission
of discriminatory practices against LGBTQs, and which acts or practices in turn, intimidate them
or result in the loss of their self-esteem."
While you can use "Jesus' words" to hate on LGBTQ+s inside the church, you just can't do that
outside. On the flip side, the Philippine constitution says that: "No law shall be made respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The SOGIE Equality Bill allows a change of gender-markers in the birth certificate.
Another "fake news" that's making its rounds online is from the unofficial Facebook page
"Bongbong Marcos-Sara Duterte 2022," which made a false claim in a post on August 30: "Di
mo pwedeng ilagay sa birth certificate ng kapapanganak ng bata ang sex nito until he/she
[reaches] the age of 12." This has been shared more than 17,000 times. Maybe it's time to
actually read the SOGIE Equality Bill and find out if there's any reference to gender-markers in
the birth certificate. (Hint: There is none.)
Unlike sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, the sex—classification of a
person as male or female—of an infant is assigned at birth based on the appearance of their
external anatomy. This is the one found in our birth certificates—and never mentioned in any
revision of the proposed SOGIE Equality Bill.
The SOGIE Equality Bill gives LGBTQ+ people a free pass to bully "straight" people.
In case it wasn't clear the first time: Everyone has SOGIE.
The SOGIE Equality Bill is not a national issue that needs to be prioritized.
The 18th Congress of the Philippines has 24 senators in the Upper House and 297 represenatives
in the Lower House. They are divided into committees, including Agrarian Reform, Economic
Affairs, Finance, Foreign Relations, Local Government, Tourism, and Public Order and
Dangerous Drugs. And yes, we do have a Senate Committee and a House of Representatives
Committee on Women and Gender Equality. It's safe to say that there are more than enough
resources to tackle a bill that's about basic rights and equality.
The SOGIE Equality Bill would make more people gay.
Giving them equal rights doesn't make them lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender people, non-
binaries, or queers. Unless they already are.

(SOGIE IN THE INTERNATIONAL SPHERE) Some enforced anti-discrimination laws

outside the Philippines 
Other countries have certain laws that specifically prohibit discrimination against sexual
orientation and religion or belief, among others.
In the United States, discrimination against certain employees and applicants of a job is
criminalized under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The said law prohibits discrimination based on a person’s race, color, religion, national origin,
physical and mental disability, reprisal and sexual orientation.
In Australia, it is prohibited to discriminate based on a person’s gender, sexual orientation,
marital or relationship status (including same-sex couples), familial responsibilities and
pregnancy under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.
The United Kingdom’s Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination based on their
age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity,
race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.
Yogyakarta Principles

The Yogyakarta Principles are a set of principles on the application of international human rights
law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. They promise a different future where
all people born free and equal in dignity and rights can fulfil that precious birthright.

The Yogyakarta Principles were developed and unanimously adopted in 2006 by a distinguished
group of human rights experts, from diverse regions and backgrounds, including judges,
academics, a former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Special Procedures,
members of treaty bodies, NGOs and others.

Ten years after, a  set of new principles on international human rights law relating to sexual
orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) —released by
a group of 33 international human rights experts—charts a way forward for both the United
Nations, governments, and other stakeholders to re-affirm their commitment to universal human
rights.
These Principles are an invaluable tool for activists working on sexual orientation and gender
identity issues, and affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must
comply.

In commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the Principles, a group of

international experts and civil society partners are working on how the Yogyakarta Principles
should be supplemented to reflect developments in and the current state of international human
rights law with respect to sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics.

CASE ON POINT

Republic of the Philippines v. Jennifer Cagandahan, Supreme Court of the Philippines,

