FILE PHOTO: Bataan 1st District Rep. Geraldine Roman. Photo from Facebook
MANILA, Philippines — Debates on the proposed measure seeking to penalize discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity expression, and sexual characteristics (Sogiesc) have erupted anew as the bill undergoes fiery scrutiny in both chambers of Congress.
But the apprehensions and misconceptions hounding the controversial Sogiesc bill continue to hold back the proposed law from taking a step forward.
READ: Terrible misconceptions: Why we need the Sogie Equality Bill
During the House committee on women and gender equality hearing on Wednesday, Bataan Rep. Geraldine Roman–among the prime movers of the bill in the lower chamber–addressed concerns about what the Sogiesc bill is and what it is not.
Roman, who chairs the panel, reiterated that the objective of her bill “is to protect Filipinos, whether straight or of the LGBTQ+ experience, from discrimination.”
LGBTQ+ refers to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community.
The proposed measure, according to Roman, recognizes that every individual–not just the LGBTQ+ community–has Sogiesc.
The Commission on Human Rights previously said that the Sogiesc bill does not create or ascribe new rights, noting that it “merely demands recognition” that everyone is born free and equal in dignity and rights.
READ: CHR insists Sogie bill does not create, ascribe new rights
Religious speech, not a discriminatory act
Cesar Buendia of the Fellowship of the Redeemed and Disoriented People, a movie director who said he had previously been “sexually disoriented,” expressed fear over being penalized for producing mass media content that carries opinions which may be offensive to the LGBTQ+ community.
Asked to cite an example of such content, Buendia said this may include those that broach the idea that “being gay is not healthy.”
Roman clarified that “religious speech is not to be considered discriminatory, because we are fully cognizant of our constitutional right to freedom of religion, to believe in what you want to believe in and to express it.”
“You will not be prosecuted nor penalized for sharing your faith. But it’s different when you overstep that freedom and infringe on my constitutional rights to work, study, receive services from the government or to access commercial and public establishments,” she added.
Taking into consideration Buendia’s apprehension, Roman said they may add a caveat in the proposed measure that explicitly exempts religious speech or content from those that are subjected to penalty.
Sogie bill won’t legalize same-sex marriage
Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches national director Noel Pantoja had also parrotted opposing arguments that had been repeatedly raised in previous Sogiesc bill deliberations.
Among those he raised is the apprehension on the proposed law laying the foundation for the legalization of same-sex marriages.
“As an author and as a person, I’m telling you. This bill is not about same-sex marriage. I will draw the line,” Roman argued.
In Roman’s House Bill No. 222, which they used as reference in the hearing, denial of an application of a marriage license issued by the government due to the applicant’s Sogiesc is not deemed discriminatory.
“I wish you could read between the lines. The mere fact that we went out of our way to express that this would not include marriage licenses indicates that the intent of the bill is not to allow same-sex marriage,” Roman said.
She also cited the existing Family Code, which states that marriage can only be between man and woman.
“Marriage continues to be between man and woman, and the Sogiesc equality bill will not redefine it,” the lawmaker added.
‘No gender recognition law’
Pastor Stanley Flores of the Bible Values Movement similarly pointed out several sections of the Sogiesc bill which, he said, they found “discriminatory to the straight community.”
Among the sample cases he cited was that of University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas, who became the first transgender National Collegiate Athletic Association champion in Division I history.
READ: Success of US transgender woman swimmer sparks controversy
But Roman pointed out that there is no provision in the bill that allows gender recognition.
“It has to be very explicit. This bill does not enable you to change your legal gender markers. That would have to go through a judicial process and as of this moment, there is a Supreme Court ruling that states that there is no law that will allow you to change your legal, gender markers based on surgery or hormonal treatment. None. That’s not in the law.”
READ: SC clear on gender bender: Read court decisions
Flores also aired concerns about the sections of the bill which consider it discriminatory to reject an individual access to public services and use of public establishments, facilities, utilities or services based on their Sogiesc.
He said “there are Christians that would like to hold on to their religious rights.” According to him, this may result in their refusal to play a hand in events or activities involving the LGBTQ+ community.
Roman said she understands this concern when it comes to weddings of same-sex couples since it is tied to a religious belief.
She then expressed the committee’s commitment that it will “fiercely consider” Flores’ concerns, particularly on this matter.
“Usually, the problem is really in weddings. They don’t want any part in weddings–wedding cake, wedding gown. That we can work in,” she said.
TWG created
During the hearing, Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante proposed the creation of a technical working group to discuss and consolidate the eight Sogiesc bills filed in the House, which the panel had approved.
But Cibac Rep. Eddie Villanueva fumed over the decision, noting that he was in the restroom when the motion was filed and green-lighted.
“I cannot accept that we will just resort to the creation of a technical working group without a proper public hearing. Let’s give all these resource persons a chance. This is not a joke,” he said.
Roman, however, argued that forming a technical working group “does not mean our resource persons will not be heard.”
Villanueva later claimed that there was “no 100 percent free market of ideas in this hearing.”
Hearing this, Roman calmly called on the evangelist-turned-lawmaker to “refrain from accusing this committee and its members of suppressing, because we are all here and open to listen to your ideas.”
To recall, Villanueva disrupted the committee’s first hearing on the proposed law weeks ago as he deemed it illegal and accused it of forum shopping.
READ: Villanueva halts House hearing on Sogie bills; calls it ‘illegal’ due to forum shopping