TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY

School of Law

Senate Bill No. 1271

An Act Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and
Gender Identity or Expression (SOGIE) and Providing Penalties Therefore

2019102173
JD 1-A
ABSTRACT

The Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE)

Equality bill is a piece of legislation which aims to protect members of the

LGBTQ+ community from different forms of discrimination enacted against

them. While it actually passed in the lower house of Congress in the previous

session it was blocked by certain senators in the upper house. These senators

were namely Manny Pacquiao, Joel Villanueva, and Senate President Vicente

“Tito” Sotto III.

Now, the Gretchen Diez incident has renewed calls for its passage. Diez,

a transgender woman, was barred from using the women’s public restroom in a

mall. The violent handling of her situation incited outrage from the public and

renewed discussions on the SOGIE bill. Senator Risa Hontiveros has already

declared her plans to bring it up in senate once again.

But what exactly does the SOGIE Bill entail? Simply put, they afford

protections on the basis of an individual’s sexual orientation and gender identity.

It seeks to disallow things such as including gender identity in the criteria for

hiring, promotions, and the like. Denying access to public service and imposing

harsher sanctions than customary due to a person’s SOGIE will also be

sanctioned.
INTRODUCTION

Coming out of the closet is probably one of the hardest things a lesbian,

gay, bisexual, or transgender has to do. Whether he or she can be accepted by

the family, by the church, or by the people he or she works with plays an

important part in shaping their lives. Years have passed, times have changed,

laws have been consequently filed and yet homophobia, transphobia, and

discrimination against the members of the LGBT community still remain to be

a global phenomenon. Such discrimination is underpinned by the idea that

heterosexuality is the only “normal” sexual orientation and that each sex plays a

specific role in life.

SOGIE Bill or Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression

Equality Bill is meant to fulfill the rights outlined in the 1987 constitution,

particularly the equal protection clause. In my point of view, the proposed bill is

quite good for it serves as a leap from our traditional ways and perspectives. In

line with this, I am in favor of turning SOGIE Bill into law. Since the primary

focus of the said bill is equality, they are part of our society as well. The

community of LGBTQIA++ does not seem to have a negative impact on the

rest of society much. Therefore, protection must also be implemented.

Given that the SOGIE Bill simply establishes these protections, why is it

so controversial?
BODY

One concern is that the bill is seen as conferring special treatment or

“special rights” to the LGBTQ+ community. Many question why the basic

provisions that uphold human dignity and facilitate protections for all are not

enough. CIBAC party-list Representative Brother Eddie Villanueva went so far

as to claim it would disadvantage other members of society.

“[The SOGIE Equality Bill] will not promote equality but will, instead,

unduly give ‘special’ rights to some members of our society at the expense of the

rights of the other members and to the detriment of the social order in our

community,” he stated.

However, it is important to remember that the discrimination which

members of the LGBTQ+ face are of a higher and more intense degree than

non-LGBTQ+ individuals. It is precisely because of this that additional

protections for them become essential. Just as the Magna Carta for Women exists

due to society’s acknowledgment that women have always been and continue to

be less privileged than men, so should the SOGIE bill.

Yes, the protections the bill affords may be considered ‘special’ but that

does not make them unfair. It is special because it is necessary. Non-LGBTQ+

members simply don’t face the same harassment, discrimination, and hate crimes

that the LGBTQ+ do for their identities.

Another contention from the people is that it impedes religious freedoms.

There is a fear that the speech of preachers, priests, and the like will be controlled

as the bill penalizes speech which is discriminatory against the LGBTQ+.

 Religious institutions need not worry as long as their beliefs and actions

are not discriminatory. A preacher should be able to express his views on

sexuality without making inflammatory remarks against a person’s SOGIE. It

would only be an issue if these sermons are aggressive enough to amount to hate

speech.

Religious freedom pertains to the ability of people to practice their faith

and beliefs but only to the extent that it does not impede on anyone else’s

freedoms. Meaning to say, religious freedom can be trumped if it is directly

harming the rights of any individual. Since discriminating against a person on the

basis of their SOGIE is not intrinsic to any religion, there is no real reason for it

to be justified.

