CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

During the past few years, the society has been seeing the gradual acceptance of the

widening community of LGBTQ+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/ Questioning

and others), that is the population of people united by having gender identities or sexual

orientations that differ from the heterosexual and cisgender majority (based on LGBTQ+

Terminology). Their innovative movements that keep the world phasing them is steadily making

anyone aware of their roles in the society, as people begun to discuss their concerns and their

basic rights as an individual. Even so, the social conditions embarked on their identity are still

left questionable for there are still discriminatory acts and stereotyping continuously done

towards them.

As of 2013, Pew Research Center reported that 65% of Filipinos found that homosexuality is

“morally unacceptable,” illustrating more than a half of the population still not open in discussing

these issues. With this, LGBTQ+ people in the Philippines continue to experience pervasive

discrimination that negatively impacts all aspects of their lives. In response, LGBTQ+ people

make subtle but profound changes to their everyday lives to lower the risk of experiencing

discrimination, often hiding their authentic selves following the consequences of social

conditions. Sexual orientation discrimination refers to harassment or differential treatment based

on someone's perceived or actual gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or heterosexual orientation

(Thomson, 2017). In the Philippines, policies and enacted laws for the rights of the LGBTQ+

members are still not enough for their safety and protection.
 LGBTQ+ members are just one of the many sectors in the community who are willingly

fighting for their rights in the society. However, their social situations are being tested and

questioned purely because of their chosen sexual orientation and gender identity. These

bases are being used by other people who are giving them careless judgment that inflicts their

social conditions while discriminating them. The reactions they have received sometimes made

them seek to indulge their own rights and stand in the society (Diaz & Pablo 2012; Thomas,

2014). In the Philippines, they have faced the sad truth that no comprehensive laws

are currently signed to prohibit these discriminatory acts towards the LGBTQ+.

However, numerous bills are passed and on its way to be implemented that could support the

enactment of the Anti-Discrimination Policy.

The House Bill 4982 or the SOGIE Equality Bill is the latest iteration of the anti-

discrimination bill that penalizes discriminatory acts on the basis of Sexual Orientation and

Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE). It took a very long process before forming the current

house bill that could protect the rights of the members of LGBTQ+, as well the

every individual in the society. For almost two decades, Anti-Discrimination Bill (ADB) faced a

trial-and-error operation. The initiative of filing the ADB has been stalling in the Congress for 17

years now when Akbayan Representative Etta Rosales of the 11th Congress in the House of

Representatives and Miriam Defensor-Santiago in the Senate, took the first step. The bill itself

was a direct policy proposal from the Lesbian and Gay Legislative Advocacy Network

or LAGABLAB, the first officially known LGBTQ+ policy advocacy network in the Philippines, as

a response to LGBTQ+ related bills filed by some legislators that did not necessarily show the

priorities of the community. The LAGABLAB was recently revived as a community platform to

advance SOGIE and human rights in the area of policies and legislation, though the first filed

ADB was approved on third and final reading in 12th Congress, but then failed to get traction in

2
the Senate. It was then revived in 2006, during the 13th Congress, nonetheless, ADB only

reached on second reading at the lower house, and was also known as the House Bill 5867.

Geraldine B. Roman, the first transwoman member in the Philippine Congress, brought

back ADB to highlights, when she delivered a heart whelming speech that explained that the

bill’s purpose is not just for LGBTQ+ members to have special rights but for the society to

protect the human rights of everyone, stating that “recognizing our rights and dignity will no way

diminish yours” (Roman, 2016). The bill stands side by side with other representatives in the

fight against discrimination only for the LGBTQ+ community but also towards the indifference in

the ethnicity, race, religion or belief, social class, and others.

The lawmakers are now expressing their opinions and thoughts about

the SOGIE Equality Bill, how fair and equal it is to all, how the government can assure that no

one can be discriminated if the bill will be passed and become a law, and how the government

could protect all the rights of the community that not one will be violated. The bill simply seeks to

prohibit certain discriminatory practices that harm the basic rights of the members of LGBTQ+

community as stated in the Section 3 of the Republic Act 9710, otherwise known as the

Magna Carta of Women (MCW) states that “All individuals are equal as human beings by virtue

of the inherent dignity of each human person. No one should therefore suffer discrimination on

the basis of ethnicity, gender, age, language, sexual orientation, race, color, religion, political or

the other opinion, nation, social or geographical origin, disability, property, birth, or other status

as established by human rights standards”. Whereas, the Philippine Constitution also provides

that “the State values the dignity of every person and guarantees full respect for human rights”

(Article II, Section 11).

This research study identifies the integral aspects that could make an impact on the

social conditions upon implementing the SOGIE Equality Bill for the LGBTQ+ Community.

3
Sexual orientation and gender identity are the integral aspects of an individual and should never

lead to discrimination or abuse. To advocate for laws and policies that will protect everyone’s

dignity is just one way to protect and fight for their rights. Inequality should never hinder anyone

to fully enjoy his/her rights in any corner of the world.

Conceptual Framework

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

• SOGIE Equality Bill, • Analyzing the content • Implement social

also known as House and the policies of the awareness about the
Bill No. 4982, which SOGIE Equality Bill SOGIE Equality Bill to
was solely based on the society.
the Anti-Discrimination • Conducting a
Bill. collective case study • Establish an
to the selected academic material for
• Selected Members of LGBTQ+ participants future researchers
the LGBTQ+ and giving Likert
Community (Lesbian, Scale survey • Develop an innovative
Gay, Bisexual, questions to non- solution as a
Transgender and LGBTQ+ members suggestion for the
Questioning and government to take
perceptions of the • Observation of the action on the possible
non-LGBTQ+ mem social condition and predicament
bers conducting an concluded in the study
interview to the
• The social conditions participants to
of the selected determine the
members in their: significance of the
-Workplace study to the members
-Public Places of the society
-Mass Media

Figure 1.Research Paradigm – The Perceived Impact of the SOGIE Equality Bill to the Selected

Members and Non-members of the LGBTQ+ Community in Fairview, Quezon City

The paradigm of the study, as illustrated in figure 1, presents for its input the House Bill

No. 4982 or the SOGIE Equality Bill, The selected numbers of the LGBTQ+ Community, and the

4
social conditions of the selected members in their: [1] Workplace; [2] Public Place, and [3] Mass

Media.

The figure also indicates the following intended three (3) outputs: Implementation of

social awareness about the SOGIE Equality Bill to the society; establish an academic material

for future researchers; and develop an innovative solution as a suggestion for the government to

take action on the possible predicament concluded in the study.

In order to prove the outputs, the researchers will conduct the following: [1] Analysis of

the content and the policies of the bill; [2] Conducting a collective case study to the selected

participants and; [3] Observation of the social condition and conducting an interview to the

participants to determine the significance of the study to the members of the society.

Statement of the Problem

In the view of the mentioned purposes of this study, the researcher specifically seeks to

answer the following questions:

1) What is the level of awareness of LGBTQ+ member and non-member—respondents to

the SOGIE Equality Bill?

2) What is the perception of LGBTQ+ member-respondents and the non-LGBTQ+ members to

the provisions of SOGIE Equality Bill?

3) What are the perceived effects to the provisions of the SOGIE Equality Bill in LGBTQ+

member-respondents?

4) What are the ways by which the level of awareness and perceptions of the respondents to

the SOGIE Equality Bill can be utilized?

5
Significance of the Study

It is expected that the result of this study will be beneficial to the following:

LGBTQ+ Members/ Homosexuals. This will be reflected to all the members of

the LGBTQ+ community for they are the main focus of this study. Not only they will be able to

fight for their rights as an LGBTQ+ member in this society through SOGIE bill, but they will also

receive fair treatment in the society to improve their social conditions. Since this study provides

the perceptions of the LGBTQ+ member-respondents, it will encourage them to stand up and

lessen the discrimination against them and which could eventually hasten the approval of

the SOGIE Equality Bill.

Non-LGBTQ+ Members/ Heterosexuals. The results will be beneficial to the outside

forces of the LGBTQ+ community as the House Bill doesn’t just solely focus on the rights of

the LGBTQ+ members but as well to the individuals who identified themselves as straight or

heterosexuals. This will help them be aware of the current proposed law on our country.

Lawmakers. These people as the maker of laws are still included in the scope of those

who will be beneficial by this study. This study serves as a proposal for the SOGIE Equality

bill to be passed to these lawmakers and is important for they are more capable of implementing

the law.

