Sogie Bill

SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY AND EXPRESSION EQUALITY BILL
PROS:
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16
December 1966
entry into force 3 January 1976, in accordance with article 27
Preamble
The States Parties to the present Covenant,
Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the
inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world,
Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,
Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying
freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his economic,
social and cultural rights, as well as his civil and political rights,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and
observance of, human rights and freedoms,
Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a
responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,
Agree upon the following articles:
PART I
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and
freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any
obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international
law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-
Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right,
in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
PART II
Article 2
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance
and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving
progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including
particularly the adoption of legislative measures.
2. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant
will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
3. Developing countries, with due regard to human rights and their national economy, may determine to what extent they
would guarantee the economic rights recognized in the present Covenant to non-nationals.
Article 3
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all
economic, social and cultural rights set forth in the present Covenant.
Article 4
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in
conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law
only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general
welfare in a democratic society.
Article 5
1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in
any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights or freedoms recognized herein, or at their
limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.
1
2. No restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any country in
virtue of law, conventions, regulations or custom shall be admitted on the pretext that the present Covenant does not
recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
PART III
Article 6
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the
opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this
right.
2. The steps to be taken by a State Party to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include
technical and vocational guidance and training programmes, policies and techniques to achieve steady economic, social
and cultural development and full and productive employment under conditions safeguarding fundamental political and
economic freedoms to the individual.
Article 7
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable
conditions of work which ensure, in particular:
(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being
guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;
(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;
(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no
considerations other than those of seniority and competence;
(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for
public holidays
Article 8
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure:
(a) The right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of his choice, subject only to the rules of the
organization concerned, for the promotion and protection of his economic and social interests. No restrictions may be
placed on the exercise of this right other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in
the interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others;
(b) The right of trade unions to establish national federations or confederations and the right of the latter to form or join
international trade-union organizations;
(c) The right of trade unions to function freely subject to no limitations other than those prescribed by law and which are
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others;
(d) The right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country.
2. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the
armed forces or of the police or of the administration of the State.
3. Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the International Labour Organisation Convention of 1948
concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize to take legislative measures which would
prejudice, or apply the law in such a manner as would prejudice, the guarantees provided for in that Convention.
Article 9
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.
Article 10
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that:
1. The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental
group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent
children. Marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses.
2. Special protection should be accorded to mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth. During such
period working mothers should be accorded paid leave or leave with adequate social security benefits.
3. Special measures of protection and assistance should be taken on behalf of all children and young persons without any
discrimination for reasons of parentage or other conditions. Children and young persons should be protected from
economic and social exploitation. Their employment in work harmful to their morals or health or dangerous to life or likely
to hamper their normal development should be punishable by law. States should also set age limits below which the paid
employment of child labour should be prohibited and punishable by law.
2
Article 11
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself
and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The
States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential
importance of international co-operation based on free consent.
2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall
take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed:
(a) To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific
knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in
such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources;
(b) Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable
distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.
Article 12
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health.
2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall
include those necessary for:
(a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;
(b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;
(c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;
(d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.
Article 13
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that education
shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all persons to
participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial,
ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
2. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, with a view to achieving the full realization of this right:
(a) Primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all;
(b) Secondary education in its different forms, including technical and vocational secondary education, shall be made
generally available and accessible to all by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of
free education;
(c) Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in
particular by the progressive introduction of free education;
(d) Fundamental education shall be encouraged or intensified as far as possible for those persons who have not received
or completed the whole period of their primary education;
(e) The development of a system of schools at all levels shall be actively pursued, an adequate fellowship system shall be
established, and the material conditions of teaching staff shall be continuously improved.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable,
legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform
to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and
moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
4. No part of this article shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and
direct educational institutions, subject always to the observance of the principles set forth in paragraph I of this article and
to the requirement that the education given in such institutions shall conform to such minimum standards as may be laid
down by the State.
Article 14
Each State Party to the present Covenant which, at the time of becoming a Party, has not been able to secure in its
metropolitan territory or other territories under its jurisdiction compulsory primary education, free of charge, undertakes,
within two years, to work out and adopt a detailed plan of action for the progressive implementation, within a reasonable
number of years, to be fixed in the plan, of the principle of compulsory education free of charge for all.
Article 15
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone:
(a) To take part in cultural life;
3
(b) To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications;
(c) To benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
production of which he is the author.
2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall
include those necessary for the conservation, the development and the diffusion of science and culture.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to respect the freedom indispensable for scientific research and
creative activity.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the benefits to be derived from the encouragement and
development of international contacts and co-operation in the scientific and cultural fields.
PART IV
Article 16
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to submit in conformity with this part of the Covenant reports on
the measures which they have adopted and the progress made in achieving the observance of the rights recognized
herein.
2.
(a) All reports shall be submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies to the
Economic and Social Council for consideration in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;
(b) The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall also transmit to the specialized agencies copies of the reports, or
any relevant parts therefrom, from States Parties to the present Covenant which are also members of these specialized
agencies in so far as these reports, or parts therefrom, relate to any matters which fall within the responsibilities of the
said agencies in accordance with their constitutional instruments.
Article 17
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant shall furnish their reports in stages, in accordance with a programme to be
established by the Economic and Social Council within one year of the entry into force of the present Covenant after
consultation with the States Parties and the specialized agencies concerned.
2. Reports may indicate factors and difficulties affecting the degree of fulfilment of obligations under the present
Covenant.
3. Where relevant information has previously been furnished to the United Nations or to any specialized agency by any
State Party to the present Covenant, it will not be necessary to reproduce that information, but a precise reference to the
information so furnished will suffice.
Article 18
Pursuant to its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations in the field of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, the Economic and Social Council may make arrangements with the specialized agencies in respect of their
reporting to it on the progress made in achieving the observance of the provisions of the present Covenant falling within
the scope of their activities. These reports may include particulars of decisions and recommendations on such
implementation adopted by their competent organs.
Article 19
The Economic and Social Council may transmit to the Commission on Human Rights for study and general
recommendation or, as appropriate, for information the reports concerning human rights submitted by States in
accordance with articles 16 and 17, and those concerning human rights submitted by the specialized agencies in
accordance with article 18.
Article 20
The States Parties to the present Covenant and the specialized agencies concerned may submit comments to the
Economic and Social Council on any general recommendation under article 19 or reference to such general
recommendation in any report of the Commission on Human Rights or any documentation referred to therein.
Article 21
The Economic and Social Council may submit from time to time to the General Assembly reports with recommendations
of a general nature and a summary of the information received from the States Parties to the present Covenant and the
specialized agencies on the measures taken and the progress made in achieving general observance of the rights
recognized in the present Covenant.
Article 22
The Economic and Social Council may bring to the attention of other organs of the United Nations, their subsidiary organs
and specialized agencies concerned with furnishing technical assistance any matters arising out of the reports referred to
in this part of the present Covenant which may assist such bodies in deciding, each within its field of competence, on the
advisability of international measures likely to contribute to the effective progressive implementation of the present
Covenant.
4
Article 23
The States Parties to the present Covenant agree that international action for the achievement of the rights recognized in
the present Covenant includes such methods as the conclusion of conventions, the adoption of recommendations, the
furnishing of technical assistance and the holding of regional meetings and technical meetings for the purpose of
consultation and study organized in conjunction with the Governments concerned.
Article 24
Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and
of the constitutions of the specialized agencies which define the respective responsibilities of the various organs of the
United Nations and of the specialized agencies in regard to the matters dealt with in the present Covenant.
Article 25
Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully
and freely their natural wealth and resources.
PART V
Article 26
1. The present Covenant is open for signature by any State Member of the United Nations or member of any of its
specialized agencies, by any State Party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and by any other State which
has been invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations to become a party to the present Covenant.
2. The present Covenant is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General
of the United Nations.
3. The present Covenant shall be open to accession by any State referred to in paragraph 1 of this article.
4. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United
Nations.
5. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States which have signed the present Covenant or
acceded to it of the deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession.
Article 27
1. The present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the
United Nations of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.
2. For each State ratifying the present Covenant or acceding to it after the deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument of
ratification or instrument of accession, the present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the
deposit of its own instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.
Article 28
The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.
Article 29
1. Any State Party to the present Covenant may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the
United Nations. The Secretary-General shall thereupon communicate any proposed amendments to the States Parties to
the present Covenant with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the
purpose of considering and voting upon the proposals. In the event that at least one third of the States Parties favours
such a conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any
amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted to the
General Assembly of the United Nations for approval.
2. Amendments shall come into force when they have been approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations and
accepted by a two-thirds majority of the States Parties to the present Covenant in accordance with their respective
constitutional processes.
3. When amendments come into force they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other
States Parties still being bound by the provisions of the present Covenant and any earlier amendment which they have
accepted.
Article 30
Irrespective of the notifications made under article 26, paragraph 5, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall
inform all States referred to in paragraph I of the same article of the following particulars:
(a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions under article 26;
(b) The date of the entry into force of the present Covenant under article 27 and the date of the entry into force of any
amendments under article 29.
Article 31
5
1. The present Covenant, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall
be deposited in the archives of the United Nations.
2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of the present Covenant to all States
referred to in article 26.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16
December 1966
entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49
Preamble
The States Parties to the present Covenant,
Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the
inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world,
Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,
Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying
civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby
everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and
observance of, human rights and freedoms,
Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a
responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,
Agree upon the following articles:
PART I
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and
freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any
obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international
law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-
Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right,
in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
PART II
Article 2
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and
subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant
undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the
present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in
the present Covenant.
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy,
notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial,
administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State,
and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
Article 3
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all
civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.
Article 4
6
1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the
States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant
to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their
other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex,
language, religion or social origin.
2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.
3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other
States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the
provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be
made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.
Article 5
1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in
any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their
limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.
2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any
State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present
Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
PART III
Article 6
1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his life.
2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious
crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of
the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty
can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.
3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any
State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or
commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.
5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be
carried out on pregnant women.
6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to
the present Covenant.
Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall
be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
Article 8
1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.
2. No one shall be held in servitude.
3.
(a) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour;
(b) Paragraph 3 (a) shall not be held to preclude, in countries where imprisonment with hard labour may be imposed as a
punishment for a crime, the performance of hard labour in pursuance of a sentence to such punishment by a competent
court;
(c) For the purpose of this paragraph the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include:
(i) Any work or service, not referred to in subparagraph (b), normally required of a person who is under detention in
consequence of a lawful order of a court, or of a person during conditional release from such detention;
(ii) Any service of a military character and, in countries where conscientious objection is recognized, any national service
required by law of conscientious objectors;
(iii) Any service exacted in cases of emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;
(iv) Any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligations.
Article 9
7
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No
one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by
law.
2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly
informed of any charges against him.
3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized
by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the
general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear
for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.
4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order
that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not
lawful.
5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
Article 10
1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human
person.
2.
(a) Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject
to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons;
(b) Accused juvenile persons shall be separated from adults and brought as speedily as possible for adjudication.
3. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and
social rehabilitation. Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their
age and legal status.
Article 11
No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.
Article 12
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and
freedom to choose his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are
necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of
others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
Article 13
An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a
decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise
require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for
the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority.
Article 14
1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of
his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent,
independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial
for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the
private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special
circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in
a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings
concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to
law.
3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum
guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature
and cause of the charge against him;
(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own
choosing;
(c) To be tried without undue delay;
8
(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be
informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case
where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient
means to pay for it;
(e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses
on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(f) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court;
(g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.
4. In the case of juvenile persons, the procedure shall be such as will take account of their age and the desirability of
promoting their rehabilitation.
5. Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal
according to law.
6. When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has
been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there
has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be
compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly
attributable to him.
7. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or
acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.
Article 15
1 . No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal
offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed
than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission
of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.
2. Nothing in this article shall prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time
when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations.
Article 16
Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to
unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or
to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are
necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable,
legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through
any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It
may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
9
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence
shall be prohibited by law.
Article 21
The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than
those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national
security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights
and freedoms of others.
Article 22
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for
the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the
protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent
the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their exercise of this right.
3. Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the International Labour Organisation Convention of 1948
concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize to take legislative measures which would
prejudice, or to apply the law in such a manner as to prejudice, the guarantees provided for in that Convention.
Article 23
1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.
3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of
spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the
necessary protection of any children.
Article 24
1. Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin,
property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his
family, society and the State.
2. Every child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a name.
3. Every child has the right to acquire a nationality.
Article 25
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without
unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be
held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this
respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against
discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth or other status.
Article 27
In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be
denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise
their own religion, or to use their own language.
PART IV
Article 28
1. There shall be established a Human Rights Committee (hereafter referred to in the present Covenant as the
Committee). It shall consist of eighteen members and shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided.
2. The Committee shall be composed of nationals of the States Parties to the present Covenant who shall be persons of
high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights, consideration being given to the usefulness
of the participation of some persons having legal experience.
10
3. The members of the Committee shall be elected and shall serve in their personal capacity.
Article 29
1. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons possessing the qualifications
prescribed in article 28 and nominated for the purpose by the States Parties to the present Covenant.
2. Each State Party to the present Covenant may nominate not more than two persons. These persons shall be nationals
of the nominating State.
3. A person shall be eligible for renomination.
Article 30
1. The initial election shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of the present Covenant.
2. At least four months before the date of each election to the Committee, other than an election to fill a vacancy declared
in accordance with article 34, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a written invitation to the States
Parties to the present Covenant to submit their nominations for membership of the Committee within three months.
3. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of all the persons thus nominated,
with an indication of the States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties to the present
Covenant no later than one month before the date of each election.
4. Elections of the members of the Committee shall be held at a meeting of the States Parties to the present Covenant
convened by the Secretary General of the United Nations at the Headquarters of the United Nations. At that meeting, for
which two thirds of the States Parties to the present Covenant shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the
Committee shall be those nominees who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the
representatives of States Parties present and voting.
Article 31
1. The Committee may not include more than one national of the same State.
2. In the election of the Committee, consideration shall be given to equitable geographical distribution of membership and
to the representation of the different forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems.
Article 32
1. The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible for re-election if
renominated. However, the terms of nine of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years;
immediately after the first election, the names of these nine members shall be chosen by lot by the Chairman of the
meeting referred to in article 30, paragraph 4.
2. Elections at the expiry of office shall be held in accordance with the preceding articles of this part of the present
Covenant.
Article 33
1. If, in the unanimous opinion of the other members, a member of the Committee has ceased to carry out his functions
for any cause other than absence of a temporary character, the Chairman of the Committee shall notify the Secretary-
General of the United Nations, who shall then declare the seat of that member to be vacant.
2. In the event of the death or the resignation of a member of the Committee, the Chairman shall immediately notify the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall declare the seat vacant from the date of death or the date on which
the resignation takes effect.
Article 34
1. When a vacancy is declared in accordance with article 33 and if the term of office of the member to be replaced does
not expire within six months of the declaration of the vacancy, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall notify
each of the States Parties to the present Covenant, which may within two months submit nominations in accordance with
article 29 for the purpose of filling the vacancy.
2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of the persons thus nominated
and shall submit it to the States Parties to the present Covenant. The election to fill the vacancy shall then take place in
accordance with the relevant provisions of this part of the present Covenant.
3. A member of the Committee elected to fill a vacancy declared in accordance with article 33 shall hold office for the
remainder of the term of the member who vacated the seat on the Committee under the provisions of that article.
Article 35
The members of the Committee shall, with the approval of the General Assembly of the United Nations, receive
emoluments from United Nations resources on such terms and conditions as the General Assembly may decide, having
regard to the importance of the Committee's responsibilities.
Article 36
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary staff and facilities for the effective performance
of the functions of the Committee under the present Covenant.
11
Article 37
1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene the initial meeting of the Committee at the Headquarters of
the United Nations.
2. After its initial meeting, the Committee shall meet at such times as shall be provided in its rules of procedure.
3. The Committee shall normally meet at the Headquarters of the United Nations or at the United Nations Office at
Geneva.
Article 38
Every member of the Committee shall, before taking up his duties, make a solemn declaration in open committee that he
will perform his functions impartially and conscientiously.
Article 39
1. The Committee shall elect its officers for a term of two years. They may be re-elected.
2. The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure, but these rules shall provide, inter alia, that:
(a) Twelve members shall constitute a quorum;
(b) Decisions of the Committee shall be made by a majority vote of the members present.
Article 40
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to submit reports on the measures they have adopted which give
effect to the rights recognized herein and on the progress made in the enjoyment of those rights: (a) Within one year of
the entry into force of the present Covenant for the States Parties concerned;
(b) Thereafter whenever the Committee so requests.
2. All reports shall be submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit them to the Committee
for consideration. Reports shall indicate the factors and difficulties, if any, affecting the implementation of the present
Covenant.
3. The Secretary-General of the United Nations may, after consultation with the Committee, transmit to the specialized
agencies concerned copies of such parts of the reports as may fall within their field of competence.
4. The Committee shall study the reports submitted by the States Parties to the present Covenant. It shall transmit its
reports, and such general comments as it may consider appropriate, to the States Parties. The Committee may also
transmit to the Economic and Social Council these comments along with the copies of the reports it has received from
States Parties to the present Covenant.
5. The States Parties to the present Covenant may submit to the Committee observations on any comments that may be
made in accordance with paragraph 4 of this article.
Article 41
1. A State Party to the present Covenant may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of
the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is
not fulfilling its obligations under the present Covenant. Communications under this article may be received and
considered only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence
of the Committee. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party which has not made
such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following
procedure:
(a) If a State Party to the present Covenant considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions of the
present Covenant, it may, by written communication, bring the matter to the attention of that State Party. Within three
months after the receipt of the communication the receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an
explanation, or any other statement in writing clarifying the matter which should include, to the extent possible and
pertinent, reference to domestic procedures and remedies taken, pending, or available in the matter;
(b) If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both States Parties concerned within six months after the receipt by
the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter to the Committee, by
notice given to the Committee and to the other State;
(c) The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it only after it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies
have been invoked and exhausted in the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law.
This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged;
(d) The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article;
(e) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (c), the Committee shall make available its good offices to the States Parties
concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the matter on the basis of respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms as recognized in the present Covenant;
(f) In any matter referred to it, the Committee may call upon the States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b),
to supply any relevant information;
12
(g) The States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), shall have the right to be represented when the matter
is being considered in the Committee and to make submissions orally and/or in writing;
(h) The Committee shall, within twelve months after the date of receipt of notice under subparagraph (b), submit a report:
(i) If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement
of the facts and of the solution reached;
(ii) If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is not reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief
statement of the facts; the written submissions and record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned
shall be attached to the report. In every matter, the report shall be communicated to the States Parties concerned.
2. The provisions of this article shall come into force when ten States Parties to the present Covenant have made
declarations under paragraph I of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may
be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration
of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by
any State Party shall be received after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the
Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.
Article 42
1.
(a) If a matter referred to the Committee in accordance with article 41 is not resolved to the satisfaction of the States
Parties concerned, the Committee may, with the prior consent of the States Parties concerned, appoint an ad hoc
Conciliation Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). The good offices of the Commission shall be made
available to the States Parties concerned with a view to an amicable solution of the matter on the basis of respect for the
present Covenant;
(b) The Commission shall consist of five persons acceptable to the States Parties concerned. If the States Parties
concerned fail to reach agreement within three months on all or part of the composition of the Commission, the members
of the Commission concerning whom no agreement has been reached shall be elected by secret ballot by a two-thirds
majority vote of the Committee from among its members.
2. The members of the Commission shall serve in their personal capacity. They shall not be nationals of the States Parties
concerned, or of a State not Party to the present Covenant, or of a State Party which has not made a declaration under
article 41.
3. The Commission shall elect its own Chairman and adopt its own rules of procedure.
4. The meetings of the Commission shall normally be held at the Headquarters of the United Nations or at the United
Nations Office at Geneva. However, they may be held at such other convenient places as the Commission may determine
in consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the States Parties concerned.
5. The secretariat provided in accordance with article 36 shall also service the commissions appointed under this article.
6. The information received and collated by the Committee shall be made available to the Commission and the
Commission may call upon the States Parties concerned to supply any other relevant information.
7. When the Commission has fully considered the matter, but in any event not later than twelve months after having been
seized of the matter, it shall submit to the Chairman of the Committee a report for communication to the States Parties
concerned:
(a) If the Commission is unable to complete its consideration of the matter within twelve months, it shall confine its report
to a brief statement of the status of its consideration of the matter;
(b) If an amicable solution to the matter on tie basis of respect for human rights as recognized in the present Covenant is
reached, the Commission shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached;
(c) If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (b) is not reached, the Commission's report shall embody its findings on
all questions of fact relevant to the issues between the States Parties concerned, and its views on the possibilities of an
amicable solution of the matter. This report shall also contain the written submissions and a record of the oral submissions
made by the States Parties concerned;
(d) If the Commission's report is submitted under subparagraph (c), the States Parties concerned shall, within three
months of the receipt of the report, notify the Chairman of the Committee whether or not they accept the contents of the
report of the Commission.
8. The provisions of this article are without prejudice to the responsibilities of the Committee under article 41.
9. The States Parties concerned shall share equally all the expenses of the members of the Commission in accordance
with estimates to be provided by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
10. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall be empowered to pay the expenses of the members of the
Commission, if necessary, before reimbursement by the States Parties concerned, in accordance with paragraph 9 of this
article.
Article 43
13
The members of the Committee, and of the ad hoc conciliation commissions which may be appointed under article 42,
shall be entitled to the facilities, privileges and immunities of experts on mission for the United Nations as laid down in the
relevant sections of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.
Article 44
The provisions for the implementation of the present Covenant shall apply without prejudice to the procedures prescribed
in the field of human rights by or under the constituent instruments and the conventions of the United Nations and of the
specialized agencies and shall not prevent the States Parties to the present Covenant from having recourse to other
procedures for settling a dispute in accordance with general or special international agreements in force between them.
Article 45
The Committee shall submit to the General Assembly of the United Nations, through the Economic and Social Council, an
annual report on its activities.
PART V
Article 46
Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and
of the constitutions of the specialized agencies which define the respective responsibilities of the various organs of the
United Nations and of the specialized agencies in regard to the matters dealt with in the present Covenant.
Article 47
Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully
and freely their natural wealth and resources.
PART VI
Article 48
1. The present Covenant is open for signature by any State Member of the United Nations or member of any of its
specialized agencies, by any State Party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and by any other State which
has been invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations to become a Party to the present Covenant.
2. The present Covenant is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General
of the United Nations.
3. The present Covenant shall be open to accession by any State referred to in paragraph 1 of this article.
4. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United
Nations.
5. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States which have signed this Covenant or acceded to it of
the deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession.
Article 49
1. The present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the
United Nations of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.
2. For each State ratifying the present Covenant or acceding to it after the deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument of
ratification or instrument of accession, the present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the
deposit of its own instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.
Article 50
The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.
Article 51
1. Any State Party to the present Covenant may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the
United Nations. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall thereupon communicate any proposed amendments to
the States Parties to the present Covenant with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States
Parties for the purpose of considering and voting upon the proposals. In the event that at least one third of the States
Parties favours such a conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United
Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be
submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations for approval.
2. Amendments shall come into force when they have been approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations and
accepted by a two-thirds majority of the States Parties to the present Covenant in accordance with their respective
constitutional processes. 3. When amendments come into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have
accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of the present Covenant and any earlier
amendment which they have accepted.
Article 52
14
1. Irrespective of the notifications made under article 48, paragraph 5, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall
inform all States referred to in paragraph I of the same article of the following particulars:
(a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions under article 48;
(b) The date of the entry into force of the present Covenant under article 49 and the date of the entry into force of any
amendments under article 51.
Article 53
1. The present Covenant, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall
be deposited in the archives of the United Nations.
2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of the present Covenant to all States
referred to in article 48.
TIMELINE: SOGIE EQUALITY IN THE PHILIPPINES