Another argument raised against the SOGIE Bill is that it will violate the

right of religious schools to freely practice their faith. The right to exercise one’s

religion is indeed constitutionally guaranteed, but it is never absolute. It could be

limited when it denies others their rights. Sectarian and religious schools, other

than preparing their believers to become religious, like seminaries or convent

schools, must always be weighed against public interest. If the role of the school

is to prepare believers to take up their faith, then it may assert its rights against

any move to undermine the free exercise of such. But if the school is run as a

public entity offering educational services and taking advantage of its tax-exempt

status, then it cannot assert full and absolute rights. It is subjected to full state

regulation by the Department of Education or the Commission on Higher

Education. Thus, while those who follow the faith of its owners will be granted

the benefit of fully exercising their faith, it must accord academic freedom to its
faculty and staff and must respect the rights of its students who are not followers

of the religion of its owners as provided by prevailing laws.

Certainly, a lot of criticisms are based on unfounded fear without fully

understanding. But the advance of anti-discrimination initiatives across history

has always required that those who are not discriminated against give up some

of their comforts and privileges, as long as their legitimate rights are not

diminished.

The SOGIE Equality Bill, however, does not protect equality before the

law, but undermines freedom by creating special privileges based on sexual

orientation and gender identity or expression. The bill is intended to prevent

unjust discrimination by imposing legal sanctions against those who engage in it,

yet Chapter 2 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides sanctions against the

same behaviors which the Section for Discriminatory Practices of the proposed

law seeks to eliminate. Chapter 2 of the Civil Code of the Philippines does so

for all victims of such behaviors by authorizing civil actions for damages,

including moral damages, and even allowing for exemplary damages. On the

other hand, the SOGIE Equality Bill sanctions the same behaviors with the same

redress, but also imposes severe criminal penalties, including hefty fines and

jail. However, it applies these criminal penalties only to persons victimized on

the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

Section 9a of S.B. Nos. 159 and 689 & Section 8 of S.B. No. 412 even

mandate the inclusion of SOGIE concerns in all police stations, without

providing any justification. As a result, special status is afforded to some persons

seeking redress for harm suffered, while it is denied to others, such as those

victimized because of disability, appearance, economic condition, language,

religion, etc. This creation of two types of victims is invidious, and history

indicates that it is dangerous to public order.

In addition, the proposed law is unwise and cannot be implemented

fairly. Rather than eliminating unfair discrimination, it will create additional

instances because it encompasses concepts that are not suitable for legislating.

Under the Section for Definition of Terms in all versions of the bill, Gender

Identity is defined as “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.” Meanwhile, Gender Expression

is defined as “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.” Both

concepts—Gender Identity and Gender Expression—are highly subjective. Giving

lawful preference to the subjective self-expression of one, irrespective of his or

her sex is against the objective truth of basic biology known to the rest of the

world. This, in itself, is an act of discrimination.

Also, the bill is based on the premise that a biological male can become a

female and vice versa, for as long as they “self-identify” as one. Citing S.B. No.

159 Section 5f, proponents of the bill insist that a “transgender woman” (a

biological male who self-identifies as female) should be allowed to use the female

public restroom, since he self-identifies as a woman. S.B. No. 159 author Senator
Risa Hontiveros even went so far as to say that transwomen are real women. But

science says otherwise. The scientific fact of the matter is that in humans,

biological sex is determined by five factors present at birth: (1) The type of sex

chromosomes. A person who has XX sex chromosomes is female, while one

who has XY chromosomes is male. Chromosomal anomalies do occur, but they

are extremely rare and make up only 0.1% of the population; (2) The type of

gonads. Women have ovaries while men have testes; (3) The sex hormone levels.

Although we all have estrogen and androgen in our bodies, women have much

higher levels of estrogen, while men have much higher levels of androgen; (4)

The internal reproductive anatomy, such as the fallopian tubes and uterus in

females, and the epididymis and vas deferens in males; and (5) the external

genitalia. These objective traits should be the basis for determining whether a

person is male or female. When it comes to legislation, facts must take

precedence over feelings.