Government. This will significantly orient the government about the real situations of

the LGBTQ+ members in the workplace. Through this, the government will be aware of the

need to pass and implement as well as lessen, if not totally eliminate discrimination in the

society.

6
 Filipino People. Preceding results and data from this research will help encourage the

Filipino people to be aware of the equal distribution of right for any gender and sexual

orientation of the individual.

Organizations supporting LGBTQ+. The study significantly affects those organizations

that give support to the LGBTQ+ community. It will provide them some real life experiences and

testimonies of the members of the community since there are members of organizations who

are not literally part of the LGBTQ+ community. This includes the LAGABLAB, Rainbow Rights

Philippines, UP Pride, UP Babaylan, Metro Manila Pride, Outrage, and others.

Future Researchers. The outcomes of this research will provide interests for other

researchers to widen this study in order to strengthen the possibility for the SOGIE bill to

be enacted. It will also serve as a point for them to continue examining the bill, and as well as to

study the other details that could give support to future researches.

Scope and Delimitation

The scope or area of this case study is focused on the fifteen (15) respondents from

the LGBTQ+ community who are exclusive to their own identity and one hundred and fifty (150)

respondents from the non-members of the LGBTQ+ community or the non-LGBTQ+ members

that are chosen only from the three (3) selected areas on Fairview, Quezon City namely:

Barangay Fairview, Barangay North Fairview, and Barangay Sta. Lucia with ages 18 years old

and above.

The study solely focused on the progress and aspects of SOGIE Equality bill and

the previously proposed bill under the Anti-Discrimination Bill, the potential impact brought by

7
the SOGIE Bill and possible effect on their the current conditions of the LGBTQ+ members as

well as for the non-LGBTQ+ members.

The delimitation is only that participants for the survey questionnaires are only from

Fairview, Quezon City with ages 18 years old and above. Only the impacts of SOGIE Equality

Bill on the social conditions of the LGBTQ+ people will be studied.

Definition of Terms

As used in this research, the following terms are hereby defined by the researcher

conceptually and operationally:

Anti-Discrimination Bill (ADB). This term refers to the proposed bill that is intended to

prevent discrimination or unfair treatment of anyone because of their sex or chosen gender in

the society.

Gender. This refers to the societal construct of categories which divide bodies into different

binary system of women and men, based on the gender binary assigned at birth. Categories

such as transgender, androgynous, and gender queer have been embraced and advanced.

(Lopez, 2016)

Gender Expression. This refers to the outward reflection or the presentation of one’s gender,

often reflected in their behavior, body feature, clothing, hairstyle, voice, and other external

characteristics.

Gender Identity. This refers to the internal sense of self of gender or what they believe as the

self-perception of gender. This is what the person identifies on themselves and is not always

consistent with one’s actual sex.

8
Heterosexuality. This refers man or woman means having a personally significant and

meaningful romantic and/or sexual attraction primarily to adults of the opposite sex. (Psychology

Today)

Homosexuality. A person who have sexual interest in and attraction to members of one's own

sex (Britannica); generally recognized (by the American Psychological Association, the AMA,

and others) as a way of being; a part of who we are that's not subject to change.

Homophobia. This refers to the irrational fear, hatred, and intolerance of being in close quarters

with individuals who identify themselves as homosexual. (Psychology Today)

LGBTQ+ Community. A group of individuals of particular that is sexual or sex personalities

could make shared public and social concerns.

LGBTQ+. This is an acronym for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/ Questioning,

and others) It refers to a population of people united by having gender identities or sexual

orientations that differ from the majority of heterosexual and cisgender or what the society

assigned gender on them (LGBTQ+ Terminology).

Non-LGBTQ+/ Straight People. This refers to a person having a sexual orientation to person of

the opposite sex. These are the individuals who are exclusively attracted to the opposite sex.

The term ‘straight’ is sometimes preferred having their own identity or sexual orientation is the

one that they include for themselves.

Questioning. This refers to an identity that is still unsure of their own sexual orientation.

Possible reasons include a person who is still learning new words that could fit them better, or

their preferences change over time.

9
Queer. This refers to the umbrella term that included gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and

transgender people. This term is also deviating form that is expected or normal; strange or odd.

(Free Dictionary)

Sex. Distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the bases of their reproductive

organs and structures.

Sexual Orientation. The notion of categorizing people based on the gender they are

attracted to; one society has difficulty fitting in any of the above categories. (Psychology Today)

SOGIE Equality Bill. Stands for Sexual Orientation and Gender Inequality and Expression; A

proposed bill that denies and punishes separation on the premise of their sexual introduction

and sex character.

10
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the related literature and studies after the thorough and in-depth

search done by the researchers. It involves quotation of the author of the books and reference

materials that may serve as the basis for sorting out and solving some problems that may be

encountered in the development of the case study about the implementing of SOGIE Equality

Bill to the social conditions of the LGBTQ+.

Related Literature

Foreign

LGBTQ+ individuals face challenges because of their social conditions and as members

of a community that is subject to discrimination and abuse. This can be compounded by the

weak social status and position of the individuals involved. “Being LGBT in Asia” by United

Nations Development Programme (UDNP) shows that the openness within a society towards

different sexual orientations is the key to greater equality for LGBTQ+ people (Fric 2016). This

could also help the variety of the society to understand the different situations faced by the

members of LGBTQ+ but due to continuous judgment and the complications to accept the

indifference, issues of discrimination particularly in the environment of LGBTQ+ people are still

visible.

The Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that

“Everyone is entitled to all rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of

any kind,” whereas include any identity on the basis of their race, color, sex, language, religion,

political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. It is the right to

11
freedom of discrimination. Moreover, on the Article 6 states, “Everyone has the right to

recognition everywhere as a person before the law”, then followed by the Article 7 that, stated

“all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the

law.” Both articles confirmed that ‘all are equal before the law.’ The UDHR contains the general

view of the world’s history and was signed due to fact that they don’t want history to be repeated

again, especially during the Holocaust. The UDHR is needed in today’s society because

humankind is fatally flawed and so they act as the guideline, determining the rights and wrongs

(humanrights.com, 2011). From what the world had witnessed during the Holocaust, racial

discrimination can be widely seen as the cause of the devastating happening.

In the perspective of Anderson, (2015), how SOGIE Laws are implemented outside the

country is impinged on the ability of people to make reasonable moral judgments concerning

human sexuality in part because the definitions of sexual orientation and gender identity are

ambiguous. They make it unlawful for citizens to engage in what the government deems to be

“discrimination” based on an “individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender

identity”.

According to an article “Orlando shooting is the latest chapter in the global fight

for LGBT rights” written by Paula Gerber, a professor of Human Rights in Monash University,

stated that as long as there are people who are not in favor of homosexuality, there will still be a

problem. She reflected this after the happenings in an incident at the nightclub in Orlando,

Florida, United States, that alerts the LGBTQ+ community. The indicated gunman of the

incidents was said to be homophobic. Homophobia conditions towards the LGBTQ+ and the

attacks on homosexuals are still visible in the society. Experiences of homophobic people are

said to be caused by stress for many who belong to minority groups, where there lack of

acceptance in their own ethnicity or minorities. These homophobic actions can lead to hate

crimes and physical violence towards homosexuals.

12
 On the book of Beigel, S. and Kuehl, S., “Safe at School: Addressing the School

Environment and LGBT through School Legislation and Policy” (2010), the evidence indicates

that a supportive school environment with clear anti-LGBTQ+ bullying laws and supportive

educators had reduced bullying incidents. Furthermore, in states where there are clear LGBTQ+

anti-discrimination and anti-hate crime laws, LGBTQ+ people display lower levels of psychiatric

disorders than do LGBTQ+ people in states without such protection.

Local

On the “The History Visibility of LGBTQ+ on the Philippines” posted by Rozul (2017) on

the website love yourself, within the conservative culture of the Philippines, the LGBTQ+

visibility in the Philippines can be seen from the history of the country could much reflect their

present situations (Batacobe, 2011). Years before the colonization of Spaniards, acceptance on

homosexuality can be seen when there are spiritual leaders who were male called asog, they

are not cross-dressers but as they have the same recognition as the female priestess called the

babaylan. They were free from societal judgment and are accepted from the people of the

barangays. On the other hand, during the Islamic movements in the Mindanao, acceptance for

the homosexuals are being diminished to the indigenous natives and even continued throughout

the Spanish occupation when they introduce the Roman Catholicism to natives that eventually

result to the end of acceptance of the homosexuality in most of the archipelagic people.