The fight for equality and anti-discrimination for the LGBTQ+ community is one that has known almost
two decades of legal struggle
MANILA, Philippines – After trans woman Gretchen Custodio Diez was barred from using her
preferred restroom in a Cubao mall last August 13, one wonders how gender equality has fared in the
country over the years.
The State's commitment to upholding the dignity and equality of all persons is enshrined in the 1987
Constitution and in several international covenants it is signatory to, such as the International
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
While the protection of the LGBTQ+ is promised on paper, the Philippines is no stranger to notorious
cases of hate crimes and abuse against the community.
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.
15
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.
16
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.” – Rappler.com
'CHR DOCUMENTATION OF HATE CRIMES WILL PROTECT LGBT INTEREST'
To combat discrimination, the Commission on Human Rights will be documenting hate crimes against
LGBTs
MANILA, Philippines - The Commisson on Human Rights (CHR) has decided to document hate
crimes against Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgenders (LGBTs) across the country.
In an interview with Rappler, CHR Chairperson Loretta "Etta" Rosales said hate crimes deserve extra
attention given their nature.
"These are not just common crimes. They (the victims) belong to the marginal and discriminated
sectors of society. These are people who are discriminated against — binaril, tinotorture,
ninanakawan — dahil galit dahil sa sexual orientation niya," Rosales explained. (These are people
who are discriminated against — shot, tortured, robbed — because of anger over his or her sexual
orientation.)
The CHR chair said data are being pooled from different CHR offices in the province, adding that the
resulting database will eventually have a digital version.
"Pero ang balak talaga namin (What we intent to do) is to digitize it later on and even make it
scientific, so that it becomes evidence-based, and we can investigate the forms of abuse," she said in
a phone interview.
The CHR intends to eventually use the online platform to call attention to the issue of crimes
motivated by hate directed at sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI).
A similar effort was done by the agency for cases of human rights violations during the Martial Law
period.
Rosales is hopeful that the move will eventually lead to better prosecution and investigation of hate
crimes based on SOGI, describing them as "gross violations of human rights."
Hate crimes in the Philippines
According to data collated by the Philippine LGBT Hate Crime Watch, there have been around 164
cases of murdered LGBTs in the country from 1996 to June 2012.
Until the planned CHR documentation, LGBT rights advocates have depended solely on independent
reports which, they say, are but a glimpse of the real situation of gender-related hate crime incidence
in the country.
Rosales said they will look closely into the facts of each case, without being swayed by public
opinion.
"We have to be really objective about this. It has to be factual, talagang may kaso siya (there has to
be a real case). Kasi pag evidence-based, magagamit itong mga kasong ito para ipaglaban yung
interest ng mga naapi," she said. (If it is evidence-based, these cases can be used to fight for the
interest of the abused parties.)
17
LGBT rights advocates have previously called on the government to conduct a congressional inquiry
on LGBT-targeted hate crimes in aid of legislation. The probe, they said, will help determine
additional preventive and punitive measures needed to address the issue.
Attitudes towards LGBTs
Petersen Vargas, who produces films focused on the narratives of LGBTs, said there is little benefit
from the CHR documentation if there is no proper prosecution of the crimes.
"Realistically speaking, such moves are bound to be drowned by the general failure of a bigger
system — our judiciary. Let's face it, our justice system is already problematic as it is, and such
motives to give what is due for minorities make little difference," said Vargas.
Vargas said, however, that the "little difference" that the documentation will make is already a cause
for celebration.
"This move may be able to mainstreamize or popularize the LGBT issue, and in turn, will propagate
wider acceptance for this minority," said the young filmmaker.
Raffy Magno, a Rappler Ambassador and an LGBT rights advocate, said most gays are still
confronted with an obligation to explain — "why we are gay, why some of us don’t use make-up, why
some of us want to undergo sex change, why some of us can have sex with both sexes" — as if their
lifestyle needed approval before it can be lived out.
"In a society where discrimination and stereotyping are still rampant, in a church that has a lot of
biases against the LGBT, it is difficult and challenging for us to live an equal life with the 'straights,'"
he said.
Despite the challenges, Magno said there is reason for those who are "gay, loud and proud" to be
more hopeful.
"The Philippines has become more mature and more open on issues that involve the LGBT
community. We now have a party-list (organization) that forwards our rights, a teleserye that shows
our colorful and exigent love story, and a bunch of people and organizations that fight and share the
realities of being gay in the Philippines," he said. - Rappler.com
FALSE: SOGIE EQUALITY BILL WILL 'UNDERCUT' FREEDOMS, DESTROY FAMILY
The bill seeks anti-discrimination on the basis of SOGIE, not infringement on religious liberties or
parental authority
Claim: The following statements are included in the Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and
Expression (SOGIE) equality bill:
 Insulting members of LGBTQ+ (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders, queers, etc.) will
result in a penalty of P500,000 and imprisonment for 6 years and 6 months
 Assigning sex on newborns’ birth certificates is not allowed until they reach 12 years old
 Members of the LGBTQ+ can now kiss in public
 Priests and pastors who will refuse to perform marriage ceremonies of LGBTQ+ will be
stripped of their rights as leaders of their religious community
Facebook page Bongbong Marcos-Sara Duterte 2022 made these claims in a post on August 30. It
was accompanied by a photo, which said that the SOGIE equality bill will “undercut” parental
authority, religious freedom, freedom of conscience, and freedom of expression. It will also impose
the lifestyle of LGBTQ+ on straight people and silence the “straight community,” the post read.
Bongbong Marcos-Sara Duterte 2022’s post was shared over 15,000 times on Facebook. It also
garnered over 5,700 reactions and 5,200 comments as of writing and was flagged by Facebook Claim
check, the social media network’s tool that identifies suspicious posts.
18
The page credited a certain Facebook user Abad C Jhun as its source. Abad C Jhun posted the
same content on his timeline on August 28, but it did not receive any engagements.
Rating: FALSE
The facts: The SOGIE equality bill is an anti-discrimination bill that prohibits unfair treatment on the
basis of a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression. There are 4 versions of the bill
in the Senate, but none of them demand the things enumerated in the Facebook posts.
(READ: EXPLAINER: What you need to know about SOGIE)
The Senate bills (SB 689, 412, 315, 159) refiled and pending in the 18th Congress mirror House bill
No. 4982, which was passed on final reading in 2017.
The Senate version, on the other hand, did not even make it past 2nd reading in the 17th Congress.
(READ: TIMELINE: SOGIE equality in the Philippines)
There are no provisions in the bills that say assigning sex to newborns can be penalized, or that
same-sex marriage is now allowed. Insulting members of the LGBTQ+ will also not result in penalties
unless they are made to ridicule and harass a person because of their SOGIE.
What the bills propose, rather, is the equal access of the LGBTQ+ to basic rights and services. It
proposes the prohibition of the following discriminatory acts if made on the basis of SOGIE:
 Inflicting stigma using the media, textbooks, and other platforms