RESULTS

Once society has accepted (or has been forced to accept through

legislation) the unscientific claim that transwomen (biological males who self-

identify as women) are real women, female-identifying biological males will be

allowed to freely enter female-only restrooms, locker rooms, and dormitories,

thereby violating women’s privacy and putting their safety at risk. Single-sex

institutions (like all girls/all boys schools) and organizations (like the Boy Scouts

and Girl Scouts) will be forced to accept opposite-sex applicants who identify as

the gender of the institution’s/organization’s population. Apart from these,

female-identifying biological males will also be able to compete in various

women’s contests, including women’s division in sports. This is grossly unfair

because men are generally physically stronger than women. Females typically

have 30-40% of muscle strength of the upper body of males and 50-60% of the

lower body strength. It is no wonder MMA female fighter Tamikka Brents

suffered a concussion and a broken skull after fighting with male-to-female

transgender Fallon Fox in 2014.[3] It is also no wonder male-to-female

transgender Mary Gregory won nine out of nine events in the women’s division

of a world weightlifting competition on April 27 this year, though he was later

stripped of his controversial records due to the weightlifting organization’s ruling

that Gregory was “actually a male in the process of becoming a Transgender

female”. Ignoring the obvious biological differences between men and women

leads to women being judged against a male standard. This is real inequality.

Moreover, enacting a SOGIE law will create an open opportunity for men

who do not actually self-identify as women to claim that they do, in order to have
access to women and/or girls in vulnerable circumstances, such as public

restrooms and locker rooms, in order to view or photograph them, or engage in

sexual assault. This has already occurred in the US, UK and Canada, and perhaps

in other countries that have adopted SOGIE legislation.

What then is our reality without the SOGIE bill? It is incidents like

transgender individuals being violently treated for going into the “wrong”

bathroom. It is LGBTQ+ individuals being denied employment because of who

they are. It is barring members of the LGBTQ+ from dining in a restaurant or

buying a product. It is unactionable discrimination that they will have to put up

with for the rest of their lives.

 Tarlac State University

School of Law

Senate Bill No. 1271

An Act Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and

Gender Identity or Expression (SOGIE) and Providing Penalties Therefor

2019102175

JD 1-A

October 17, 2019

 ABSTRACT

The Philippines seemed to have been disturbed as news that a member of

the LGBTQ community was prohibited from entering a woman’s comfort room.

Many questions, from simple to debatable, rose such as: “Who is that?” Why was

she not allowed?” “Is it a he or a she?” to “Should a transgender woman be

allowed to enter a woman’s comfort room?” “Should members of the LGBTQ

community be discriminated in the use of public comfort rooms?”

Opinions about the incidents flooded social media, then on the local news,

here comes the SOGIE Bill. The perceived hero of the century, especially for the

LGBTQ Community.

Equality. Non-Discrimination. Fairness. Rights. LGBTQ. These has been

the common words that one may encounter, be it read or heard, on the different

media platforms. Opinions for, and against the bill, of different people staging

their own uproars, proliferated quickly.

Amidst the battling sides, how do we, in this day and age, deal with this

situation at hand? Is there really a need for the SOGIE Bill? Will it help solve

societal problems concerning the LGBTQ Community?

 INTRODUCTION

USAid, a non-government organization settled here in the Philippines

came up with a journal entitled “BEING LGBT IN ASIA: THE PHILIPPINES

COUNTRY REPORT - A Participatory Review and Analysis of the Legal and

Social Environment for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)

Persons and Civil Society”

The said journal contains the status of LGBT Persons in the Philippines,

how they are perceived, welcomed, treated, by this predominantly Catholic

County.

In it says that “In reviewing the history of LGBT advocacy in the

Philippines, reference was made to the early existence of transvestism and

crossing gender in the 16th and 17th century with the babaylan…” Looking from

this, it is believed that the roots of the LGBT community is part and parcel of

the rich history of the Filipino people.

From that beginning, the gay culture grew and then adopted the Western

notion of “gay.” Afterwards, “various LGBTQ+ organizations had begun

budding in the country. For instance, the University of the Philippines' Babaylan

claimed itself to be the country's oldest LGBTQ+ student organization in 1992.”

(Abad, 2019)

The country then witnessed the first ever Gay Pride March on June 26,

1994, known as the first Pride March in the Philippines and in Asia organized by

the Metropolitan Community Church (Abad, 2019). However, despite the rally

of the members of the LGBT community, there still remains the problem on

their recognition and equality.

 Quoting USAid’s journal, “It was noted that challenges for the LGBT

movement include the lack of an umbrella organization, lack of understanding

within the LGBT community about SOGI concepts, and a lack of unity due in

part because of class differences.” Meaning that within themselves, there is this

parity which breaks the members apart, making them internally weak.