Spaniards also opened the concept of patriarchy and machismo that made close concept that

gender crossing is a contemptuous idea and practice. Acts of effeminacy among men were also

being brought down upon, forming the regional vernacular word ‘bakla’ which means

“homosexual” in Cebuano, but “gay man”, “confused”, or “cowardly” in Tagalog (Rozul, 2017).

During the American colonization, expanding of formal education in the country includes the

reinforcement of Western conceptualizations for gender and sexuality. In which according to

13
Garcia (2009) these sequential happenings during the colonial era resulted in much

discrimination, maltreatment, and hate crimes for the LGBTQ+ community in the present time.

“Invisible and ignored” is what the lesbian community felt during the past few decades

after the Second World War, which according to Sison (2014) on her essay “Insert Her Silence

Here,” the reason for them to strive during the 1980s Women’s Movement just to be visible in

the public after all their social conditions are just being buried under the women’s and feminist

concerns. Eventually, the underground women’s organization MAKIBAKA released a position

paper including sexual orientation issues in the movement (Rozul, 2017). These became an

eye-opener that it later on became the major concern in the women’s movement on 1990s that

made people be more aware of issues including gender and sexuality. Back on June 26, 1994,

though only 60 participants marched from EDSA to Quezon Memorial Circle (Quezon City), the

first ever in the LGBTQ+ pride March, not just in the Philippines but in the whole Asia that

embarked as the beginning for the public to see the members of LGBTQ+ (only “LGBT” during

that time) community freely fighting their stand for equality. Gay pride celebrations like pride

march is not what the popular opinion ought to say, according to Sison (2014), pride march is

not just about celebrating sexuality, or claiming to be better than straight people, neither asking

for more rights and benefits in the society, but celebrating diversity; in appearances and

personalities, and “embracing love in all forms”.

It is visible in all the sequence of happenings in the Philippines that the early recognition

for homosexuality is the reason why Filipinos today can be open in accepting their rights in the

society. However, when written laws and rules have been decided, their identities have been

slowly fading in being appreciated. Through time, transgender people are culturally celebrated

but not politically recognized (Rocero, G., 2014, “Gender Proud: Gender Acceptance Paradox”).

For countless years, LGBTQ+ people have been continuously demanding their rights to be

legalized. Just like Geena Rocero, the founder of the Gender Proud advocacy and organization
14
that fights for the rights of the LGBTQ+ people, states that “LGBT rights are human rights”, and

that stereotyping, prejudices, and distinction of individuals should be stood up for. On the article

written by Rodis, (2014) titled, “I was a Tomboy: Labels, Constructions and Understandings of

Women’s Sexuality in the Philippines” explained the attitudes of Filipinos to LGBTQ+ people.

According to Rodis (2014), the attitudes of the Filipinos toward LGBTQ+ community are

divided into two: the first one is the modern attitude, which is heavily influenced by the United

States; while the second one is a more conservative and traditional attitude, which is influenced

by the Church. The modern attitude could explain that the sexual orientation is not a huge issue

in the society. It concluded that if people are attracted to the same-sex or have different sexual

preferences, the society should just accept them. Under this attitude, the study found that

discrimination towards the members of LGBTQ+ has decreased and that the Philippine culture

is evolving to a more open-minded and modern generation. Included in this behavior is the

effect it seen in the mass media, which has been a great influence in shaping the Filipino

culture. The conservative attitude, on the other hand, is heavily influenced by the Catholic

Church, and thus, is focused more on what is “morally correct” and what should be accepted by

the society. The beliefs taught by the church are able to serve as a guide to individuals. The

common example used is the definition of family which should be made up of a man and a

woman who are made for one another for the purpose of procreation.

According to Sison, on her editorial article in the online news site Rappler titled “LGBT

Rights are Human Rights” (2013), being part of the LGBTQ+ community means living with

discrimination. People that are part of the LGBTQ+ group were expected to adjust to their

environment. Some critics also predict that the implementation of SOGIE Bill also have the

possibility to be ignored relating to what happened to the case of Reproductive Health Law or

RH Law. That is why people keep telling the LGBT people that they should just accept and get

stuck in the harsh treatment in their workplace rather than fight for their rights. Contrast to the
15
statement by the Gabriela Women’s Party, where they stated that the proposed measure is not

entitled to the LGBTQ+ community as any kind of special rights, instead as a recognition of

same rights by the individuals who identified themselves as heterosexuals as demanded in the

law.

Related Studies

Foreign

In 2013, the William Institute at UCLA School of Law that studies LGBTQ+ issues has

undertaken a significant body of research regarding the experience of LGBTQ+ employees in

the workplace. Whereas they have found out that 15% to 43% of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or

transgender workers have experienced being fired, denied promotions or harassed. This study

can consistently show that members of LGBT continue to face high rates of discrimination in

their workplace. Significant findings included in their research is when they have conducted a

survey separately, it is found out that there are higher rates of employment discrimination and

harassment with the transgender harassments. This could reflect on the study in Sears B. and

Mallory (2011) where it is statistically proven that 78% of the respondents reported being

subject to and experience at least one form of harassment or mistreatment in their workplace

with the reason pertaining to their gender identity.

In the study conducted by Sears & Mallory (2011) where they have done series of

controlled experiments by creating scenarios that shows comparisons to the treatment

of selected members of the LGBTQ+ community with the treatment of heterosexuals. These

experiments are done by sending matched resumes and job applicants to potential employer

with one resume or applicant indicating they are part of the LGBTQ+ community and the other is

not. Results from eight (8) out of nine (9) controlled experiments showed that there are

16
evidences of sexual orientation discrimination in the employment or public accommodation

settings.

Researchers from Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy (2012)

aggregated a number of surveys to determine the extent to which gay and transgender workers

experience discrimination and harassment in the workplace. They have concluded that 8% to

17% of gay and transgender workers report being passed over for a job or fired because of their

sexual orientation or gender identity while, 10% to 28% received a negative performance

evaluation or were passed over for a promotion because they were gay or transgender. 7% to

41% of gay and transgender workers were verbally or physically abused or had their workplace

vandalized, even though their characteristics have no connection with their workplace

performance.

When Kypler (2014) published his study about the social conditions of the LGBTQ+

individuals, he then concludes that individuals who identify as part of the community are likely

liable to socioeconomic disadvantages where it may also be relate to the experiences of

discrimination. Where in one study, 90% of surveyed transgender respondents reported

experiencing employment discrimination.

Mistreatment comes in many forms, from seemingly benign jokes, to verbal insults,

unequal treatment and in the most extreme cases, physical violence. There have been studies

that look at the actions that affect the social conditions of the LGBTQ+ community members

involves the discriminative practices that in the form of hate crimes and hate-motivated violence.

A hate crime or bias-motivated crime occurs when the perpetrator of the crime intentionally

selects the victim because of who the victim is (Marzullo, M., 2009). In the research conducted

by Meyer, D. (2010), it is presented that 54% of LGBTQ+ people say they are concerned about

being the victim of hate crime. One in five LGBTQ+ people (21%) have experienced a hate

17
crime or an occurrence due to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity (Stonewall, 2013)

said hate crime includes murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated

assault, simple assault, intimidation, and destruction/damage vandalism (Federal Bureau

Investigation, 2007). Further, for many LGBTQ+ people, the bias is everywhere and lasts a

lifetime: at home, school, work and in the community. That is why according to study conducted

by Friedman (2011) a clinical psychologist, believes that laws that provide equal rights for LGBT

people would improve mental health.

Local

In a study conducted by Ginco, R.M., et al (2015), they have concluded that even if the

Government Social Code values the right of every human and has all equal protection in the

face of the law, it still becomes invisible when the issue about sexual orientation and gender

identity arises. Written in the United Nation resolution is the strong sense of responsibility in

protecting everyone’s right. It gives the stand for all individual’s right but what is really

happening today is the uncertainty of the laws our government stands for regarding sexual

orientation and gender identity.

In 2009, Buendia made a study where it was revealed that a policy has a large role in

restraining discrimination as it creates and shape environments that could change social

behaviors. Discrimination are only done because of the reinforcement of the traditional norms

that affect the cultural phenomenon where there are standards that see LGBTQ+ individuals as

inferior or deviants of acceptable social practices.