 Denying access to health and public services
 Denying the application for professional licenses and similar documents
 Denying use and access to establishments, facilities, and services open to the general
public
 Including SOGIE as a criteria for hiring or dismissal of workers
 Refusing admission or expelling students in schools based on SOGIE
 Imposing harsher than customary disciplinary actions due to the student's SOGIE
 Refusing or revoking accreditation of organizations based on the SOGIE of members
 Forcing a person to undertake any medical or psychological examination to determine or
alter one's SOGIE
 Publishing information intended to "out" or reveal the SOGIE of a person without consent
 Subjecting any person to profiling, detention, or verbal or physical harassment on the basis
of SOGIE
 Preventing children under parental authority from expressing their SOGIE
 Subjecting any person to any analogous acts that will impair or nullify a person’s human
rights and fundamental freedoms
Penalties for those who commit any of the acts mentioned above range from not less than P100,000
to P500,000 and/or imprisonment of not less than 6 months to 12 years maximum, depending on the
offense committed.
Senator Risa Hontiveros, one of the authors of the bill, also tweeted on August 28 to clarify the
misconceptions surrounding it.
– Pauline Macaraeg/Rappler.com
THE SOGIE EQUALITY BILL
By: Ma. Jiandra Bianca F. Deslate
Underbar Associate, DivinaLaw
19
“My dear brother and sisters in the LGBT community, I want you to know that I am but one voice
among many in this august chamber that says it is time: It is the time to pass the Anti-Discrimination
Bill on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. And the time is now,” declared Bataan 1st
District Representative Geraldine Roman in an impassioned privilege speech in Congress on Sept.
19, 2016. A year later, 197 other congressmen echoed her call and unanimously passed the Sexual
Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression “SOGIE” Equality bill on the third reading.
Uphill Battle
House Bill No. 4982 or “An Act Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation or
Gender Identity or Expression (Sogie) and Providing Penalties Therefor” is the first of its kind in the
country. Other anti-discrimination bills have been filed in the past, but these were never SOGIE-
specific, lumping the lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual, and queer sector (LGBTQ++ sector) with
others such as the differently abled or the indigenous groups.
The first version of the SOGIE Equality Bill was filed in the 11th Congress by the late Sen. Miriam
Defensor-Santiago and Akbayan Rep. Etta Rosales. It was pending for nineteen years, and is now
coming to fruition in the 17th Congress through the ardent efforts of Bataan 1st District
Representative Geraldine Roman, Diwa Party List Representative Emmeline Aglipay-Villar, and
Dinagat Islands Representative Arlene “Kaka” Bag-ao. While the bill still has to hurdle the Senate, its
passage in the House is already a victory in itself for the LGBTQ++ community.
The Purpose
The SOGIE Equality Bill is meant to fulfill the rights set forth in the 1987 constitution, particularly the
equal protection clause. It recognizes the LGBTQ++ as equals and ensures that their rights are
protected inasmuch as everyone’s is. The bill also acknowledges the Philippines duties under
international law particularly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It thus recognizes the non-discrimination of the LGBTQ++ as
both a national and international duty.
The Specifics
The bill first introduces and defines the concepts of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender
expression, as well as other terms that are pertinent to the aforementioned.
It then lists the practices to be considered discriminatory and unlawful under the bill, like the denial of
rights to LGBTQ+ community on the basis of their SOGIE, such as their right to access public
services, right to use establishments and services including housing, and right to apply for a
professional license, among others. Differential treatment of an employee or anyone engaged to
render services, denial of admission to or expulsion from an educational institution, refusal or
revocation of accreditation to any organization due to an individual’s SOGIE will also be penalized.
The bill also deems as discriminatory the act of forcing any person to undertake any medical or
psychological examination to alter his SOGIE, the publication of information intending to “out” a
person without his or her consent, public speech meant to vilify LGBTQ+, the harassment and
coercion of the latter by anyone especially those involved in law enforcement, and gender profiling.
Children under parental authority are given particular attention in the bill, as the prevention of the
expression of their SOGIE will also be penalized. Any act of harassment or coercion directed to the
LGBTQ+ is a discriminatory act under the SOGIE
Commission of any of the said acts will be meted out a fine of one hundred thousand to five hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000 to P500,000) or a prison sentence of one to six years (1 to 6 years), or
both. Additionally, the court may impose community service in the form of attendance In human rights
education.
20
The bill is not only punitive, but more importantly, is preventive. It orders the inclusion of SOGIE
concerns in all police station activities and services, with the renaming of the Women and Children’s
Desks to Women, Children, and LGBTQ++ Protection Desk, and the imposition of human rights
based training on the police. It directs the promotion of nondiscrimination through social protection
and diversity programs, and even incentivizes the positive portrayal of the LGBTQ++ in the media. A
SOGIE Equality Oversight Committee shall be created to effectively implement the Act.
Continuing Fight
While the bill has already overcome resistance in the lower house, it is still hotly debated in the
Senate. Senate Majority Floor leader Tito Sotto III, Sen. Manny Pacquiao, and Sen. Joel Villanueva,
who have been very vocal about their religious beliefs, are among those who staunchly oppose its
passage. Various Christian groups have also expressed their protest. The Christian Coalition for
Righteousness, Justice and Truth (CCRJT), for one, argues that the bill actually perpetuates and
does not prevent discrimination, as it discriminates against those who do not agree with the
LGBTQ++ community.
Proponents of the bill, however, vow to continue the fight for its passage into law. Chairperson for the
Senate Committee on Women, Children, Family Relations and Gender Equality, Senator Risa
Hontiveros-Baraquel stresses the importance of a law that will protect people from sexual and
gender-based discrimination and inequality, and laments that it is long overdue.
With opposing forces weighing in on the debate, only time will tell if the SOGIE bill will be signed into
law.
SOGIE BILL WILL NOT OUTLAW BIBLE-BASED BELIEFS ON LGBTS
Jonathan de Santos (Philstar.com) - September 3, 2019 - 12:10pm
MANILA, Philippines — Christians like Rep. Eddie Villanueva (CIBAC party-list) and other religious
will not be penalized for their beliefs, including that LGBTQ+ people are living sinful lives, if the
SOGIE Equality Bill becomes a law since it respects religious freedom, the author of one version of
the bill said.
In a privilege speech at the House of Representatives in late August, Villanueva—leader of the Jesus
is Lord movement—lamented that passage of the bill would silence him and others who believe that
homosexuality is a sin.
"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?" he said.
In an email to Philstar.com, Sen. Risa Hontiveros said the SOGIE Equality Bill she filed at the Senate
does not infringe on religious doctrines, teachings and rights.
Under the SOGIE Equality Bill, "[promoting and encouraging] stigma on the basis of SOGIE in the
media, in educational textbooks, and other medium" is considered a discriminatory practice and
penalized.
"Inciting violence and sexual abuse against any person or group on the basis of SOGIE is likewise
prohibited," the bill reads.
Hontiveros said "the bill respects religious freedom as a basic human right", adding the bill was filed
to end discrimination against and abuse of people based on their SOGIE—their sexual orientation,
gender identity or expression.
21
"It starts with accepting the fact that LGBTQ+ persons should enjoy the same rights as everyone –
including the right to live peacefully, and to not be treated as a lesser person," she said.
Not 'same-sex marriage in diguise'
At a press conference at the House of Representatives in August, Rep. Geraldine Roman (Bataan),
the first transgender woman elected to Congress, stressed SOGIE equality does not mean people
have to let go of their religious beliefs.
"Nothing will stop you from believing that we LGBT are abominations in the eyes of the Lord or are
children of the devil," she said.
"Nothing will stop you from that, you will not be penalized for believing what you believe in, but please
do not step on our right to work, to study, to receive services from the government, to access
commercial and public establishments... to not be insulted on the streets."
"The SOGIE Equality Bill is not same-sex marriage, it is not an infringement on your religious
liberties," she said.
The SOGIE Equality Bill does not amend the Family Code of the Philippines, which states that
"marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in
accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life."
Hontiveros, in an email, said "[claims] that the bill will compel churches and priests to perform same-
sex marriage is fake news."
SOGIE bill recognizes schools' rights
Villanueva and other critics of the bill have said that schools could be shut down for turning away, for
example, a transgender male applying for admission to an all-boys' school or for expelling "a trans
woman who insists on cross dressing despite getting a ton of warnings."
But Hontiveros said that the bill "recognizes the right of certain sectarian, religious schools to operate
based on their faith and in line with the best interest of children."
The SOGIE bill penalizes refusing admission or expelling a person on the basis of their SOGIE, but
also adds that "the right of educational and training institutions to determine the academic
qualifications of their students or trainees shall be duly upheld."
The bill also penalizes a school or training institution for imposing harsher sanctions and penalties on
students on the basis of their SOGIE and even on the basis of their parents' or legal guardian's
SOGIE.
Inclusion and protection in schools
Hontiveros said that the bill will mandate public basic and higher education institutions to implement
policies for diversity and inclusion "that reaches out to LGBTQ+ youth who are more prone to suffer
severe mental health issues compared to cisgender-heterosexual (“straight”) children."
She said LGBTQ+ youth are more vulnerable to mental health issues because of non-acceptance
and bullying the students may face in schools from fellow students as well as from school officials.
"Sadly, this has led to many cases of self-harm, even suicide," she said.
22
In a 2017 report, Human Rights Watch pointed out that many LGBTQ+ students face bullying and
discrimination and that most schools are not equipped to give them the support they need.
"When I was in high school, they’d push me, punch me," Carlos M., a respondent in the HRW report
said. He also said abuse and bullying happened even outside the school grounds.
This, despite a law against bullying and Department of Education guidelines prohibiting bullying on on
the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, HRW said.
Many of the respondents said then that they were not aware of policies against bullying or did not
know who to turn to in case they were bullied or harassed.
"Unfortunately, positive information and resources regarding sexual orientation and gender identity
are exceedingly rare in secondary schools in the Philippines. When students do learn about LGBT
people and issues in schools, the messages are typically negative, rejecting same-sex relationships
and transgender identities as immoral or unnatural," HRW said in 2017.
'Equality is not special treatment'
Critics of the bill have also claimed that it privileges LGBTQ+ over all other Filipinos.
"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, isn't it? In fact, equally discriminatory, it will be a law of
preferential rights, a class legislation," Rep. Villanueva said in his privilege speech.
Hontiveros said, though, that what the bill espouses is equal treatment.
"Numerous cases of discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons point to a lack of legal support for these
cases," she said.
"Employers can choose to discriminate against LGBTQ+ persons on the basis of their SOGIE, trans
people can be refused service in establishments, and gay men can be denied access to health
services because of stigma. These are no laws protecting the LGBTQ+ persons based on their
SOGIE," she also said.
Roman, at the press conference in August, said that the access to services and protection from
discrimination and harassment that the SOGIE Equality Bill espouses "are not extra rights, these are
not priviliges."
These are the same rights enjoyed theoretically by many Filipinos," she also said.
KARAPATAN PUSHES FOR SOGIE EQUALITY BILL
Published September 9, 2019, 8:32 PM
By Chito Chavez
Human rights watchdog Karapatan has urged the Senate on Monday to pass the Sexual Orientation,
Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE) Equality Bill, which seeks to protect individuals from
discrimination based on their sexuality.
Karapatan said it supports the call of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex
(LGBTQI+) community for lawmakers to approve the proposal that has languished in the legislature
for the past 20 years.
23
“As a national alliance of human rights organizations and advocates, Karapatan affirms its
commitment to uphold and defend the basic rights and human dignity of marginalized sectors in the
country. We stand firm with the LGBTQI+ community in calling for the immediate passage of the
SOGIE Equality Bill,” Karapatan secretary general Cristina Palabay said.
Article 2, Section 11 of 1987 Constitution declares that “the State values the dignity of every human
person and guarantees full respect for human rights.”
Karapatan added the Philippines is also a signatory to a number of international agreements on

