LESSON 13: LAWS AND POLICIES ON

VIOLENCE AND DISCRIMINATION

OF THE MEMBERS OF LGBTQ+

➢ Violence and Discrimination

➢ National Programs
➢ Women’s Right to Participate
➢ Women’s Involvement in Civil Society
➢ Women and Education

Learning outcomes:
• Determine the various Philippine Laws and policies for protection of
rights of members of LGBTQ+;
• Identify the different Anti-Discriminatory Laws and Policies; and
• Know the acts leading to violation of these laws and policies.

Topic Discussion:

Introduction

The 1987 Constitution (Equal Protection and Due Process Clause) The 1987 Philippine
Constitution states that: "The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect
for human rights." Apart from this, the 1987 Constitution enshrines in its due process and equal protection
clauses that: "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." (Article 3, Sec I, 1987 Philippine Constitution).

As the fundamental law of the land, the guarantees on equality, lawful processes, and the
paramount consideration on ensuring human dignity and respect for human rights in these provisions serve
as the basis for the protection of the rights of members of the LGTBQ+.

The 2010 Supreme Court Decision in the "Ang Ladlad" case (Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Comelec
GR 190582 8 April 2010) considered the breadth of the equal protection clause in the Constitution. The
court ruled in favor of allowing "Ang Ladlad" to be a party-list reasoning that:

"From the standpoint of the political process, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender have the same
interest in participating in the party-list system on the same basis as other political parties similarly situated.
Hence, laws of general application should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to participate
in the party-list system on the same basis as other marginalized and under-represented sectors."

Violence and Discrimination

Despite widespread anecdotal evidence of crimes perpetrated against the LGBTQ+ community in
the Philippines, most data on these cases have not undergone official verification and collation.

In March 2016, the Trans Murder Monitoring Project listed 41 reported cases of transgender people
murdered in the country since 2008.

The case of Jennifer Laude awakened members of the LGBTQ+ of the violence and discrimination
impending against them. This awareness and the opinions culled out must be known to enable critical
thinking and sharing of thoughts and ideas.

Violence and Discrimination against LGBTQ+ Youth in Education

A. Anti-Bullying Act of 2013 (Republic Act 10627)

Anti-Bullying Act of 2013 (Republic Act 10627) includes gender-based bullying as a prohibited and
punishable act.
 Gender-based bullying is defined as "any act that humiliates or excludes a person on the basis of
perceived or actual sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) (Republic Act 10627).

B. Child Protection Policy 2012

In cases where the bullying is committed by principal, teacher or any other school personnel, the
law being violated is Department of Education Order No. 40 on Child Protection Policy. This policy
includes the protection of students from any form of violence regardless of their sexual orientation
or gender identity.

C. Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, And Discrimination Act of
1992 (Anti-Child Abuse Act or Republic Act 7610)

Parents of children who suffer abuse at the hands of teachers or members of the school's
administration violates RA 7610 or the Anti-Child Abuse Act.

Such cases can cover instances of physical, psychological injury, or cruelty on the basis child's
SOGI.

Violence and Discrimination against LGBTQ+ in the Workplace

a. The Labor Code of the Philippines (PD 442)

The Labor Code is the national law covering employment for the private sector in the Philippines.
With the exception of prohibitions against discrimination of women, it does not contain any
provision that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity, on the members of the
LGBTQ+.

Nonetheless, while the law is quiet on gender identity and expression, it is clear in its Declaration of
Policy (Article 3) that the "State shall afford protection to labor, promote full ensure equal work
opportunities."

Clearly, the mandate for equal opportunity in employment is clear. But, the reality shows a different
picture since members of the LGBTQ+ encounter hardship in accessing Work opportunities
because of discrimination. Nonetheless, while the law is quiet on gender identity and expression, it
is clear in its Declaration of Policy (Article 3) that the "State shall afford protection to labor, promote
full ensure equal work opportunities."

The absence of a national law that explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity
makes it easier for employers to hide behind fabricated reasons for not accepting, firing, or
depriving members of the LGBTQ+ of their employment benefits. Often policies on uniform,
documents, and use of comfort rooms are used against members of the LGBTQ+ employees and
even applicants.

b. CSC No. 01-0940—the Civil Service Commission's policy on Anti-Sexual Harassment

Both cases are landmark Supreme Court decisions involving rights of LGBTQ+. In the case of City
of Manila vs Baguio, the Supreme Court upheld adults' right to privacy and included the right to
have sexual relations in the confines of their private lives.

The Civil Service Commission Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases
includes other less grave, punishable offences. These include prohibiting "derogatory and
degrading remarks or innuendoes directed toward the members of one's sex, or one's sexual
orientation or used to describe a person.

This Rule applies to all government entities that fall under the Civil Service jurisdiction.
The policy is important because it explicitly covers derogatory remarks regarding sex, sexual
orientation, or other remarks that are used as description of a person with the intention to insult. In
addition, this policy for government agencies does not require that the offender has moral
ascendancy over the victim.
 The fact that the perpetrator and the victim are of the same level or position will not preclude the
victim from filing a case. While gender identity is not specifically mentioned as a ground, if a
LGBTQ+ civil servant is harassed verbally by co-workers, they would be able to rely on the generic
protection from "derogatory and degrading remarks".

Name and Gender Marker Changes

In the 2007 case of Silverio v Republic of the Philippines, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled against
petitioner Silverio's wish to change her first name and gender marker on her birth certificate. Mely Silverio
who underwent "sexual reassignment surgery" initially won in the trial court. The Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) intervened thereafter' arguing in the Court of Appeals (CA) that the Regional Trial Court of
Manila was mistaken in its ruling due to the fact that that there is no law allowing change of first name on
the basis of "sexual alteration". The CA ruled against Mely Silverio and the SC affirmed the CA ruling.

In this case, the SC ruled that there was no mistake to be corrected as the birth record is not in
dispute, as the sex of the person was determined by the birth attendant at the time of birth. It elaborated
that "sex" as a term does not contemplate inclusion of persons who have undergone "sex reassignment".
Likewise, it argued that allowing her to change her name and gender marker will alter established laws on
marriage and family relations.

In the 2008 case of Republic of the Philippines v Jennifer Cagandahan, the Court ruled in favor ofa
name change to Jeff Cagandahan on the ground that Jeffhad an intersex variation, Congenital Adrenal
Hyperplasia (CAI-I). The Court agreed with 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".

This focus on biological sex is consistent with the Court's contrary position for transgender people,
who are deemed to be attempting to change their biological sex. is is apparent when the Court favorably
notes that Jeff "could have undergone treatment and taken steps, like taking lifelong medication to force his
body into the categorical mold Of a female, but, he did not".

Furthermore, the Court in ruling for the change of name, clarified its effect on Jeffs gender marker.
Such a change will conform with the change of the entry in his birth certificate from female to male.

SUMMARY
The Philippines has various Anti-Discriminatory Policies for members of the LGBTQ+• However, these
policies are not yet sufficient and a national law on anti-discrimination is still wanted. Cases in the SC
already involve topics and issues of LGBTQ+, making this matter of high importance already. Nonetheless,
the rampancy of discrimination of members of LGBTQ+ are prevalent—a huge issue that the Philippines
must address.