According to Rodis (2009) on her study, one important and evident trend in the matters

of sexuality is that ‘appearance is essential’- what a person looks like and what one acts

matters. When a person acted far from what the society expected, you are deliberately

18
considered either as an effeminate bakla as a male or masculine tomboy as a female, She also

concluded that sexuality is tied to behavior, whereas, each traditional gender- male and female,

has assigned roles. This could relate to why members of LGBTQ+ in the country find it really

hard to adjust to the society where the basic culture are affix to the present rising phenomenon.

Another is the intense pressure to maintain a ‘normal’ lifestyle based on their sexuality. This

could be pressure from one’s peers, or general pressure from the society (Dela Cruz, 2014).

That to be a straight is not only the norm, but an expectation from the society.

In the study conducted by Manalansan and Torre (2013), there are countless work in

mainstreaming LGBTQ+ issues in Philippine, in ways such as research, education, advocacy,

and practice, which are still in early development, but the groundwork is on-going and there are

initial successes to be celebrated. There are numerous opportunities for experts in the

Philippines to make a great advance on the rights and well-being of all Filipinos, across the

spectrum of gender identities and sexual orientations.

The progress of the SOGIE Equality Bill have been open, as explained by Kingdon

(2008) as a ‘Window of Opportunity’, where eye opening events like the murder of Jennifer

Laude or the Orlando Shooting reflected the happenings in the country on what is really the

status of the LGBTQ+ in the society. In a study by Masilang (2014), the growing awareness of

various discriminatory acts was used by advocacy groups as a symbol to call for action. In

revealing these occurrences, the LGBTQ+ community has become more eager to outburst the

agenda of promoting the rights and welfare of any members of the community. It doesn’t mean

that someone needs to be killed just to made a point, but a ‘triggering action’ (Kingdon, 2008)

that could help people be aware of the current situation.

19
Synthesis

The policy and the law have a large role in restraining the social conditions of the

LGBTQ+ community as they could create and shape environments that could change social

behavior of the people, that even according to Buendia (2017), discrimination is a cultural

phenomenon that manifests due to the traditional norms being reinforced. It can be seen from

the history of the Philippines that homosexuality has been accepted without any trace of societal

judgment but only came questionable because of the rules and laws being encouraged on our

culture, hence, changes the perspective of the people where it became deviant of acceptable

social practices.

Even through the fast development of the world today, the countries’ impressions

towards LGBTQ+ have been more open in accepting the changing societal attitude. Without the

public opposing vigorously on the basis of their religious values, the bill and that embark a new

step for its development. However, there are still an inevitable rate of discrimination especially

on the workplace employment and situation of the LGBTQ+ members (Sears & Mallory, 2011).

The occurrences that are called as Focusing Events, where a sudden event and

relatively uncommon that can reasonably be defined as harmful or revealing the possibility of

greater future harms (Kingdon, 2008), have become the window of opportunity for the higher

authorities to be aware of the issues faced by the members of LGBTQ+, the continuously

growing recognition of the various discriminatory acts can be used to call for actions. The fear of

these circumstances to be repeated has forced the LGBTQ+ community to be eager to spread

the agenda of promoting the rights and welfare of the community. (Masilang, 2014)

Despite the fact that the openness within a society towards different sexual orientations

is the key to greater equality for LGBTQ+ people (Fric, 2016). There are still factors that affect

20
the relation of the society to the LGBTQ+ community. According to the reviewed studies, the

behaviors towards the LGBTQ+ community could reflect on the traditional norms of the society

(Rodis, 2014). The likeliness of the Filipinos to be captivated on the traditional ways and

behaviors can also be the cause of distinction.

Implementing the SOGIE Equality Bill may affect the personal lives of the individuals

involved as well as their economic liability as it validates privacy and the morality of the country

where the religious convictions and tradition may change.

21
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted in order to assess and understand the complexity of the case

of the possible impact of SOGIE Equality Bill in a member of a LGBTQ+ community who has

encounter discriminatory acts on their workplace.

Research Design

This study utilized a collective case study, using a qualitative approach to be able to

gather the necessary data. As stated by Creswell (2007), “a collective case study, otherwise

known as multiple case study involves one issue selected, but the inquirer selects multiple case

studies to illustrate the issue”. This study focuses on the case itself, the perception of the fifteen

(15) selected members of LGBTQ+ community regarding the potential impact of the SOGIE

Equality Bill based on their social conditions that been confounded through interview.

Using a qualitative case study as an approach to research will facilitates exploration of a

phenomenon within its context using a variety of data sources (Baxter, 2008). This will ensures

that the perception of the LGBTQ+ community regarding the SOGIE Equality Bill is not explored

through one lens, but rather a variety of lenses which allows multiple facets of the issue to be

revealed and understood. A multiple case study will help to enable the researcher to explore the

differences within the cases of the selected participants. The goal is to replicate findings across

the perceptions of the LGBTQ+ members because comparisons will be drawn on the findings. It

is important that the cases involved are chosen carefully for the issue.

Using this approach helped the researcher gather vital information from careful

participant selection, rather than statistical representation of sampling from quantitative studies.

The use of qualitative design helped to provide credibility with bias being strengthened.

22
 Each LGBTQ+ members is exclusive to their perception and awareness of the House

Bill, using a multiple case study purposefully identified similarities and differences of

respondent’s perception about the SOGIE Equality bill in line with their encountered

experiences.

The purpose of employing the case study is also used because the inquirer had clearly

definable cases with boundaries and sought to provide a deeper understanding of the case or a

comparison to several other cases. As Gall, et al. (2010) suggested using this design is useful

intention of this research was to provide a better understanding and exploration of perceptions.

The non-LGBTQ+ members answered a Likert scale questionnaire by ranking their knowledge

from 1 to 4 (as one being the lowest that is determined as ‘Strongly Disagree’ and 4 as the

highest determined as ‘Strongly Agree’) and to rank their approval on the list of provisions the

SOGIE Equality Bill listed.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of this study for the interview are fifteen (15) chosen LGBTQ+

members who identified themselves as part of the LGBTQ+ community and the respondents for

the survey questionnaires are one hundred and fifty (150) non-LGBTQ+ or heterosexuals. The

non-LGBTQ+ respondents for the survey questionnaires are from selected areas of Fairview,

Quezon City with ages 18 to 30 years old. They are knowledgeable enough to answer the

posed in the present study. The fifteen (15) respondents that are members of the LGBTQ+ have

been interviewed individually by an interview guide that is check for validity that supplied the

information the researchers relating to the subject.

23
 Table 1, as shown below, presents the list of the selected LGBTQ+ members as the

respondents for interview. The following respondents were chosen based on their exclusivity of

their own identity and the researchers were able to make amend on the given details under the

SOGIE Equality Bill.

RESPONDENT NUMBER GENDER AGE OCCUPATION

1 Lesbian 21 Call Center Agent

2 Transwoman 36 Beautician

3 Transman 24 I.T.

4 + (Pansexual) 19 NA - College Student

5 Gay 24 Office Secretary

6 Gay 18 Cook

7 Bisexual 24 Computer Shop Attendee

8 Questioning 21 NA - College Student

9 Gay 33 Online Tutor

10 Lesbian 18 NA - SHS Student

11 Bisexual 18 NA - SHS Student

12 Transwoman 21 Service Crew

13 Gay 39 Messenger

14 Bisexual 20 NA - College Student

15 Lesbian 18 NA - SHS Student

Table 1. LGBTQ+ selected member-respondents for interview

The respondent of the studies include fifteen (15) LGBTQ+ members who are exclusive

to their own identities. Interviewees are three (3) lesbians, four (4) gays, three (3) bisexual,

three (3) transgenders (two are transwoman and one is transman), one (1) questioning, and one

24
(1) pansexual.

BARANGAY FAIRVIEW BARANGAY STA. BARANAGAY

LUCIA NORTH FAIRVIEW
M F M F M F
GENDER 28 22 20 30 24 26
18-25 26-35 36- 18-25 26- 36- 18- 26- 36-
Above 35 Above 25 35 Above

AGE 35 6 9 26 18 6 27 17 6
Table 2. The non-LGBTQ+ member-respondents for Likert Scale survey questionnaire

The researchers have gathered fifty (50) respondents from the three barangay on

Fairview, Quezon City, resulting to one hundred and fifty (150) respondents in total. There are

twenty eight (28) male and twenty two (22) female on Barangay Fairview who have answered

the survey questionnaire. With their age ranges only from 18 to 36 and above, there are thirty

five (35) respondents who are 18 to 25 years of age, six (6) people are 26 to 35 years of age,

and nine (9) have ages 36 years of age to above.