human rights such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which have been
consistently affirmed by international institutions such as the United Nations Human Rights
Committee and the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to include
protection of individuals against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
“While we respect the beliefs of faith-based institutions and groups, the anchor of our State policies
should be on the civil and political rights already guaranteed in our constitution and by international
human rights instruments. We must not let homophobic and transphobic rhetoric spreading fear and
paranoia prevent us from pushing for meaningful reforms for the LGBTQI+ community,” Palabay
added.
Despite these international instruments and despite being considered one of the most “gay-friendly”
countries in the Asia Pacific, Palabay said that the LGBTQI+ community in the country remains
marginalized as they continue to face the brunt of macho-feudal oppression in various forms of
discrimination, hate crimes, abuse, and violence from state forces. These are perpetrated with
rampant impunity.
Palabay said discrimination of the LGBTQI+ community remains widespread citing that it reinforces
the marginalization, stigmatization, and oppression of LGBTQI+ individuals by affirming and
perpetuating hetero-normative social practices which are deeply rooted in macho-feudal
misconceptions of gender and sexuality.
Palabay also insisted members of the LGBTQI+ community—especially those coming from the
working class, peasants, urban poor, youth and young professionals—find themselves severely
limited in their exercise and enjoyment of their basic rights and fundamental freedoms.
In many cases, Palabay said lesbian students are being forcibly expelled from schools, gay workers
face greater threats of layoffs because of their sexual orientation, and transgender individuals are
being barred from asserting their identity and their assertion can lead to harassment, even illegal
arrest and detention.
“The LGBTQI+ community becomes more vulnerable to the violation of their civil and political as well
as their economic, social, and political rights,” Palabay said.
While President Duterte has seemingly expressed support for the landmark measure, Palabay has
slammed Duterte’s support describing it as a “hypocritical form of macho-fascist pink washing,” and
urged the LGBTQI+ community to be wary of personalities posing as “allies.”
If passed, Palabay asserted the SOGIE Equality Bill will be a good step towards asserting and
upholding the rights of the LGBTQI+ community and in penalizing and holding to account those who
engage in discriminatory acts, targeted harassment, and hate crimes.
“The Duterte administration and personalities like Imee Marcos, however, cannot use the SOGIE
Equality Bill to deodorize their fascist core and the thousands of human rights violations up their
24
sleeve. We must be wary of those posturing as “allies” of the LGBTQI+ community. Duterte is a
hypocrite to support the SOGIE Equality Bill and it’s obviously an attempt at macho-fascist
pinkwashing: He is a rotting macho-fascist who has relentlessly engaged in misogynistic acts and
remarks as well as homophobic slurs in vilifying his critics and opponents. The refusal of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) to support the bill—while ridiculously claiming to serve and protect
the people, including heterosexual individuals from discrimination—is only a concrete testament to
the government’s macho-fascist character and which interests it ultimately serves,” the Karapatan
official said.
Palabay also urged that the LGBTQI+ community’s struggle for equality and acceptance does not end
with the passage of the SOGIE Equality Bill, and that their struggle must be linked to the struggle of
the basic masses in their right for the defense of people’s rights, genuine liberation, economic
equality, and social justice.
“The SOGIE Equality Bill has long languished in the Congress since 1999—but collective action has
shown that we can advance this cause, with the bill being approved in its third and final by the House
of Representatives of 17th Congress. There is still a lot of work to be done, and the legislative arena
is just one avenue. While laws are good steps, may we also be reminded that the struggle of the
LGBTQI+ community for equality goes beyond laws and questions of identity. It does not exist in a
vacuum: it is inextricably linked and intertwined with the struggle of the basic masses in dismantling
the exploitative feudal and colonial character of our society which allows various forms of oppression
to thrive and flourish. A lot of LGBTQI+ activists and human rights defenders have dedicated their
lives and even died in the line of struggle for genuine liberation, and we must continue to resist
together for a society that is free from all forms of discrimination, oppression, and exploitation,”
Palabay concluded.
SAVED YOU A GOOGLE: THE SOGIE EQUALITY BILL
After 19 years of controversy and disjunction, it’s time to set the facts straight.
The media circus in the early weeks of August 2019 surrounding the Gretchen Diez bathroom
incident raised important questions about the way we see gender, privilege, and political motives. It
seems that every part of the story was loaded with something to unpack, from Diez seemingly using
the exposure for political leverage, to the thinly veiled transphobia of some of her critics. While we
can save any one of these topics for another day, right now, we’re here to talk about one of the most
important discussions to arise from the matter: the necessity of the SOGIE Equality Bill a.k.a. the
Anti-Discrimination Bill (ADB).
As it usually does with something so wildly controversial as sexuality and gender, discourse around
the topic has been muddled with fear-mongering, hostility, and falsehoods. A lot of myths have been
created around the ADB, what exactly it permits from a legal standpoint, and its implications in a
dominantly Catholic country. A lot of fundamentalist religious groups especially have spread fake
news about the spread of Satanism and legalisation of same-sex marriage being provisions of the bill.
It’s time to set the facts straight about the SOGIE Equality Bill and break down popular
misconceptions that many may claim.
What is the SOGIE Equality Bill?
The Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression Equality Bill (SOGIE Equality Bill) or Anti-
Discrimination Bill (ADB) is a proposed act intended to formally recognize and distinguish sexual
orientation, gender identity, and gender expression and prevent acts of discrimination on the basis of
such. Under this legislation, members of the LGBTQ+ community can enjoy protection from the law
against refusal of medical services, unfair punishments, nonconsensual outings, harassment, hate
speech, and other acts of intolerance that can happen in private and public, especially in the
workplace and in school systems. One of the most striking facts about the ADB is that it has been
contested for around 19 years since it was initially submitted by the late Senator Miriam Defensor-
Santiago.
25
Wait, really? What have we been doing?
That’s right, the SOGIE Equality Bill has been in limbo for around the lifetime of a college sophomore,
and it’s about time we set her free before her thesis year. It holds the record for the longest time a
senate bill has been under interpellation since it was last read in the Senate on Sept. 20, 2017. In
light of the Gretchen Diez incident, a series of hearings held by the Senate Committee on Women,
Children, Family Relations and Gender Equality, headed by Senator Risa Hontiveros, dug deeper into
possible improvements for the bill. Recently, Senator Sonny Angara filed a “comprehensive” version,
which is still inaccessible to the public as of now but is currently pending on the committee level.
Why do people hate it so much?
Filipino attitudes surrounding the LGBTQ+ community are very complex. This is possibly due to
antiquated ideas of “bakla/tomboy” identities where the distinction between sexual orientation and
gender identity or expression aren’t distinct (one of the main reasons SOGIE awareness is so
important in the first place). While even the most notorious of government officials are beginning to
(passively) back the rainbow banner, many influential figures still remain adamantly against its
passing, namely Senator Joel Villanueva, Senate President Tito Sotto, and Gen X multi-hyphenate
Senator Manny Pacquiao. There is a plethora of arguments against the SOGIE Equality Bill coming
from conservative Catholics and members of the political old guard. Here are some of the most
common ones:
“Gay people don’t suffer from discrimination, so it isn’t necessary.”
While most people point to the entertainment industry as evidence of LGBTQ+ acceptance in the
country, the way that queer and trans people are represented in society are largely incomplete. Gay
men are the most visible in Philippine media, and their purposes are seemingly to take the role of the
Camp Gay. In other areas of everyday life, however, many LGBTQ+ people aren’t totally guaranteed
safety and security. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans students and workers are still subject to
discrimination and even at times, brutalization.
Most employers’ SOGIE awareness and anti-discrimination policies in their current state are abysmal,
to say at the least. For the most part, we can only rely on local government policies to fill in this gap. If
it’s taking 19 years for these conditions to improve, isn’t that saying something? If we’re so tolerant,
let’s make it official on paper baybee!
“Okay, but, why should the LGBTQ+ get preferential treatment?”
To directly quote a provision from the 17th Congress’ most recent iteration of the ADB, “The actual
sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity of expression of the person subjected to discrimination shall
not be relevant for the purpose of determining whether an act of discrimination has been committed.”
Straight and cisgender people would actually get protection too under this legislation. However, this
bill is most relevant to the LGBT+ sector, who are at higher risk of experiencing marginalization within
our society. A society progresses the more it builds itself around inclusion, and yes, it does take a
little effort to do this.
“Women’s rights will be threatened by the ADB.”
Senate President Tito Sotto claimed the bill will be unlikely to get a final signing under his watch. As a
reaction to the recent hearings on the SOGIE Equality Bill, he denied the validity of trans women’s
identities by calling them “gay men who will never be women” because they do not have the womb
and ovaries that have long-defined the female experience to a surprising amount of people. However,
his sudden interest in women’s rights has overlooked intersectional feminism’s emphasis on including
and protecting transgender people. Many feminist organizations in the country (including the Gabriela
Women’s Party) participate in Metro Manila Pride. In fact, only a small number of radical feminists
26
would exclude trans women, meaning Tito Sotto is only representing a minority opinion of actual
women’s rights activists.
“It impedes on religious freedom!”
At its core, the SOGIE Equality Bill aims to improve the state of human rights in the country. As such,
it would be counterproductive not to allow people to exercise religious freedom. Many expressed
concern over the provision that criminalises media or text that encourages the “stigma on the basis of
SOGIE.” Senator Hontiveros refuted this by stating that the point of the ADB is to end discrimination
for all while remaining to respect religion as a fundamental human right. The bill aims to end hate-
speech and inciting of violence or sexual assault against people on the basis of SOGIE.
“The SOGIE Equality Bill will permit same-sex marriage”
If you read closely, there is no provision in any version of the SOGIE Equality Bill that would permit
same-sex marriage. The Family Code of the Philippines defines the institution of marriage strictly
between a man and a woman. The ADB in itself does not aim to amend this. Recently however, a
separate petition for same-sex marriage in the country was filed by lawyer Jesus Falcis. It was junked
in the Supreme Court on the basis of not following the hierarchy of courts.
The SOGIE Equality Bill may mean a lot of things to people. Some may see it as a threat to family
values, others may be apathetic thinking that it doesn’t apply to them. But for a good number of
Filipinos, it means feeling safe and secure when walking in public spaces, working a new job, or
navigating the academe. The fact of the matter is, it isn’t just about gay rights, nor trans rights, but
about human rights as a whole. By addressing the issue of SOGIE Equality, we will be fighting
ignorance and putting all Filipinos on equal footing. By making these strides, we’ll be creating the
better, more inclusive Philippines that all of us deserve.
LIES AGAINST THE SOGIE BILL