Second Division (12 September 2008)
Procedural Posture
In conformity with law, the plaintiff published the petition for name and gender change in
a newspaper and had the petition posted. The solicitor general entered his appearance, and
authorised a provincial prosecutor to appear on his behalf. At the hearing the plaintiff
testified and presented the expert witness testimony of Dr Michael Sionyon of the
Department of Psychiatry who maintained that the plaintiff’s gender choice was
permanent and that recognition would be advantageous to the plaintiff. The trial court
granted the petition, and the solicitor general entered a petition to the Second Division
court seeking a reversal.
Facts
The plaintiff was registered at birth as female, but developed secondary male characteristics over
time. He was diagnosed with congenital adrenal hyperplasia and displayed both male and female
characteristics. At age six the plaintiff was diagnosed with clitoral hypertrophy and small
ovaries; at age thirteen the ovaries had minimised, he had no breasts and no menstrual cycle. He
stated that in his mind, appearance, emotions and interests he was a male person, and therefore
asked that his birth certificate sex be changed to male, and that his name be changed from
Jennifer to Jeff. A medical expert testified that the plaintiff was genetically female but that,
because the plaintiff’s body secreted male hormones, his female organs had not developed
normally. He further testified that the plaintiff’s condition was permanent and recommended the
change of gender because the plaintiff had adjusted to his chosen role as male and the gender
change would be advantageous to him.
Issue
Whether the court should recognise a new name and gender identity to reflect the chosen gender
of an intersex person who was raised as the opposite gender.
Domestic Law
Rules of the Court, 103 (regulating name change) and 108 (regulating the cancellation or
correction of civil registry entries).
Comparative Law
MT v. JT, New Jersey Superior Court, United States, 1976 (“It has been suggested that there is
some middle ground between sexes, a ‘no-man’s land’ for those individuals who are neither truly
‘male’ nor truly ‘female’”).
Reasoning of the Court
The Court first discussed the Wikipedia definition of intersex and remarked on the diverse
treatment of intersex individuals internationally. In quoting the reference in MT v. JT’s to a
gender ‘no-mans land’, the Court noted that “[T]he current state of Philippine statutes apparently
compels that a person be classified as either a male or as a female, but this Court is not controlled
by mere appearances when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid classification”.
The Court stated that it was of the view that “where the person is biologically or naturally
intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like
respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex.” Because
Cagandahan thought of himself as a male and his body produced high levels of androgen, there
was “preponderant biological support for considering him as being male.” According to the
Court, for intersex persons gender classification at birth was inconclusive. “It is at maturity that
the gender of such persons . . . is fixed.”
In this case, the Court considered that the plaintiff had allowed “nature to take its course” and
had not interfered with what “he was born with”. By not forcing his body to become female, he
permitted the male characteristics of the body to develop. Thus the Court rejected the objections
of the solicitor general and held that, where no law governed the matter, the Court should not
force the plaintiff to undergo treatment to reverse his male tendencies.
The Court held that where the individual was biologically or naturally intersex, it was reasonable
to allow that person to determine his or her own gender.