In gathering the respondents in Barangay Sta. Lucia, twenty (20) of the respondents are

male and thirty (30) are females. Twenty six (26) of the respondents are 18 to 25 years of age,

eighteen (18) are 26 to 35 years of age, six (6) are ages 36 and above.

From the Barangay North Fairview, twenty four (24) of the respondents are male and

twenty six (26) are females. From the fifty of the chosen participants for the survey twenty seven

(27) of those are 18 to 25 years of age, seventeen (17) are 26 to 35 years of age, and six (6)

have age 36 and above.

25
Sampling Procedure

Purposive sampling technique was utilized in the study for gathering respondents. It

involves the conscious selection of only fifteen (15) respondents by the researcher. Participants

should be exclusive to the LGBTQ+ community and aware of the issues and social conditions

happening.

The respondents for the survey questionnaires were chosen with the use of cluster

sampling to gather the one hundred and fifty (150) respondents. The researchers gathered fifty

(50) respondents from the selected areas on Fairview, Quezon City namely: Barangay West

Fairview, Barangay Sta. Lucia, and Barangay North Fairview.

Data Gathering Procedure

This case study used several varied data collection techniques. The primary sources for

this study were surveyed particularly through questionnaires such as interviews and Likert scale

and data analysis, particularly the articles and reflective journals that are related to the subject.

Merriam (2009) promoted using interviews to strengthen and support a qualitative research.

Participation was voluntary for the interview with their consent. All respondents should be

informed about the SOGIE Equality Bill.

Interview. The first stage included fifteen individual interviews. The respondents were

given the same set of interview questions that were checked for validity. After selecting fifteen

(15) respondents to be part of the study, an interview with each respondent was conducted. The

exact purpose of the research was discussed. Questions explored the awareness of the

respondents of the perceived impact of the SOGIE Equality Bill on their social conditions.

Merriam’s research (2009) suggested that the use of interviews will communicate the

26
participants’ point of view about the phenomenon, and also emphasized that a semi-structured

interview can help the researcher obtain a rich base of information concerning the opinions of

the participants.

Likert Scale Questions. Likert Scale questions were given to the one hundred and fifty

(150) respondents who are from the selected areas of Fairview, Quezon City. Data were

collected from the respondents who were given rating questions that listed the provisions under

the SOGIE Equality Bill and was answered by them by checking their approval from 1 as the

‘Strongly Disagree’, to 4 as the ‘Strongly agree’. Results were evaluated on which part of the

provisions under the house bill are most favored by the respondents that could help concluded

to how the SOGIE Equality Bill can help influence the social conditions of the LGBTQ+ member.

According to Gee (2017) using a Likert Scale questions helped to measure’s someone’s

attitude by measuring the extent if they are ever agree or disagree with the particular statement.

The statements that are illustrated in the questions would help the respondents understand the

working questions or statement. By these, the following conclusion and results could be easily

drawn.

Literatures and Studies. Previous literatures and studies were analyzed by the researchers

that could relate to the implementation of SOGIE Equality. This could establish a foundation for

future studies about the said issue. Articles and online journals were also used for further

explanation and information that could relate to the case study being conducted.

27
 Task Completed Due Date

Preliminary Defense January 20th

Revisions of Chapter 1 – 3 January 21st - January 27th

Formation of Interview and Likert Scale January 31st - February 6th

Likert Scale validated by Ms. Corazon Estuita February 9th

(Psychometrician)
Task Co mpleted Due D ate

Instruments approved by Mrs. Ma. Prias Dimson

February 12th
(Research Adviser)

Instruments approved by Mr. Marco Lovendino

February 19th
(Technical Adviser)

Interview of selected members of LGBTQ+

February 19th - 22nd
respondents

Distribution of Survey Questionnaires to Non-

February 19th - February 23rd
LGBTQ+ respondents

Collation of survey February 24th - February 25th

Completion of Chapter 4 – 5 February 27th - March 1st

Critiquing March 6th

Revision of Chapter 4 – 5 March 7th -12th

Proofread March 13th

Table 3. Research timetable for data gathering

28
 CHAPTER IV

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the data and results with the basis if the interviews and

questionnaires conducted by the researcher to gather the different perceptions of the selected

LGBTQ+ members and Non-LGBTQ+ member-respondents that constructs the including

perceived effects of the SOGIE Equality Bill. In addition, the chapter also presents the results

from the conducted Likert Scale survey questionnaires to the non-LGBTQ+ member on the

selected areas of the Fairview, Quezon City. The following statements of the problem are the

following:

Problem No. 1 - Level of Awareness of LGBTQ+ Member and Non-Member—Respondents

to the SOGIE Equality Bill

Based on the series of interviews asked for the fifteen (15) LGBTQ+ members-

respondents, nine (9) of the participants have responded that they are aware of the SOGIE

Equality Bill, but has no idea about its content and supporting details about the proposed bill.

Respondent No. 5 have verbalized when asked about her knowledge regarding the said bill,

“I have heard it on the news, because of the rallies against it, and I know that it is

about the equality of the LGBTQ+…”

The media has covered the SOGIE Equality bill on the news frequently, but has never

widely discussed its under provisions, as Sison (2012) related this circumstance. Since the

Philippines is a largely known conservative country, the widespread information about the

proposed bill is not broadly discussed in the media because of the culture and norms of the

country.

29
 However, six (6) of the respondents said that they are completely aware of the bill. They

are well informed that there is a bill being amended.

On the surveys conducted by the researcher on towards the non-LGBTQ+ individuals to

find out their level of awareness, it is found out through the use of Likert Scale that 58% of the

non-LGBTQ+ representatives are aware of the SOGIE Equality Bill and 42% are not aware for

the proposed bill.

• Implementation of the SOGIE Equality Bill

All of the fifteen (15) respondents are in favor for implementation of the SOGIE Equality

Bill. They have mostly reasoned out that the bill can be very helpful, not just on their current

situation but for all the LGBTQ+ community especially that there are still numerous members

who are viable for discrimination and abuse. This proposed bill can be help protect their rights

and show an equal opportunity for the society (Bello, 2010).

“… Issues like discrimination and abuse can finally be addressed within the rule

of the law, giving just and reasonable penalty, and control for the offenders. It is

already a one step to accepting people like us [LGBTQ+] people in society,

enabling every equal right to thrive for this community.”

Respondent No. 10 stated how the country needs to implement a law not just for the LGBTQ+

but to serve equality.

30
Problem No. 2 - The Perception of LGBTQ+ Member-Respondents and the Non-LGBTQ+

Members to the Provisions of SOGIE Equality Bill

The following are the results based on the perceptions of the LGBTQ+ member-

respondents and non-LGBTQ+ members to the provisions by the collated data from the

interviews and survey conducted.

• Prohibiting discrimination toward SOGIE

From the fifteen (15) respondents of the interview, four of them describe that the said

provision will be helpful for their current social conditions, stating that it could help them to feel

contented without feeling unease because of the discrimination they have encountered.

Meanwhile, three of the respondents said that this provision will serve as the ‘gateway’ for

freedom from expressing themselves and being open to the public. Three (3) of them answered

that the provision could help establish equality by maintaining the social quality without making

a chance to flee any forms of intolerance. Five (5) of them, however, agreed and stated that the

provision titled should be implemented and maintained.

• Equal Rights for LGBTQ+

Most of the respondents believed that this provision will help everyone be entitled to be

treated fairly, as Respondent No. 1 stated:

“…Us being different in nature, nakakalimutan ng iba na we’re also human too,

capable of human rights” (Us different in nature, some may forgot that we’re also

human, capable of human rights)

One of the respondents also answered that SOGIE Equality Bill can help them express

in accordance to their gender since of the concept of having equal rights existed. Every

individual are vaguely entitled to be respected and accepted for whoever they chose to be

31
(Deevia, 2015). One of the interviewee also responded that every right shall come in any matter

and is significant to anyone. Since a lot of the occurrences on the LGBTQ+ community today

shows of lack of acceptance from the outside forces, they are forced to think that they do not

have the equal right in the society.