By Antonio Contreras
August 31, 2019
THE Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (Sogie) Equality bill is being maligned by
people who have not read and fully understood it.
What is even more offensive is when people whose job it is to make laws are at the forefront in
peddling lies to mislead the public. Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto 3rd is one of these people.
As the leader of the Senate, Sotto should exercise prudence in criticizing proposed laws. He must
demonstrate to the public the proper way, one that requires careful analysis of what is being
proposed.
And here, Sotto fails miserably. He accuses the Sogie bill of providing a backdoor route to legalize
same-sex marriages in the country. He anchors this mistaken notion on his wrong interpretation of the
proposed provision that prohibits anyone from denying a person any license on the basis of the
latter’s sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. He argues that this would include the
issuance of a marriage license. He even cultivates an unfounded fear when he stressed that a public
official can go to jail if he or she denies issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple.
Sotto fails to understand that the Sogie bill only refers to discrimination against persons who are
otherwise qualified to obtain a license, solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity
and expression. The law does not have any provision that changes the requirements to obtain a
license. Certainly, a member of the LGBTQIA+ community who is blind cannot obtain a driver’s
license, or someone who failed a licensure exam cannot be issued a professional license.
The proposed law has no provision changing the requirements for the issuing of a marriage license.
27
Currently, applicant couples should meet these requirements, which include that they should be of the
opposite sexes, of legal age and have no existing valid marriages. Thus, Sotto is peddling fakery
when he asserts that same-sex couples can now demand that civil registrars issue them marriage
licenses.
Beyond misreading of the provisions, what also stands out are unfounded fears that with the Sogie
bill, trans women will now descend like mad women on female restrooms, thereby putting at risk the
women of this country. There is fear that women will now be vulnerable to sexual predators dressed
as women. It is understandable to have this fear, and the duty of any rational public official or citizen
is to bring the issue back to reason.
It behooves to ask how many cases of trans women, or men dressed as women, harassing girls and
women inside public restrooms, have been recorded at any given time.
Over the 35-year history of non-discrimination laws that include provisions on transgender persons all
over the world, there was only one case reported in Canada of a transperson who took advantage of
such laws and committed sexual assault. This only means that for 35 years people have entered
restrooms that are now compliant with non-discrimination laws all over the world, and we can just
imagine the number of times people of different sexual orientations availed of such facilities, that
there is only one case of sexual assault reported. In 2014, the United States Federal Bureau of
Investigation reported 84,000 cases of rape in the entire US, and none of this was committed by a
trans woman inside a female restroom, more so by a man dressed as a woman. And yet, critics of the
Sogie bill are making it appear that this is a normal occurrence with high probability. And that there is
reason to fear it.
Another unfounded fear propagated in relation to the Sogie bill is that it will open the floodgates for
nuisance suits filed by the LGBTQIA+ on the slightest perception that they have been discriminated
against, particularly in hiring and employment. At the outset, this is a clear case of prejudice that
paints the LGBTQIA+ as irrationally litigious. But even then, one has to ask what is the problem if
applicants or employees demand an explanation from employers if they feel they have been
discriminated against by virtue of their sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. In the end
this will force companies to be fair in their hiring and personnel decisions and employ robust rubrics in
evaluating applicants and employees in accordance with law. A company employing fair labor
practices would not fear a suit from a disgruntled applicant or employee, whether that person belongs
to the LGBTQIA+ community or not.
Another argument raised against the Sogie bill is that it will violate the right of religious schools to
freely practice their faith. The right to exercise one’s religion is indeed constitutionally guaranteed, but
it is never absolute. It could be limited when it denies others their rights. Sectarian and religious
schools, other than preparing their believers to become religious, like seminaries or convent schools,
must always be weighed against public interest. If the role of the school is to prepare believers to take
up their faith, then it may assert its rights against any move to undermine the free exercise of such.
But if the school is run as a public entity offering educational services and taking advantage of its tax-
exempt status, then it cannot assert full and absolute rights. It is subjected to full state regulation by
the Department of Education or the Commission on Higher Education. Thus, while those who follow
the faith of its owners will be granted the benefit of fully exercising their faith, it must accord academic
freedom to its faculty and staff and must respect the rights of its students who are not followers of the
religion of its owners as provided by prevailing laws.
Certainly, a lot of the criticisms are based on unfounded fear without full understanding. But the
advance of anti-discrimination initiatives across history has always required that those who are not
discriminated against give up some of their comforts and privileges, as long as their legitimate rights
are not diminished.
NO 'SPECIAL RIGHTS' GIVEN: CATHOLIC NUN SUPPORTS SOGIE EQUALITY BILL

Dharel Placido, ABS-CBN News
28
Posted at Sep 05 2019 03:20 AM
MANILA - A Catholic nun on Wednesday defended a proposed bill seeking to protect individuals from
gender-based discrimination, saying it does not give “special rights” to a certain group in society.
The proposed Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity or Expression (SOGIE) Equality Bill merely
addresses the concerns of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, which has
historically faced discrimination, said Sister Mary John Mananzan, a Catholic nun running an all-girls
school in the capital Manila.
“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,” Mananzan said in a Senate hearing on the proposed bill
of minority Sen. Risa Hontiveros.
“As a religious woman I believe in the respect, compassion, and reverence for all persons because I
believe they were all made in the image and likeness of God.”
Mananzan said while issues on sexual orientation are highly debatable and would entail “unending
discussions”, no one can argue that many people who have chosen to freely express their gender
identity have been victims of 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 the discrimination of anybody, sometimes you have to focus on groups
of people that are actually suffering discrimination and violence."
Mananzan's statement seems to aim to strike at one of the core arguments of groups opposing the
SOGIE Equality Bill who say that the proposed measure would trample upon the rights of non-LGBT
community members.
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.
29
"'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.
But President Rodrigo Duterte has expressed support for the bill’s passage.
OPINION: The issue on the SOGIE Bill reminds me of the movie "On the Basis of Sex". This
film was based on the life and early cases of US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The highlight of this movie is the story of Charles Moritz.
Charles Moritz is a man from Denver who had to hire a nurse to help him care for his aging mother so
he could continue to work. Moritz was denied a tax deduction for the nursing care because at that
time, Section 214 of the Internal Revenue Code specifically limited the deduction to "a woman, a
widower or divorcée, or a husband whose wife is incapacitated or institutionalized". The court ruled
that Moritz, a man who had never married, did not qualify for the deduction.
And so ANONG KONEK?
SIMPLE LANG.
The SOGIE (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression Equality) or the Anti-
Discrimination Bill (ADB) is A BILL FOR EVERYONE - whether you are straight, lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, non-binary, gender fluid and whatnot.
Why is that so?
If you are a STRAIGHT MALE or STRAIGHT FEMALE then that is your SOGIE.
If you are GAY or LESBIAN or BISEXUAL, that is your SOGIE.
Sa madaling salita, kapag nakaranas ang isang tao ng DISKRIMINASYON nang dahil lamang sa
kanyang SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY o GENDER EXPRESSION, puwede niyang
iinvoke ang kanyang mga karapatan under the SOGIE Bill.
HALIMBAWA sa WORKPLACE:
(1) Kapag mga lalaki lang ang napopromote habang ang mga babae (o members ng LGBTQ+) ay
hanggang entry level lang, vice-versa. O kaya magkaiba ng requirements ang babae, lalaki at
LGBTQ+ members in terms of hiring, firing at promotion.
(2) Kapag mas mababa ang sahod o benepisyong natatanggap ng mga babae (o members ng
LGBTQ+) kumpara sa mga lalaki kung saan pareho lang naman sila ng posisyon o function.
(3) Kapag nag-aapply ka sa trabaho at nagtatanong si HR Manager about sa sexuality mo at naging

basis yun para hindi ka ma-hire.
30
(4) Kapag nabuntis si employee at tinanggal siya sa trabaho.
(5) Kapag may certain requirement sa appearance mo na hindi naman work-related like kapag babae
ka bawal sa iyo ang maiksi ang buhok o kaya dapat bawal sa iyo ang naka-pants.
(6) Kapag babae ka (o member ng LGBTQ+) and you have all the qualifications pero hindi ka
tinanggap bilang bumbero, taxi driver, security guard, at iba pang hanapbuhay na "commonly"
panlalaki.
TAKE NOTE.
Kapag nasa duty ako sa NLRC at may nagpapa-advice sa kung tama yung "causes of action" nila na
sinulat sa complaint form, may mga nagsusulat ng "discrimination". Siyempre ipapa-explain ko kung
bakit may sinulat na ganun. At si empleyado, magkukuwento, eh kasi po ganito. Eh kasi po ganoon.
See? Discrimination is real and persisting.
Of course may certain EXCEPTIONS sa pag-DISCRIMINATE gaya ng tinatawag na BONAFIDE

OCCUPATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS.
Please read:
Yrasuegui v. PAL, G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008 - weight standards para sa mga flight
stewards
Duncan v. Glaxo, G.R. No. 162994, September 17, 2004 - bawal may karelasyon na nagwowork sa
kabilang company
Also, while the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act 6725, provides for non-discrimination
against women in the workplace, it bears emphasizing that the said provision categorically protects
women, NOT men and members of the LGBTQ+ community.
Marami pang uri, klase, degree at mukha ang diskriminasyon against a person's SOGIE. Wala itong
pinipiling lugar. Hindi lang sa workplace. Mayroon sa SCHOOL. Sa MALL. Sa BAHAY. Sa pag-avail
ng mga SERVICES. Etc.
In short, huwag natin ilimita ang SOGIE BILL sa LGBTQ members. Laliman natin ang pagbasa at
pag-interpret ng nasabing panukalang batas.
Nagmumukha lang na pang-LGBTQ ang SOGIE Bill kasi ang madalas na nadidiscriminate, on the
basis of their sex and gender, ay ang mga bakla at tomboy. Kasi sila ang minority sa Pilipinas. Pero
in reality, this bill (kapag naging batas) is for EVERYONE.
Tandaan, Konstitusyon na mismo ang nagsasabi:
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws."
Now, if you think hindi mo kailangan ng SOGIE Law because you've never been discriminated
against on the basis of your sex or gender, well good for you. Mapalad ka. Pero paano ang iba?
I am not saying that the SOGIE Bill is perfect. Of course, may mga kailangang ayusin at ireconcile na
provisions. May mga kailangang i-consider na provisions vis-a-vis other rights. Nevertheless, this is A
GOOD BILL.
31
P.S.
Sa mga babae diyan na ayaw sa SOGIE Bill, ipapaalala ko lang, in case hindi ninyo alam, noong
unang panahon, sa Pilipinas, BAWAL KAYO BUMOTO dahil lang sa katotohanang babae kayo.
Ganorn.
At sa mga nagsasabing the SOGIE Bill will pave way sa same-sex marriage, pinagsasasabi niyo?
CONS:
The Difference Between Natural Law And Man Made Law
Our historical past is a repetitive story for the rise and fall of empires and kingdoms whose successes and failures have
predominantly relied upon the efficiency of mental constructs by which to rule and steer humanity’s destiny. The
established beliefs in which the natural world was to be dominated, feared and exploited have rendered mankind isolated
and disconnected from the guiding principles innate to creation. The truth of our moral compass has been usurped in
favor of a false authority whose immoral domain has left us drowning in a turbulent sea of dramas and dogmas. It should
be clear by now that man’s laws are inferior to the supreme laws of creation unless man made laws are created in
harmonious alignment with the truth and knowledge of natural, universal and spiritual laws. Mankind must begin to discern
the difference between natural law and man made law if we are going to restore and preserve our divine evolutionary
path.
The guiding principles of natural law, with which you can become familiar here, provide us with the morally correct path to
co-create a loving world. Our choice to choose love over fear is backed by a universal guarantee for our attainment of true
understanding with which to sustain sovereignty, freedom, harmony and order. Our vibrational alignment with the
principles and truth bound within natural law is our return to the flow of creation wherein our moral compass is restored.
Man made law is vulnerable to immorally incorrect and erroneous beliefs when man’s knowledge and understanding fail to
harmonize with the laws of creation. For our universe operates within the wisdom of harmonic resonance, and our inability
to attune with this wisdom is the cause of our separation and suffering; and the effect is our blind allegiance to the
negative expressions of natural law rather than our loyalty to the positive expressions. Man’s dogmatic beliefs are rooted
in mental constructs that disregard the integrity of emotional, physical and spiritual components. How do we comply with
man made laws that do not consider the totality of the whole person? The laws of man confine us to an ultimatum for
which our failure to comply becomes our fear of punishment.
Natural laws define universal truth that transcends all race, color and creed while man’s laws attempt to restrict the right to
sovereign freedom based upon one’s race, color and creed. If all men are created equal, then the creation of man made
laws to suit the bias of locales or conditions is a violation of natural law. Human beings do not possess the authority to
32
dictate written laws under the guise of moral relativism that utterly destroys one’s sovereignty and freedom. Our moral
sphere is determined by our alignment to the laws of creation, not by the moral relativity bound within man’s mutable laws.
We cannot trade our internal self-mastery to know right from wrong for the moral whims of external authority to dictate
moral correctness from immoral incorrectness. Our ethical guidance is embedded within the eternal and immutable laws
of the universe that supersedes the limitations of ever-changing moral relevancy. Natural law grants us the morally correct
principles as trustworthy guidance to prevent our enslavement within immorally incorrect governance. We must heed the
lost generative principle of care by which to say NO to moral relativism, and YES to the immutable laws governing the
universe and all creation. Mankind has a moral obligation to check and correct the dogmatic beliefs being imposed upon
them so as to defend our sovereign freedom, and to maintain the harmonious and natural order at the heart of our
existence. Our moral accountability demands that we understand the difference between natural law and man made law.
FULL TEXT OF THE SPEECH OF ANSEL BELUSO AT THE SOGIE BILL HEARING
I am hereby granting the request of a lengthening list of people asking for a text copy of the statement
I read during the public hearing on the SOGIE Bill conducted by the Senate Committee on Women,
Children, Family Relations & Gender Equality last Wednesday, 4 September 2019 in the Sen. Jose
Laurel Room of the Senate of the Philippines.
***
Madame Chair, honorable members of the Senate Committee on Women, Children, Family Relations
& Gender Equality, good morning. I am here today representing Pro-Life Philippines and Couples for
Christ Foundation for Family & Life. Please note that Pro-Life Philippines has already submitted our
position paper on our opposition to the bill which is the subject of today’s public hearing, the SOGIE
Bill
My name is Ansel Beluso. I am an ex-gay, which means I used to live a very active gay lifestyle but
has since chosen the path of change and renewal. I am happily and blissfully married to my wife
Joyce for 18 years now; we have three children Noel, Gian and JBen.
I have actually listed more than a dozen reasons why the entire Filipino nation should totally and
unequivocally reject the SOGIE Bill; but I want to zero in on just one this morning due to paucity of
time.
Madame Chair, I humbly and most respectfully submit that, because of its official invention of special
LGBTQI+ rights, the SOGIE Bill, when enacted into law, shall forcibly engender and perpetuate a
culture of lies, deceit, deception and duplicity into the life of our country and people. Madame Chair,
allow me to mention only four of these lies.
First lie: Genitals do not determine sex and gender. Wrong. Truth is, genitals do determine sex and
gender. Basic biology tells us that, in humans, biological sex and gender is determined by five factors
present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, the type of gonads, the sex hormones,
the internal genitalia (such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia. Nowhere in any
scientific journal or biology textbook can we find it said that sex and gender in humans can be
determined otherwise. In fact, findings of a landmark study done by a group of geneticists at the
Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and the University of Helsinki, released last month, which
examined the genomes of almost half a million people, indicate that there is no such thing as a gay
gene. In the case of transsexuals, if transwomen undergo a DNA test, the results will irrevocably
prove that they are still men.
Second lie: If a person has a homosexual orientation, the path to fullness of life is to embrace and live
it out. Wrong. Truth is, there is such a thing as gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the distress a
person feels due to a mismatch between their gender identity and their sex assigned at birth. The
American Psychiatric Association states that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. It further states
that treatment for gender dysphoria may involve supporting the person through changes in gender
expression. Treatment may also include counseling or psychotherapy. In other words, the real path to
33
fullness of life for persons with gender dysphoria, such as the transgenders, is treatment or
therapeutic intervention – not genital mutilation and hormone therapy.
Third lie: Change is impossible for persons with same-sex attraction. Wrong. Truth is, gays can
change. And we do change. According to Dr. Lisa Diamond, a top researcher of the American
Psychological Association (APA) and an avowed lesbian activist, sexuality desire is fluid, homosexual
desire is not “hard-wired;” that “born that way and can’t change” is a myth; feelings don’t overrule
volition (behavior is a choice, one does not need to act on every feeling — especially sexual feelings);
the “born that way” argument is political, not scientific; sexual orientation is subject to change.
Fourth lie: It is for the welfare of children with evident homosexual orientation that they be made to
learn about the LGBTQI+ ideology and guided to embrace the gay lifestyle — even at a very young
age. Wrong. Truth is, according to the document updated in September 2017 by Drs. Michelle A.
Cretella and Quentin Van Meter, President and Vice President respectively of the American College
of Pediatricians, as well as Dr. Paul McHugh, Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns
Hopkins Medical School, raising children in an environment that espouses, promotes, propagates and
institutionalizes the so-called gender ideology actually harms them.
(https://www.acpeds.org/…/pos…/gender-ideology-harms-children) It also says, “Conditioning
children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is
normal and healthful is child abuse.” The statement further states, “Endorsing gender discordance as
normal via public education and legal policies” is injurious to children.
Madame Chair, I can go on and on but time is running out. In closing, may I humbly suggest that the
so-called LGBTQI+ ideology that the SOGIE Bill espouses and promotes is not a part of Filipino
culture. One very basic proof of this, we do not have a Tagalog word for bisexual or transgender or
queer or intersex and all the other terms used by the LGBTQI-JKLMNOP activists. This is alien to us
as Filipinos. And I would like to echo the message of Pope Francis in the Meeting of Families during
his visit to our country in 2015. He said, “Resist ideological colonization that tries to destroy the
family.”
Madame Chair, thank you very much and may God bless and have mercy on us all.
'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
MANILA - Several groups on Wednesday denounced efforts to pass a measure that protects
individuals from discrimination based on their gender identity and expression, but the proposed law’s
lead author stressed it is meant to protect everyone.
The Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity or Expression (SOGIE) Equality Bill, filed by minority
Sen. Risa Hontiveros, seeks to prevent and penalize discriminatory acts against a person's sexual
orientation.
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.
34
“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.
SOGIE BILL DISCRIMINATORY?
While the chief executive backs the bill, it is still expected to face rough-sailing in the Senate, as
conservative groups continue to pressure legislators to not support the proposed measure.
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 during the Senate hearing.
“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.”
35
“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 claimed.
AN LGBT WHO IS ANTI-“ANTI-SOGIE DISCRIMINATION BILLS”
RYAN BORJA CAPITULO·WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2017·READING TIME: 4 MINUTES
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-SOGI 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
36
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.
SUMMARY: CAPITULO ENUMERATED LAWS IN THE PHILIPPINES THAT SUPPOSEDLY

