FACTS

 The Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country with a unique relationship to

the LGBTQ community. On the surface, the Philippines seems to have accepted

the queer community: homosexuality is not criminalized in the country, gay and

bisexual men and women are allowed to serve in the military, some cities have

passed anti-discrimination ordinances and some of the Philippines most famous

celebrities are members of the LGBTQ community.

 Those advocating for the passage of the law on prohibiting discrimination on the
basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity or Expression (SOGIE) may have the
best of intentions but have their facts wrong and objectives muddled.  Let us first
understand where they are coming from. Much of the information in this article is
taken from the Position Paper of Pro-Life Philippine Foundation, Inc., on this topic. 
By sexual orientation they mean the direction of emotional, sexual attraction, or
conduct towards people of the same sex (homosexual orientation) or towards
people of both sexes (bisexual orientation) or towards people of the opposite sex
(heterosexual orientation) or to the absence of sexual attraction (asexual
orientation).  Gender expression for them means the way a person communicates
gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, communication or
speech pattern, or body characteristics.  Finally, gender identify for them refers to
the personal sense of identity as characterized, among others, by manner of
clothing, inclinations, and behavior in relation to masculine or feminine
conventions.  A person may have a male or female identity with the physiological
characteristics of the opposite sex, in which case this person is considered
transgender.

 The first error is in legally classifying persons or human beings according to sexual
orientation and gender identity.  According to Constitutional Law, classification is
defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain
particular characteristics and different from all others in these very same
particulars.  The distinction has to be substantial as opposed to superficial
difference.  That is why it is reasonable to classify men from women (difference in
reproductive roles), minors from adults (difference in age of consent), and citizens
from aliens (difference in nationality).  There should be relative permanency in the
characteristics of the distinction being made.  In contrast, one cannot legally classify
persons according to the color of their skin, the way they dress, the Philippine
regions they come from or the professions they practice.  These differences can
 change relatively in time.  There is no permanency in the distinctions being
established.

 Sexual orientation involves a superficial difference since the attraction of a person

to the same sex can vary in degrees, and there are recorded cases of persons with
diminished same-sex attractions, if not totally re-oriented into heterosexuals.  The
reality is that there are a number of “ex-gay ministries” available to persons
struggling with same-sex attractions, such as the local Courage and Bagong Pag-Asa
groups, who assist individuals in understanding the struggle against their same-sex
attraction and living a chaste life (not to engage in same-sex acts).  True, there may
be proven cases of persons who are homosexual for life but the existence of others
who are able to overcome their same-sex feelings   demonstrates that it is wrong to
classify people according to sexual orientation, which at least for some people is not
a permanent condition.

 Likewise, it has to be pointed out that gender identity is also a superficial

difference.  As defined above, it refers to a personal sense of identify (making it a
subjective concept) based on manners of dressing inclinations and behavior in
relation to masculine or feminine conventions.  The indicators of gender identity,
e.g. manners of clothing, inclinations and behavior, can change relatively in time.
The subjectivity of the definition (personal) makes it difficult for it to be considered
as a substantial distinction.  In fact, the acronym LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender) is only the tip of the iceberg of gender identities.   A longer list will
include, in addition to the first four many more possible identities, such as
transsexual, two-spirit, queer, questioning, intense, asexual, and ally. Interestingly,
the classification “questioning” highlights the tentativeness of the condition being
described.  The term refers either (a) to an individual who is unsure of and/or still
exploring his or her gender identity and/or sexual reorientation or (b) to the process
of exploration that such an individual is going through.  It is often reserved for
adolescents who are still trying to figure out their sexual orientation and their
gender identity.  The questioning phase is not allowed to persist for very long. 
There is a lot of pressure in schools for a young child to identify as transgender or
identify as a sexual minority. For this reason, they might not be questioning for very
long.  Clearly, a law based on classifying persons according to sexual orientation or
gender identify can lead to a great deal of confusion in its implementation.

 The same confusion will apply to those who consider themselves “pansexual.”  The
pansexual is one who can be (or who claims to be capable of being) romantically or
sexually attracted to people of any gender or regardless of their gender.  These
persons claim that when it comes to sexual attraction or choice, they are “gender-
blind” (i.e., the gender and sex of their prospective partners are irrelevant or
insignificant to them).  How will these people be treated in the SOGIE bill?  The
multiplicity of sexual orientations and/or gender roles shows how ridiculous it is for
 an anti-discrimination bill based on SOGIE.  In fact, unwittingly it will lead to a
violation of the constitutional guaranty of equal protection.  As illustrated in a case
cited in a position paper of Courage Philippines (2005), there were two factory
workers who were both due for promotions—one a homosexual while the other a
“straight” person.  The homosexual can use the anti-discrimination provision in the
SOGIE law against a homophobic employer, but the “straight” person cannot claim
anti-discrimination based on the SOGIE law against a biased homosexual employer. 
The proposed SOGIE bill ironically permits and allows discrimination and inequality.
Under the constitution, similar subjects should not be treated differently, so as to
give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others.


 The problem with all the discussions surrounding the sexual orientation
and gender identity legislative proposals are many. But it’s on the
fundamental grounds that the flaws are truly significant.
 One sees this in the opening portion, for example, of Senate Bill Nos.
159 and 689, defining the following terms:
 “Gender Expression: refers to the outward manifestations of the cultural
traits that enable a person to identify as male or female according to
patterns that, at a particular moment in history, a given society defines
as gender appropriate.”
 “Gender Identity: refers to the personal sense of identity as
characterized, among others, by manner of clothing, inclinations, and
behavior in relation to masculine or feminine conventions. A person may
have a male or female identity with the physiological characteristics of
the opposite sex.”
 The definitions are important because on them, along with the definition
of “sexual orientation”, are practically built the entire structure of alleged
“rights” that SBs 159/689 (or the “Anti-Discrimination” bill) are supposed
to protect.
 But one searches in vain for any factual or scientific data to back up the
definitions. Or serve as sufficient rationale why additional legislation is
even needed at all.
 THE Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (Sogie) Equality bill

is being maligned by people who have not read and fully understood it.