• Empowering portrayal of the LGBTQ+ members in the media

On their thoughts about empowering the image and portrayal of the LGBTQ+ on the

media, majority of the respondents expressed their neutral opinion about this matter, saying that

the LGBTQ+ have already enough space in the media. As Respondent No. 4 stated, this

provision may cause stigma in the media, stating that some gay who are open about their

identity in the media is often being referred as comedic purposes only. This may imply that

giving a space for the LGBTQ+ needs detailed information about their given personality in the

media. (Jimenez, 2011)

On the other hand, another respondent said that empowering the members of the

LGBTQ+ in the media may help them express more since many part of the media, relating to

what Klaus (2010) have said on his article, individuals who identified themselves as LGBTQ+

are afraid to open in public outlets for the reason that there are negative feedbacks always

waiting for them, discouraging them to freely access in the any kinds of media.

“We need proper representation, not empowerment…”

Respondent No. 10 gave her perception that it is not their identity that should be empowered but

should have a proper accommodations, saying that this may be a way for other LGBTQ+ to be

abusive, presenting inequality rather that spreading the initiative of the Bill.

32
 • Engaging freely on the public

12-0039. Their opinions and thoughts will be given importance and will not be denied in the

public. Respondent No. 3 said that this will give them a chance to prove and express freely their

opinions. Their ideas are also will be heard by everyone and can be a good opportunity to stand

up for everything they believed in.

“We all have a freedom of expression, but we have to be responsible in

every action we do…”

Respondent No. 5 also gave a statement that this is a part of the human right and

therefore should be treated in a respectful manner since we are all capable of it. (Jimenez,

2011)

• The Implementation of SOGIE Equality Oversight Committee and ‘Women,

Children, and Gender Rights’ protection desks.

Majority of the interviewees have no particular opinion about this, mostly because they

are not much informed about the details of the said provision. When explained thoroughly by the

interviewers the main function of the SOGIE Equality Sight Committee, most of the LGBTQ+

member-respondents subsequently approved by the idea, like what the Respondent No. 6 said,

the mentioned provision is currently not well establish for what is its main purpose and goal.

• Dress Code based on Sexual Orientation

Eight (8) of the respondents answered that they are agree on this provision, as this could

decrease the cases regarding discrimination and discomfort in their workplace.

“Sometimes, hindi mo alam if they want to be called miss or mister, so in

this way, di natin sila maooffend. In this way, we can show the people that we

33
 want to be recognized as what our gender refers us to…” (Sometimes, you are

not aware if they want to be called miss or mister, so in this way, we could avoid

offending them. In this way, we can the people that we want to be recognized as

what our preferred gender refers us to…),

Respondent No. 4 stated when asked about her perception regarding the said provision.

Other interviewees also answered that with this policy, the individuals who are affected

should be guided accordingly regarding the limitations required. Respondent No. 5 suggested to

give this particular provision an in-depth description about the “do’s and don’ts” in basing the

dress code on their chosen gender preferences.

• Separation of comfort rooms

Out of the fifteen (15) interviewees, seven (7) shared a commonality in perceptions

agreeing that there should be separate comfort rooms for transwomen and transmen. This is to

avoid confusion and lessen the embarrassment they felt during this kind of situations. As

mentioned by Respondent No. 2 who is a transgender, she had encountered situations where

whenever she entered to a comfort room, there are always awkward stares and people always

give her ‘judgmental looks’.

While Respondent No. 3 (who is also a transgender) also stated that this is an inevitable

situation, that’s why he finds a way to adjust to the situation.

“Minsan kailangan ko pa mag-antay na kaunti nalang yung tao or wala na

talaga maka-CR lang…” (Sometimes I have to wait until there are only few

people inside or if no one’s not around just to use the comfort room)

• SOGIE as criteria for hiring

34
 All of the respondents expressed the same answer that they agree with the said

provision. As Respondent No. 3 stated, he has experienced being judged during the job

interviews based on his chosen appearance. Some respondents has expressed disappointment

when companies link their personal attributes to their jobs and professional careers.

“Mahirap kapag binabase nila sa nakikita nila ayung quality ng trabaho mo” (It’s
hard when they base the quality of your work on what they see on you
[physically])

Respondent No. 2 said that their opportunities are being taken away and their credibility

is not enough to be treated fairly.

Respondent No. 14 answered that by simply stating that the applicant, who is

homosexual, is ‘inappropriate’ for job qualification, is already a form of discrimination. She

believed that this provision should be considered for workplace situations of the LGBTQ+

community.

• Penalties for any form of Discriminatory acts

Six (6) of the respondents believe that there should be a penalty for any form of

discriminatory acts and agreed that paying a fine for Php 100,000.00 to Php 500,000.00

(depending on how will it be convicted) and imprisonment is enough as punishment. One of

those who have agreed suggested that they should describe the details under the provision

precisely on how the process will be done. A proper seminar or spreading of the news can to be

helpful.

Respondent No. 11 answered that this provision will be a very good way to avoid any

form of discrimination but believes that the main root of the discrimination is the people’s

manner towards the LGBTQ+, expressing that it is the one should be fixed. According to

Friedrich (2013), determining the factors for the heterosexuals to avoid any kind of

35
misconception on LGBTQ+ is to let them be understood of the current condition of the LGBTQ+

and psychological well condition. On the other hand, Respondent No. 10 believes that the

process for these penalties is very swiftly taken and needed time for the outside forces to be

understood.

”…It would be better to educate than to punish. Let people know that what

they’re doing is discrimination instead of punishing them immediately…”

Stated by Respondent No. 10, expressing that it is better for them to have the idea for

what the provision is all about.

36
37
 • Perceptions of the non-LGBTQ+ members towards the provisions of SOGIE

Equality Bill

From the data gathered from the perceptions of the non-LGBTQ+ member-respondents

on the written provisions of the SOGIE Equality bill, it can be seen from the Table 2 that there

are different levels of concurrence based on a particular provision. Based on the final results, a

calculated number of 3.42 have agreed that the SOGIE Equality Bill gives the LGBTQ+

community the right treatment and the equal rights they deserve. No matter how different they

are from the common sexuality in the society, the results could reflect that the non-LGBTQ+

community are still willing to accept the fact that they have also their rights to be treated equally.

The renaming of the “Women and Children's Desk' in all police stations to 'Women,

Children, and Gender Rights' protection desks is rated with ‘Agree’ by the majority of the one

hundred and fifty (150) respondents with a weighted mean of 3.313. By this, not only women

and children, but the LGBTQ+ community will also have their rights being protected by the civil

welfare

Followed by 3.26 weighted mean is the arrangement for the LGBTQ+ member to

empower their portrayal in the media from the social platforms to the mass communications.

Only few of the respondents have disagreed reflecting that they already have an image and

exposure in the current status of their community in the media. Hence, being the third as

agreeable subject in the provisions, the non-LGBTQ+ members believe that this is a new form

of empowerment for the LGBTQ+ community as the media today modifies much attention to the

society.

Most of the respondents also agree to give penalties to anyone who is convicted with

discriminatory acts with an average weighted mean of 3.207. Even due to the fact that the

respondents of the survey are non-LGBTQ+, the result represents that most of the respondents

38
are in favor in giving penalties for those who will violate the rights of the LGBQT+ community.

Majority of the respondents implies that they are open to provide protection to the community of

LGBTQ+.

In terms of the involvement of LGBTQ+ community in the society or with the public, the

majority of the respondents with an average weighted mean of 3.173 have agreed to make

amend with the LGBTQ+ community to participate in any discourse or issue in the society. With

this, the opinions of the community of LGBTQ+ are accepted by non-LGBTQ+ in the public

discourse and discussion.

Followed by a weighted mean of 3.073, the average number of respondents agreed that

schools should prevent themselves from refusing to accept for admissions or filed an expulsion

for students to be based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. This is to avoid

discrimination and to start promoting equality to LGBTQ+ in schools implying the right of

education.

With a 3.073 weighted mean from the respondents, the provision under the SOGIE

Equality bill that states ‘the discrimination towards the LGBTQ+ members should be prohibited’

is approved by the non-LGBTQ+ selected member-respondents. They are agreed that LGBTQ+

community to be treated right in any forms. With a neutral result, there also respondents who

think that it are fine not to prohibit the discrimination on LGBTQ+ community.

The average of 3.027 as weighted mean, the majority of the respondents are agree with

the penalty of imprisonment for not less than one (1) year and not more than six (6) years, when

convicted by any form of discriminatory acts towards the LGBTQ+ members.