ENSURE “ANY FORM OF DISCRIMINATION IS AVOIDED.”
 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
 Revised Penal Code of the Philippines
 Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995
 The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Capitulo added that the Philippines’ Magna Carta for Women likewise “seeks to eliminate
discrimination” but falsely claimed that it “does not impose penalties.”
Under the Magna Carta, private individuals or private entities who violate certain provisions are bound
to be “liable to pay damages” to the offended.
The SOGIE bill, meanwhile, imposes anywhere from fines to imprisonment for offenses of
discrimination.
The Philippines is a ‘gay-friendly’ country
Capitulo also argued that the SOGIE bill is not necessary since the Philippine society is “innately
tolerant of LGBTs” or lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transexuals.
He mentioned the election of the country’s first transgender lawmaker, Rep. Geraldine Roman
(Bataan), is proof of such acceptance.
Capitulo then added that he has never experienced discrimination “growing up, whether in school or
at work.”
However, 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.
‘Violate’ people’s freedom of religion
37
Capitulo also expressed his fear that the SOGIE bill might be used to “stifle or violate” people’s
freedom of religion and their freedom to live out their faith.
“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?” he asked.
“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?” Capitulo added.
“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?” he asked.
Capitulo mentioned that under the proposed measure, such scenarios would merit religious
communities and faith-based organizations to be legally penalized for perceived discrimination.
Under the bill, violators can be sanctioned for up to P500,000 and be imprisoned for up to six years.
“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,” Capitulo said.
Last week, Senate President Tito Sotto revealed that the SOGIE bill has “no chance” of passing in the
upper chamber “if it transgresses on academic freedom, religious freedom and women’s rights.”
He made the remark following a public hearing on the proposed measure’s passage that was initiated
by the Senate Committee on Women, Children, Family Relations and Gender Equality headed by
Senator Risa Hontiveros.
Hontiveros, for her part, argued in a Facebook post that the bill “will not penalize people who practice
religious or academic freedom.”
She added that it “will not dictate churches on their teachings or hiring process” as well.
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. — Artwork by Uela Altar-Badayos
SOGIE BILL WON’T PROMOTE EQUALITY; ONLY ‘SPECIAL’ RIGHTS TO LGBT – SOLON
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.
38
Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) Partylist Rep. Eddie Villanueva manifested his opposition
against the SOGIE bill during a privilege speech on Wednesday.
“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.
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.
PNP OPPOSES SOGIE BILL
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.
39
“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.
NEVER A GOOD TIME FOR SOGIE
August 29, 2019 | 8:14 pm
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.
40
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.
41
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.
OPINION: 𝟏𝟐 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐖𝐇𝐘 𝐖𝐄 𝐎𝐏𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐄 𝐒𝐎𝐆𝐈𝐄
by Norman Sison Lao
𝗪𝗘 𝗢𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗘 𝗦𝗢𝗚𝗜𝗘 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗟𝗚𝗕𝗧𝗤+. 𝗪𝗲 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺. 𝗪𝗲 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻
𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗦𝗢𝗚𝗜𝗘 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀.
𝑯𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒘𝒉𝒚 𝒘𝒆 𝒐𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒊𝒕:
1. SOGIE is unfair to STRAIGHT PEOPLE. For example, we will be penalized for "hurting their
feelings" with P100,000-500,000 plus 1-6 years imprisonment, while there is no provision of law that
LGBTQ+ people will be penalized if they hurt ours.
2. There are provisions in SOGIE that can be used to curtail our exercise of religious freedoms. For
example, we cannot speak in public to express what we know is the truth.
3. The Bible, the basis of our faith and practice since the time of Jesus Christ, might be banned
because of the provision that all media that "discriminates against" LGBTQ+ will not be allowed for
circulation.
4. There is a provision in the SOGIE Bill that will impose LGBTQ+ teaching upon our children since
they will be integrated in all educational institutions. This will include sex education from the point of
view of homosexuality.
5. The claim that the SOGIE Bill will empower women is CONFUSING since there is no "W-omen" in
L.G.B.T.Q."
6. There is NO NEED for SOGIE. If the LGBTQ+ community needs a CR for themselves, let them file
a Bill that addresses that specific issue such as "LGBTQ+ CR Bill" that will require all establishments
to build a CR for them.
7. The SOGIE Bill is NOT for Equality, but clearly for Preferential Treatment of members of the
LGBTQ+ over the rest of the people. This is quite clear in the recent transgender CR fiasco where the
transgender was given more media mileage and government attention compared to the Straight
Janitress.
8. The SOGIE Bill does not address discrimination. It actually discriminates against Straight People.
We already feel discriminated even when SOGIE is not yet a law.
9. The SOGIE Bill is deceptive. Why remove the "except for marriage" clause in the application for
licenses in the Senate version of the Bill?
42
10. There are substantial provisions in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other existing laws that
protect the rights of LGBTQ+ people and the rest of the nation.
11. We cannot be forced to accept as normal and natural what we feel is not. To say that a trans-
woman is a REAL WOMAN and expect all of us to accept that as "truth" is an imposition of one's
thinking over the majority of the Filipinos. (Even though this does not appear in the SOGIE Bill the
fact is that it was commented by one of the strongest proponents of the SOGIE Bill.)
12. We are apprehensive what a SOGIE LAW will do to our nation. One advocate of the SOGIE Bill
said that "gender must not be assigned at birth" which, for us, is a revelation of what is at the heart of
the SOGIE Bill: the imposition of the LGBTQ+ will on the MAJORITY of the Filipino people.
𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗢𝗚𝗜𝗘 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹.
Submitted with all due respect.
NO TO SOGIE BILL
It’s been more than a week since the restroom controversy erupted and yet social media is still abuzz
with outrage over the insistence of SOGIE Bill supporters that biological males be allowed to use
women’s restrooms. A few lawmakers also took the opportunity to try to hasten the passage of the
SOGIE Bill. But the good news is, an overwhelming majority of Filipinos on social media have
expressedtheir opposition to the Bill after realizing what its true objectives are. Proponents of the
SOGIE Bill thought the restroom fiasco would work to their advantage, but it seems to have done the
opposite—at least in the arena of public opinion. Prior to the incident, people hardly ever talked about
the SOGIE Bill and could not have cared less if it was enacted into law. All they knew was that this
Bill was for “equality” and “anti-discrimination”. But the restroom incident has served as an eye-
opener to many. It is heartening to see that most Filipinos still think and that they won’t just keep quiet
when they see that women’s safety and privacy are being threatened.
However, women’s safety and privacy concerns are just the tip of the iceberg here. Once the SOGIE
Bill becomes a law, we can say goodbye to some of our most basic freedoms, such as our freedoms
of speech, conscience, religion, and association. Parents can say goodbye to some of their parental
rights, as well. Under SOGI/E laws, people will be forced to ignore science and instead conform to an
ideology that is based on feelings rather than fact or logic. People will be forced to accept that
“transwomen” (biological males who self-identify as females) are no different from real women. And
because they are supposedly no different from real women, they must be treated as women in every
way. They must be allowed to use female-only restrooms and locker rooms, compete in women’s
sports, join women’s beauty pageants, be admitted into exclusive girls’ schools, accepted into
women’s organizations and even into women’s religious orders. They must also be addressed with
female pronouns and female honorifics, and be exempted from gender-specific dress codes of
schools and companies. They must be treated as women even though nearly every single cell in their
body confirms that they are men. It is a scientific fact that people with XY chromosomes are males,
while those with XX chromosomes are females, and the rest (which is less than 0.1% of the
population) are mutations. This is basic biology, not bigotry.
Non-compliance with the SOGIE law is punishable by hefty fines and long jail terms. Disagree with
their gender ideology and risk being fined P100,000 to P500,000 or be imprisoned for one to six
years, or both. Ironically, this so-called “anti-discrimination” Bill discriminates against those whose
beliefs run contrary to the gender ideology by criminalizing any dissent.
Men and women, regardless of how they “self-identify,” are already equal before the law and enjoy
the same rights. We also already have existing laws that will protect everyone from unjust
discrimination, harassment, and abuse. We can show compassion towards our transgendered
brothers and sisters without having to sacrifice truth and common sense. No need for a SOGIE law.
43
Make sure your congressman/woman knows about your opposition to the SOGIE Bill and the reasons
why you oppose it. Give them a call or write them a letter now!
44

Sogie Bill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Sogie Bill

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sogie Bill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY AND EXPRESSION EQUALITY BILL

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

TIMELINE: SOGIE EQUALITY IN THE PHILIPPINES

Hate crimes in the Philippines

Attitudes towards LGBTs

FALSE: SOGIE EQUALITY BILL WILL 'UNDERCUT' FREEDOMS, DESTROY FAMILY

 Inflicting stigma using the media, textbooks, and other platforms

THE SOGIE EQUALITY BILL

By: Ma. Jiandra Bianca F. Deslate

Underbar Associate, DivinaLaw

SOGIE BILL WILL NOT OUTLAW BIBLE-BASED BELIEFS ON LGBTS

Jonathan de Santos (Philstar.com) - September 3, 2019 - 12:10pm

Not 'same-sex marriage in diguise'

SOGIE bill recognizes schools' rights

Inclusion and protection in schools

'Equality is not special treatment'

KARAPATAN PUSHES FOR SOGIE EQUALITY BILL

Published September 9, 2019, 8:32 PM

Karapatan added the Philippines is also a signatory to a number of international agreements on

SAVED YOU A GOOGLE: THE SOGIE EQUALITY BILL

What is the SOGIE Equality Bill?

Why do people hate it so much?

“Gay people don’t suffer from discrimination, so it isn’t necessary.”

“Okay, but, why should the LGBTQ+ get preferential treatment?”

“Women’s rights will be threatened by the ADB.”

“It impedes on religious freedom!”

“The SOGIE Equality Bill will permit same-sex marriage”

LIES AGAINST THE SOGIE BILL

NO 'SPECIAL RIGHTS' GIVEN: CATHOLIC NUN SUPPORTS SOGIE EQUALITY BILL

The highlight of this movie is the story of Charles Moritz.

And so ANONG KONEK?

Why is that so?

If you are GAY or LESBIAN or BISEXUAL, that is your SOGIE.

(3) Kapag nag-aapply ka sa trabaho at nagtatanong si HR Manager about sa sexuality mo at naging

Of course may certain EXCEPTIONS sa pag-DISCRIMINATE gaya ng tinatawag na BONAFIDE

Tandaan, Konstitusyon na mismo ang nagsasabi:

The Difference Between Natural Law And Man Made Law

'IT’S DANGEROUS': GROUPS SAY SOGIE EQUALITY BILL DISCRIMINATORY

“It is dangerous,” Buendia exclaimed.

SOGIE BILL DISCRIMINATORY?

“It is dangerous,” Buendia claimed.

AN LGBT WHO IS ANTI-“ANTI-SOGIE DISCRIMINATION BILLS”

RYAN BORJA CAPITULO·WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2017·READING TIME: 4 MINUTES

SUMMARY: CAPITULO ENUMERATED LAWS IN THE PHILIPPINES THAT SUPPOSEDLY

 The 1987 Philippine Constitution

The Philippines is a ‘gay-friendly’ country

‘Violate’ people’s freedom of religion

Some enforced anti-discrimination laws outside the Philippines

In Australia, it is prohibited to discriminate based on a person’s gender, sexual orientation, marital or

PNP OPPOSES SOGIE BILL

NEVER A GOOD TIME FOR SOGIE

August 29, 2019 | 8:14 pm

This is no way to make legislation.

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

OPINION: 𝟏𝟐 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐖𝐇𝐘 𝐖𝐄 𝐎𝐏𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐄 𝐒𝐎𝐆𝐈𝐄

by Norman Sison Lao