SOGIE Bill

“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.

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.

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.

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.