Basing the dress code to one’s sexual orientation is being agreed by many. One should

have the freedom to wear what he/she is comfortable in wearing. With the respondents

disagreeing with the provision, the mean of 2.833 still agreed with it.

39
 Based on the result of the survey, 2.807 from all the answers of the respondents have

agreed to give a fine of Php 100,000.00 to Php 500,000.00 when convicted of doing any acts of

discrimination towards the member of LGBTQ+ community. Even if it cost a lot, majority from

the selected non-LGBTQ+ people still chose to be in favour of the provision for prohibiting the

harsh treatment on LGBTQ+ community.

The 2.773 weighted mean of the participants involved have agreed that the privacy of

the LGBTQ+ members should be protected. Despite of being different, majority thinks that they

still have the right to have their own peaceful private life but some said that they are disagree

with it showing a lack of equal treatment.

When asked about the LGBTQ+ having a separate comfort rooms, the respondents are

quite equal with their answers. With the mean of 2.633, it can be seen that the most of the

selected respondents are in favor of the provision on having an own rest room for LGBTQ+.

Providing the gender identity or sexual orientation should be the criteria for hiring, the

mean of 2.187 that shows that the majority of the respondents have disagreed about this. They

are not in favor of including the gender as a qualification in applying for a job or a work, hence

should not impact the workplace condition of an individual.

The overall average of the weighted mean is 2.985, and majority of it is agreeing with the

provisions entailed in the SOGIE Equality Bill. Therefore, the non-LGBTQ+ are not fully against

the LGBTQ+ community having their bill to protect them, rather, indeed in favor of the bill and its

supplied contents. Based on the results of the given Likert Scale for the non-LGBTQ+ member-

respondents, this could imply that there are only certain factors that the outside forces of the

LGBTQ+ community support under the provisions of the House Bill. There is still definite

information that needs to be clear and formalized to give information of the proposed bill. This

could also reflect that values and norms of the individual is still been the basis on accepting and

40
following the law given by the society. There are standards already given that is meant to

amended based on the given policies. (Rohrs, 2014). Their levels of awareness towards the

particular provision are very essential in implementing the house bill.

Problem No. 3 - The Perceived Effects to the Provisions of the SOGIE Equality Bill in

LGBTQ+ Member-Respondents

Based on the result, the provisions of SOGIE Equality Bill will influence the current social

conditions of the members of LGBTQ+ community in a way that it will provide fairness and right

treatment the LGBTQ+ community deserves. As the Respondent No. 10 stated that the

provisions will give them the space in the society, thus, they will be able to speak out for

themselves as well as to lessen the case of discrimination and judgments of other people and to

never feel left out since people will be aware of their social conditions. It is not just about being

protected, but the provisions will educate them as well as the society of their rights. The gap

between the LGBTQ+ community and the civilians will be decreased, making an equal

environment since they are having a hard time fitting in the society.

Most of the respondents said that the House Bill will be effective on their current status

as part of the LGBTQ+ community since they are receiving closer review in community

involvement and since there are many LGBTQ+ members being discriminated, there is a high

chance that it will be effective. One said that they should not be on any side but provide equal

treatment no matter what their gender is. It is also stated that the people nowadays are smart

enough to think for themselves. The SOGIE Bill can also be effective in a way that it is a law

and it needs to be followed by everyone. Some of them said that the said House Bill will not be

effective because of its lack in research and the people that are not well-knowledgeable and

educated of the bill as well as their rights.

41
 According to Respondent No. 9, she believed that the proposed bill is not yet fully-

established and that it is not strong enough and still needed time and attention. Lastly, some

may not be open to acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community.

Three (3) of the fifteen (15) interviewees said that the SOGIE Equality Bill helps to

empower their community in a way that they are able to boost their confidence not just on

themselves but also in the society. While three (3) of them said that with that confidence, they

will feel comfortable in expressing louder and clearer voices and one (1) said that they are given

the focus and attention. Another one (1) respondent said that the minority doesn’t have to hide

themselves in the society, afraid of being judged and discriminated. They will also be able to do

things they were not able to do before. Two (2) of interviewee said that it makes them feel safe

and secure from abuse despite of their sexual orientation and will eventually lead to acceptance

of oneself wholeheartedly.

“… mas lalong magiging malakas at mas malilinawan ng bawat isa na ang mga

tao ay kailangan ng karapatan bilang isang tao at ang mga LGBT ay kailangan

din ng karapatan bilang isang tao. (Our fellow citizen will be more enlighten and

understand more the concept that every human needs rights for they are

humans, and every LGBT also need rights for being human)

Stated by Respondent No. 14 when asked about the positive impact of the SOGIE

Equality bill not just on the fellow LGBTQ+ members but as well the non-LGBTQ+.

Four (4) of the respondents said that some of the LGBTQ+ members might take the

proposed House Bill for granted that they will feel privileged and overconfident and make use of

the bill as a reason for abusive or selfish actions. As a result of those actions, the LGBTQ+

community might have a bad background or image in the society. Two (2) of the respondents

said that as a conservative country, it is being opposed by the church and will be criticized but

42
they still respect it. Having the proposed bill, it will cause lots of arguments and debates and

confusions to what is right and better for them. As stated by one interviewee, no one would take

it seriously since people in the government are homophobes or uneducated. One of the

respondents said that there are no negative side effects seen on the proposed bill.

Problem No. 4 - Utilization of the Level of Awareness and Perceptions of the

Respondents to the SOGIE Equality Bill

The perceived effects of the SOGIE Equality Bill can be measure based on the collected

information on the perceptions of the respondents. The findings of this research can utilize the

process of implementing the SOGIE Equality Bill favorable to the current situation where the

hearing and discussions toward s the enactment of the proposed bill are still in the process.

The level of awareness of the respondents will serve as the reflection of the perspective

of the people for the SOGIE Equality Bill, as they are the leading representative. Their

informative basis for the fundamental of information will be the subject of how the House Bill can

be amended. The study will make way for the development of the prospects of the presented

bill that could evaluate for the criteria of effective, adaptable, and reflective law for the future of

the society.

Given by the data collected by the researches on its gathering of information from the

conducted interview and survey; majority of the respondents are aware of the SOGIE Equality

Bill yet not fully informed on its details and offered policies. That is why there are conjoined

judgments for what the House Bill could provide for the country. The gathered perceptions by

the LGBTQ+ member-respondents could reflect why a particular law for protecting their rights

as part of the LGBTQ+ community is needed based on their experiences from their identities

and social conditions. This could amend what the proposed bill should establish for the chosen

subject of the policy.

43
 The set of provisions under the SOGIE Equality Bill give the glimpse of what the house

bill can do if implemented, yet in relating to the perceptions of the respondents, there are

particular provisions that are still not yet establish and detailed for their knowledge. Taking the

renaming the Women and Children’s Desks in all police stations to “Women, Children, and

Gender Rights Protection Desks” as for example, where according to one respondent is still

very ‘blurred’ and ‘confusing’ for what is the purpose and its objectives. Another is the

separation of the comfort rooms for transgender, where the verbal interpretation based on the

collated result of the given Likert Scale is ‘Strongly Disagree’ by the non-LGBTQ+ member-

respondent for its process may still be subtle.

The utilization of the SOGIE Equality Bill may be done by proper amendments of its

objective for its impact should be well establish since it’s a proposed law for the country.

Detailed constructions of its provision for the understanding of the individual as part of the

LGBTQ+ community or not helped them capture the purpose of the house bill.

44
 CHAPTER V

SUMMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of the findings, conclusions and recommendations

based on the data analyzed in the previous chapter. This research work was undertaken to

define the perceived impact of the SOGIE Equality Bill based on the perspective of the

respondents. With the data gathered, the following insights are presented;

Summary

The focus of this study is to know the perceived impact of the SOGIE Equality Bill to the

selected members and non-members of the LGBTQ+ Community in Fairview, Quezon City. Due

to the increasing number of cases of discrimination and violence against the LGBTQ+, the

House Bill No. 4982 or the SOGIE Equality Bill has been proposed to protect their rights against

offenders. Their social conditions have been challenged because of their selection of their

sexual orientation, thus, resulting in the different treatment of the non-LGBTQ+ members in their

society.