Ang Ladlad v. Commission on Elections, Supreme Court of the Philippines (8 April 2010)
Procedural Posture
The Commission on Elections denied the petitioner, Ang Ladlad, registration as a political
organisation in 2009. Ang Ladlad petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari review,
which was granted. The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) intervened on behalf of Ang
Ladlad in this case before the Supreme Court.
Facts
Ang Ladlad was a political organisation composed of members of the Filipino LGBT
community. In 2006, in accordance with Filipino law, Ang Ladlad applied for registration with
the Commission on Elections. The application was denied because the Commission on Elections
found that the organisation lacked a substantial membership base. The group applied again in
2009, but the Commission on Elections again dismissed the application, this time on moral and
religious grounds.
The Commission on Elections found that Ang Ladlad, as an LGBT organisation, “tolerate[d]
immorality which offends religious beliefs”. It cited the Bible and the Koran as proof that
homosexual activity violated standards of morality, and held that it could only recognise law-
abiding parties.
The Commission believed that Ang Ladlad’s support of LGBT issues violated several statutes
(including Articles 201, 695 and 1306 of the Civil Code of the Republic of the Philippines) that
referred to concepts such as “morality,” “mores, good customs,” “public morals,” and “morals”.
Additionally, the Commission believed that approving Ang Ladlad would violate the
constitutional duty to “promote and protect [the youth’s] physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual,
and social well-being”.
Issue
Whether the Commission on Elections’ refusal to register Ang Ladlad violated the right of the
organisation and its members to freedom of association, freedom of expression, and political
participation.
Domestic Law
Civil Code of the Philippines, Articles 201 (immoral doctrines, obscene publications and
exhibitions, and indecent shows), 695 and 1306.
1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Article II, 13 (State protection of youth), Article III,
Section 1 (equal protection), and Section 5 (freedom of religion).
Comparative Law
Constitution of the United States,  14th Amendment (Equal Protection).
Fricke v. Lynch, United States District Court of Rhode Island, 1980 (holding that LGBT groups
could not be denied the right of freedom of association; limiting government’s involvement in
that right).
Lawrence v. Texas, United States Supreme Court, 2003 (affirming that same-sex sexual conduct
between consenting adults was part of the liberty protected by the substantive due process clause
of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution, and striking down Texas’ sodomy law).
International Law
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 25 (rights to take part in the
conduct of public affairs, to vote and to be elected, to have access on general terms of equality to
public service); and Article 26 (rights of equality before the law, equal protection of the law, and
non-discrimination).
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21 (1) (right to take part in the government
either directly or through freely chosen representatives).
United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria, ECtHR, 2006 (holding that
seemingly radical or shocking political and social ideas are protected through the exercise of the
right of association).
Toonen v. Australia, United Nations Human Rights Committee, 1994 (holding that Article 26 of
the ICCPR prohibits discrimination based on sex, which includes sexual orientation).
Reasoning of the Court
The Supreme Court rejected all the reasons given by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
Philippine case law clearly interpreted Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution as a call for
“government neutrality in religious matters”. The Commission on Elections’ use of the Bible and
the Koran was thus a significant constitutional violation.
The Court also rejected any public morals argument. While it recognised prejudice and
discrimination against homosexuals were widespread, it refused to acknowledge that public
sentiment was a source of law, stating: “We recall that the Philippines has not seen fit to
criminalise homosexual conduct. Evidently, therefore, these ‘generally accepted public morals’
have not been convincingly transplanted into the realm of law.” The Commission on Elections
had provided no evidence to show that the government had a secular, as opposed to religious or
moral, interest in prohibiting the formation of an LGBT political party.
Further, the Court found that the accusation of unlawful activity by Ang Ladlad was “flimsy, at
best; disingenuous, at worst”. The Commission on Elections’ selective targeting of Ang Ladlad
provided grounds for a claim under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
While the Court refused to identify homosexuals as a separate class in need of special or
differentiated treatment, it nonetheless held that the Commission on Elections’ decision violated
the Equal Protection Clause. Philippine jurisprudence affirmed that any government intervention,
even one that did not burden a suspect class or breach a fundamental right, must reflect a rational
interest of government. The Court stated that the asserted interest in this case, the “moral
disapproval of an unpopular minority”, was “not a legitimate state interest that is sufficient to
satisfy rational basis review under the equal protection clause”. The only interest favoured by the
Commission on Elections’ differentiation was “disapproval of or dislike for a disfavoured
group”.
The Court also found that the Commission on Elections ruling violated the Philippine doctrine of
freedom of expression. While the Constitution placed power in the hands of the majority, it also
limited the power of that majority to “ride roughshod over the dissenting minorities”. According
to the Court, freedom of expression could be limited only by restrictions that were “proportionate
to the legitimate aim pursued”:
Absent any compelling state interest, it is not for the COMELEC or this Court to impose its
views on the populace. Otherwise stated, the COMELEC is certainly not free to interfere with
speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavoured
one. This position gains even more force if one considers that homosexual conduct is not illegal
in this country. It follows that both expressions concerning one’s homosexuality and the activity
of forming a political association that supports LGBT individuals are protected as well.
The Court supported its reasoning with references to international and comparative constitutional
decisions. Constitutionally, when it infringed on the freedom of association of an individual or
group, the government’s actions must involve “more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort
and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint”. Even radical or shocking
political and social ideas were protected through the exercise of the right of association.
The Court recognised that many Philippine citizens disapproved of homosexuality and Ang
Ladlad’s agenda. Nonetheless, the Court held, Philippine democracy “precludes using the
religious or moral views of part of the community to exclude from consideration the values of
other members of the community”.
Finally, the Court ruled that international law required the Commission on Elections to recognise
Ang Ladlad. According to the Human Rights Committee’s decision in Toonen v. Australia,
Article 26 of the ICCPR prohibited discrimination based on sex, including sexual orientation.
Reading the right to participate in government under Article 21 of the UDHR in light of Toonen,
the Court held that international law protected the right of LGBT organisations to participate in
the political process and that the Commission on Elections’ decision contravened that right.
Based on constitutional and international law, the Court held that Ang Ladlad must be
recognised by the Commission on Elections as a political party in the Philippines.