LESSON 18: rights.
” Apart from this, the 1987
LAWS AND POLICIES ON VIOLENCE Constitution enshrines in its due process
AND DISCRIMINATION and equal protection clauses that: “No
OF THE MEMBERS OF LGBTQ+ person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person
Definition of Terms:
be denied the equal protection of the
Equal protection- laws.” (Article 3, Sec 1, 1987 Philippine
requires that all persons Constitution)
or thins similarly situated
As the fundamental law of the
should be treated alike,
land, the guarantees on equality, lawful
both as to the rights
processes, and the paramount
conferred and
constitution on ensuring human dignity
responsibilities imposed.
and respect for human rights in these
Due Process- principle
provisions serve as the basis for the
that the Government must
protection of the rights of members of
respect all of a person’s
the LGBTQ+.
legal rights this ensures
that all and legal The 2010 Supreme Court Decision in
proceedings must be fair the “ AngLadlad” case (AngLadlad
and equal for all. LGBTQ+ party vs. Comelec GR 190582
8 April 2010) considered the breadth of
INTRODUCTION the equal protection clause in the
Constitution. The court ruled in favor of
The 1987 Constitution (Equal allowing “AngLadlad” to be a party-list
Protection and Due Process Clause) reasoning that:
The 1987 Philippine Constitution “From the standpoint of the
states that: “The State values the political process, the lesbian, gay,
dignity of every human person and bisexual, and transgender have the
guaranties full respect for human same interest in participating in the
party-list system on the same basis as Anti-Bullying Act of 2003
other political parties force of LGBT’s, (Republic Act 10627) includes
and they deserve to participate in the gender-bullying as a prohibited
party-list system on the same basis as and punishment act.
other marginalized and under- Gender-based bullying is
represented sectors.” defined as “any act that humilities
or excludes a person on the basis
Violence and Discrimination
of perceived or actual sexual
Despite widespread evidence of orientation and gender identity
crimes perpetrated against the LGBTQ+ (SOGI) (Republic Act No. 10627).
community in the Philippines, most data B. Child protection Policy 2012
on these cases have not endergone
In cases where the
official verification and collation.
bullying is committed by a
In March 2016, the Trans Murder Principal, teacher or any other
Monitoring Project listed 41 reported school personnel, the law being
cases of transgender people murdered violated is Department of
in the country since 2008. Education Order No.40 on Child
Protection Policies. This policy
includes the protection of
The case of Jennifer Laude
students from any form of
awakened members of the LGBTQ+ of
violence regardless of their
the violence and discrimination
sexual orientation or gender
impending against them. This
identity.
awareness and the opinions culled out
must be known to enable critical thinking C. Special Protection of Children
and sharing and ideas. Against Child Abuse,
Exploitation, And
Violence and Discrimination against
Discrimination Act of 1992
LGBTQ+ Youth in Education.
(Anti-Child Abused Act or
A. Anti-Bullying Act of 2013 Republic Act 7610)
(republic 10627)
Parents of children who suffer promote full employment, ensure
abuse at the hands of teachers or equal work opportunities.
members of the school ‘s
Clearly, the mandate for equal
administration violates RA 7610 or
opportunity in employment is clear.
the Anti-Child Abuse Act.
But, the reality shows a different
Such cases can cover instance of picture since members of the
physical, psychological, injury, or cruelty LGBTQ+ encounter hardship in
on the basis the child’s SOGI. accessing work opportunities of
discrimination.
Violence and Discrimination against
LGBTQ+ in the Workplace The absence of a national law
that explicitly prohibits discrimination
a. The Labor Code of the
on the basis of gender identify
Philippines (PD 442)
makes it easier for employers to hide
The Labor Code is the behind fabricated reasons for not
national law covering employment accepting, firing, or depriving
for the private sector in the members of the LGBTQ+ of
Philippines. their employment benefits. Often,
policies on uniform, documents, and
With the exception of prohibitions of comfort rooms are used against
against discrimination of women, it members of the LGBTQ+ employees
does not contain any provision that and even application.
prohibit discrimination on the basis of
gender identity particularly on the b. CSC No. 01-0940- the Civil
members of the LGBTQ+. service Commission’s Policy
on Anti-Sexual Harassment
Nonetheless, while the law is
quiet on gender identity and The Civil Service Commission
expression, it is clear in its Administrative Disciplinary Rules on
Declaration of Policy (Article 3) that Sexual Harassment Cases includes
“state shall afford protection to labor, other less grave, punishable offences.
These include prohibiting “derogatory
and degrading remarks on Laguio, the Supreme Court upheld
innuendoes directed toward the adult’s right to privacy and included the
members of one’s sex, or one’s right to have sexual relations in the
sexual orientation or use to describe confines of their private lives.
a person.”
In the Gualbert v CA, in a custody
This Rule applies to all government dispute between a husband and wife,
entities that fall under the Civil Service the Supreme Court awarded custody of
jurisdiction. a four year old child to his mother
despite the father’s argument of
The policy is important because it
immorality against his wife who was
explicitly covers derogatory remarks
“allegedly” in a lesbian relationship.
regarding an sexual orientation, or other
remarks that are used as description of The above decisions will surely
a person with the intention to insult. In have implications to members of the
addition, this policy for government LGBTQ+ community.
agencies does not requires that the
Name and Gender Market Changes
offender has moral ascendancy over the
victim. In the 2007 case of Silverio v
Republic of the Philippines, the
The fact that the perpetrator and the
Supreme Court SC ruled against
victim are of the same level or position
petitioner Silverio’s wish to change
will not preclude the victim from filing a
her first name and gender marker on
case. While gender identity is not
her birth certificate. MelySilverio who
specifically mentioned as a ground, if a
underwent “sexual reassignment
LGBTQ+ civil servant is harassed
surgery” initially won in the trial court.
verbally by co-workers, they would be
The Office of the Solicitor General
able to rely on the generic from
OSG intervened thereafter, arguing
“derogatory and degrading remarks”.
in the Court of Appeals CA that the
Both cases are Landmark Supreme Regional Trial Court of Manila was
Court decisions involving rights of mistaken in its ruling due to the fact
LGBTQ+. In the case of city of Manila v that there is no law allowing change
of first name on the basis of sexual This focus on biological sex is
alteration. The CA ruled against consistent with the Court’s contrary
MelySilverio and the SC affirmed the position for transgender people, who
CA ruling. are deemed to be attempting to
change their biological sex. Is
In this case, the SC ruled that
apparent when the Court favorably
there was no mistaken to be
notes that Jeff could have undergone
corrected as the birth record is not in
treatment and taken steps, like
dispute, as the sex of the person
taking lifelong medication to force his
was determined by the birth
body into the categorical mold of a
attendant at the time of birth.
female, but, he did not.
It elaborated that sex as a term
Furthermore, the Court in ruling
does not contemplate inclusion of
for the change of name, clarified its
person who have undergone sex
effect on Jeff’s from female to male.
reassignment. Likewise, it argued
that allowing her to change her name
and gender marker will alter
established laws on marriage and
family relation.
In the 2008 case of Republic of
the Philippines v Jennifer
Cagandahan, the Court ruled in favor
of a name change to Jeff
Cagandahan on the ground that
Jeff’s ability to self-define his sex
because he has simply let nature
take its course and has not taken
unnatural steps to arrest or interfere
with what he was born with.