After evaluating and analyzing the mentioned bill, the researchers have conducted a

collective case study to the selected participants to determine their perceptions about the

provisions of the bill. The gathered data from the respondents have been analyzed, interpreted

and presented on the previous chapter. According to the results, the respondents have limited

information about the said bill. Proper apportion of the information could really help them in

determining their perceptions about the SOGIE Equality Bill. The majority of the respondents, on

the other hand, agree to the implementation of the bill. They have concluded that this could help

them, not just in terms of improvement of their social conditions, but to also give way to justice

and equal rights in the society. The provisions, however, could really help them in improving the

state of the LGBTQ+ Community especially in eradicating the discrimination. This SOGIE

45
Equality Bill can be a bridge in eradicating the barrier between the homosexuals and the

heterosexuals. After the mentioned results, the researchers made the following conclusions and

recommendations to further explain and improve the study;

Conclusions

From the given data that the researchers have gathered, the following conclusions have been

made:

1. The LGBTQ+ Community is aware of the SOGIE Equality Bill. Although they know that

the said bill is currently being proposed, the most the members of the LGBTQ+

Community has no idea about its policies. The limitedness of information shared about

its content has made them clueless, even though they have the knowledge about the

proposal of bill.

2. The provisions included in the SOGIE Equality Bill can be a way to provide a form of

protection and equality to the LGBTQ+ Community. The respondents have agreed to all

of the provisions, except for the inclusion of the SOGIE Equality Bill as criteria for hiring.

There are also points in the provisions in which the respondents doubt, but it is still

debatable whether the conditions would really benefit the social conditions of the

LGBTQ+ Community.

3. Based on the data gathered from the surveys and questionnaires, majority of the

respondents are aware of the proposed law, SOGIE Equality Bill, but not that aware on

its written details. For measuring their perceptions (from the LGBTQ+ to non-LGBTQ+).

There are only certain aspects that they agree on the given provisions, but some of its

46
 offered actions are being discouraged by some respondents either by the reason of its

value or the lack of information they have known about the particular provisions.

4. The information gathered by the researchers can provide a glimpse of the society the

LGBTQ+ members are living in. Having said, this could be an eye opener to everyone to

see the society in the perspective of the participants involved in the study. Therefore, the

information could enlighten the people to give the LGBTQ+ the equal rights and

treatment in the society.

Recommendations

1. To the Philippine Government. The government should provide an orientation about the

SOGIE Equality Bill to the public. In this way, Proper information could be sent to

everyone and serve as a guide in equal treatment of the LGBTQ+ members in the

society. Having said, protection against discrimination to the oppressed will be

implemented.

2. To the LGBTQ+ Community. The LGBTQ+ Community should provide a good advocacy

about the SOGIE Equality Bill that can help them to strengthen the passage of the bill for

nationwide implementation. It can also serve as a motivation to those who are

oppressed and those who are not able to stand up for themselves.

3. To the Legislators of our Government. They should edit certain parts of the SOGIE

Equality Bill that will satisfy the needs of the LGBTQ+ Community. The legislators should

also enlighten the people to give way to the passage of the bill, for this will provide

equality and a society where truth, justice, freedom, and peace will be practiced.

4. To Future Researchers. Future researchers can use the information and data gathered

in the study to have further research about the SOGIE Equality Bill. The researchers

could also use a wider scope to do a research about the topic and provide a deeper

47
understanding about the bill. The future studies can make way to improve the current

proposed bill, and have future amendments about the lacking information of the study.

48
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Books

Buendia, A. K. (2017, May). A Mirror Behind the Rainbow Flag: Senate Bill 1271 & House Bill

4982 A Case Study On International Norm Localization. Quezon City, Philippines:

Ateneo De Manila University Library

Frank, W. (2014) Law and the Gay Rights Story: The Long Search for Equal Justice in a Divided

Democracy. New York City, New York:

Garcia, J.N.C. (2008). Philippine Gay Culture: Binabae to Bakla, Silahis to MSM. Quezon City:

University of the Philippines Press.

Gates, G. J., (2012). LGBT Identity: A Demographer’s Perspective. Los Angeles, California,

USA. Loyala Marymount University and Loyola Law School.

Marzullo, M. A., & Libman A. J. (2009). Hate Crimes and Violence Against Lesbian, Gay,

Bisexual and Transgender People. Rhode Island., N.W., Washington, D. C.Human

Rights Campaign Foundation.

Masilang, J. M. (2014, March). Paglaladlad: The Self Identification and Disclosure of

Adolescents with Alternative Sexual Orientation. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo De

Manila University Library.

Rodis, P. (2014). I Was a Tomboy: Labels, Constructions, and Understamdings of Women’s

Sexuality in the Philippines. Boston College University Libraries.

Tan, K. (2012, 27 July). Love for All. Mandaluyong City: Books Atbp. Publishing Corporation

49
B. Articles and Journals

Anderson, R.T. (2015). Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Laws Threaten

Freedom. Backgrounder.

Discrimination against Homosexuals. (February 2012). Teen Ink.

Hall, E., Lee, S. Y., Clark, P. C., & Perilla, J. (2014). Workplace Discrimination to the LGBT

Worker. Referencing Differences. Advance online publication.

Herek, G. (2014). Beyond “Homophobia”: Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the

Twnety First Century.

Lopez, R., (2016) SOGIE Basics 101. UConn School of Social Work Student

Patton, M. Q. (2009). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage

Pew Research Center. (2013). The Global Divide on Homosexuality: Greater Acceptance in

More Secular and Affluent Countries. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.

Psychological Association of the Philippines. (2011). Statement of the Psychological Association

of the Philippines on Non-Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity

and Expression. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 22(2), 229-230. Retrieved 05,

December 2017 from

http://www.pap.org.ph/includes/view/default/uploads/statement_on_lgbt.pdf.

Republic Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and

Discrimination Act). Retrieved from

http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno7610.html#.UibXrDZkNwA

50
Republic Act 9443 (Magna Carta for Public Social Workers). Retrieved from http://philippinelaw.

info/statutes/ra9433-magna-carta-for-public-social-workers.html.

Republic Act No. 8504 (Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998). Retrieved from

http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1998/ra_8504_1998.html.

Ricordeau. G. (2009, February). Review of “Philippine Gay Culture: Binabae to Bakla, Silahis to

MSM”. Intersections: Gender and Sexuality in Asia and the Pacific, Issue 19. Retrieved

4 September 2013 from http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue19/ricordeau_review.htm.

Sears, B. & Mallory, C., (July 2011). Documented Evidence of Employment Discrimination & Its

Effects on LGBT People. The William Institute.

Villegas, B. M., (2017). Need to amend SOGIE bill. Manila Bulletin.

Yenor, S., (2011). Family Politics: The Idea of Marriage in Modern Political Thought. Baylor

University Press.

C. Websites

Bag-ao, K. (2011, 11 October). Fulfilling the promise of basic fairness, sponsorship speech for

HB 515 – Anti-Discrimination Bill, 11 October 2011. Retrieved 05, December 2017, from

http://attykaka.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/sponsorship-speech-for-hb-515-anti-

discrimination-bill/.

Bersola-Babao, T. (2013, 11 March). Being gay. The Philippine Star. Retrieved 05, December

2017, from http://www

De Vera, R. (2011, 29 June). Pride March, campus style in Philippines. Digital Journal Reports.

Retrieved January 2018 from http://digitaljournal.com/article/308527.

51
Discrimination against Homosexuals. (2012). Retrieved 05, December 2017 from

http://www.teenink.com/opinion/love_relationships/article/438798/Discrimination-Against-

Homosexuals/

Importance of Case Studies in Research, (2012) retrieved from

https://psuee5.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/the-importance-of-case-studies-in-research/

LAGABLAB. (2009). Philippines: Congress Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill. International Gay

& Lesbian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved January 2018 from

http://www.iglhrc.org/content/philippines-congress-approvesanti-discrimination-bill.

LGBTQ+ Terms. (2014). Retrieved 05, December 2017 from

http://www.cutepinoyportal.com/2014/11/SOGIE.html

Rozul, C. D. (2017). The History of LGBTQ+ Visibility in the Philippines. Retrieved January 2018

from http://www.loveyourself.ph/2017/06/the-history-of-lgbtq-visibility-in.html

Wickes, R. L., Pickering, S., Mason, G., Maher, J. M., & Mcculloch, J. (2016). From Hate to

Prejudice: Does the New Terminology of Prejudice Motivated Crime Change Perceptions

and Reporting Actions.British Journal of Criminology,

52