 What is even more offensive is when people whose job it is to make laws are at

the forefront in peddling lies to mislead the public. Senate President Vicente

“Tito” Sotto 3rd is one of these people. As the leader of the Senate, Sotto should

exercise prudence in criticizing proposed laws. He must demonstrate to the

public the proper way, one that requires careful analysis of what is being

proposed.
 In 2000, the earliest version of the SOGIE equality bill was filed under the 11th

Congress by late-Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago and former Akbayan

representative Loretta Rosales. The bill was refiled in the 14th Congress, but,

just like the previous version of the bill, it only reached the committee level and

didn’t pass into law. Other senators also filed similar bills in the 15th and

16th congresses without success.

 In 2009, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) supported the LGBTQ group
Ladlad after the country’s Commission on Election denied its petition to run
as a party in the 2010 national election on the grounds of “immorality.” The
following year, the Supreme Court of the Philippines granted Ladlad’s
registration.
 In 2012, the country’s Department of Education (DepEd) signed “DepEd Child
Protection Policy,” a set of policies and guidelines that protect school children
against abuse, violence and discrimination — including discrimination based on
sexual orientation.
 In 2013, two attempts to pass new versions of the SOGIE bill were introduced in
the House of Representatives, but neither bill has been passed.
 The bill was first filed in congress in 2000 by then-senator Miriam Defensor-

Santiago and then-Akbayan party-list Representative Etta Rosales. The bill

passed 3rd reading in the House but stalled in the Senate. Similar measures

were filed by other senators in the 15th and 16th congresses without success.
[5]
 The bill was re-filed by Defensor-Santiago in every congressional period in the

Senate until her last term in 2016. The counterpart bill in the House was also filed

continuously by the representatives of Akbayan party-list.

 In 2017, House Bill No. 4982, sponsored by Dinagat Islands Rep. Kaka Bag-

ao (the principal author of the measure since her first term), Bataan

Rep. Geraldine Roman, Akbayan Party-List Rep. Tomas Villarin, and several

others, was not approved on third and final reading for the first time since

2001[6] with 198 members of the House of Representatives voting for the bill and

none opposing it, a historic pro-LGBT move from the House of Representatives. [7]

 The counterpart bill in the Senate, filed by Senator Risa Hontiveros (the

first Akbayan senator), was in the period of interpolations by May 2018. It is

backed by Senators Loren Legarda, Grace Poe, Nancy Binay, Franklin

Drilon, Bam Aquino, Chiz Escudero, Ralph Recto, Sonny Angara, JV

Ejercito, Francis Pangilinan, Juan Miguel Zubiri, and Leila de Lima, although de

Lima is barred from voting on the bill as she is currently in police custody. [8][9] It

was opposed by Senators Tito Sotto, Manny Pacquiao, Cynthia Villar, and Joel

Villanueva (who signed up as a co-author of the bill). [10] Other senators such

as Win Gatchalian, Koko Pimentel, Antonio Trillanes, Panfilo Lacson,

 and Richard J. Gordon have not yet expressed their support or rejection of the

bill. Senator Trillanes is currently facing cases that may put him in jail, which may

make him ineligible to vote for the bill like senator De Lima if he is arrested.

Additionally, Alan Peter Cayetano and Gregorio Honasan no longer have voting

rights on Senate measures as they declined to be part of the presidential cabinet.

[11]
 Out of the existing 24 Senate seats: 12 seats support and can vote on the bill;

1 seat supports but cannot vote on the bill (although the number may rise to 2); 4

seats oppose and can vote on the bill; 5 seats can vote on the bill but have not

yet given their positions on it (although the number may be reduced to 5); and 2

seats are de facto vacated.[11] For a bill to pass the Senate, it needs a vote of

50% (12) of the body, plus one (1) vote for a total of thirteen (13) votes. The

SOGIE Equality Bill currently is supported by 12 seats that are allowed to vote on

the measure.[12]

 Versions of the SOGIE Equality Bill was again refiled in the 18th Congress by

senator Risa Hontiveros,[35] senator Imee Marcos,[36] senator Leila de Lima, and

senator Kiko Pangilinan,[37] while another similar bill was filed by senator Sonny

Angara.[38] Senators Bong Go,[39] Juan Miguel Zubiri,[40] Ralph Recto,

[9]
 and Franklin Drilon[9] have manifested their support for the SOGIE Bill. In the

House of Representatives, various representatives have also filed their versions

of the bill, notably, Sol Aragones of Laguna [41] Geraldine Roman of Bataan,

[41]
 Loren Legarda of Antique,[42] Maria Lourdes Alba of Bukidnon, Jose Belmonte

of Quezon city, Bayan Muna representatives Eufemia Cullamat, Carlos Zarate,

and Ferdinand Gaite, Kristine Singson of Ilocos Sur, Bagong Henerasyon

 representative Bernadette Dy, Eric Olivarez of Parañaque city, and Francis

Abaya of Cavite.[43] Representatives Sy-Alvarado, De Venecia, Reyes, Taduran,

Bordado, Olivarez, and Violago have also signed as co-author of the bill filed by

representative Roman,[43] while Gabriela Women's Party representative Brosas

has signed as co-author of the bill filed by Bayan Muna. [43]