In addition to that, “In reviewing LGBT rights in the Philippines, it was

noted that the Philippines is signatory to many relevant international covenants

promoting human rights, though LGBT rights are not always supported by the

state. Same-sex activity is not criminalized and sexual orientation is mentioned

in various laws. The most important issue in terms of law is considered the lack

of an anti-discrimination bill.” (Being LGBT in Asia, 2014)

And so, the most awaited anti-discriminatory bill of the LGBT now,

LBTQIA+ Community is happening. The SOGIE bill, representing the woes

and cries of the LGBTQIA+ Community is coming strong. Though, an open

debate arouse alongside its presentation at Congress, the SOGIE Bill is stands

firm and is fighting hard to be recognized.

One article from Rappler is entitled “Tolerated but not accepted: Filipino

LGBTQ+ speaks up vs discrimination” basing it from here, is the Philippines

ready to embrace the SOGIE bill? Is the Philippines ready to accept the Filipino

LGBTQ+ Community?
 BODY

Senate Bill No. 1271 entitled as “An Act Prohibiting Discrimination on

the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity or Expression (SOGIE) and

Providing Penalties Therefor” states in its Sec. 2, that:

“SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State recognizes the fundamental

right of every person, regardless of sex, age, class, status, ethnicity, color,

disability, religious and political beliefs, sexual orientation or gender identity, to

be free from any form of discrimination. It shall therefore intensify its efforts to

fulfill its duties under international and domestic laws to respect, protect and

fulfill the rights and dignity of every individual.

Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address all forms of

discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity

and to promote human dignity as enshrined in the United Nations Universal

Declaration on Human Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms

of Discrimination Against Women, particularly the General Recommendation

No. 28 on Nondiscrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity,

Convention on the Rights of the Child, International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

and all other relevant and universally accepted human rights instruments and

other international conventions to which the Philippines is a signatory.”

Based on the Sec. 2 of Senate Bill 1271, the State’s protection for its people

covers not only those men and women, but those who belongs to another sexual

orientation or those to have another gender identity—those in the LGBTQ+

community, as recognized by various International Laws wherein the Philippines

is a signatory.
 What does this bill fight for? It fights against Discrimination. It fights for

the respect, protection and fulfilment of the rights and dignity of every individual.

How difficult could that be?

Discrimination, as defined in the bill, “refers to any distinction, exclusion,

restriction, or preference based on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, gender

identity or expression, hereinafter referred to as “SOGIE”, and has the purpose

or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, access to, enjoyment, or

exercise by all persons on an equal footing of all rights and freedoms. For

purposes of this provision, the actual sex, sexual orientation or gender identity

of the person subjected to discrimination shall not be relevant for the purpose

of determining whether an act of discrimination has been committed.” To simply

put it, discrimination is not accepting, not recognizing, and not giving the rightful

privilege another person has.

This is no secret in this present society. USAid reports that “In educational

institutions, it was found that LGBT people are subject to discrimination,

bullying and abuse under the guise of “academic freedom” which allows

educational institutions to create their own policies. LGBT issues are not

included in curricula. However, the Department of Education in 2012 issued an

order to protect children from violence, abuse and exploitation regardless of

sexual orientation and gender identity. Positive case studies included pride events

on campuses and the election of LGBT individuals to student councils.

Regarding health, HIV is the primary challenge that confronts gay men,

other MSM, and transgender women. The national HIV response is developed

although there are challenges such as a lack of resources, overemphasis on

testing, and problems with access to HIV testing. Transgender people lack
information on hormone replacement therapy. While the national psychology

association has publicly expressed support for LGBT persons, there is the need

to address the psychosocial health needs of LGBT Filipinos including through

supportive service providers.

LGBT individuals face challenges in employment both on an individual

level 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. Examples of discrimination were given in both the recruitment of

employees and during regular employment. It was noted that employers

sometimes take advantage of LGBT employees. Sexual harassment of LGBT

employees was reported. A concern was expressed about potential discrimination

in the workplace based on HIV status. Employment is an area identified where

LGBT organizations and parts of the community (such as overseas workers and

sex workers) are not playing an active role. Case studies in this area included

appealing to progressive global corporate practices to advance local policies for

LGBT employees, and testing anti-discrimination ordinances in relation to

employment issues.

Discussions of family affairs at the Dialogue relate to both LGBT persons

as family members and LGBT persons with family (including partnerships and

children). Examples were given of the need to protect LGBT youth from

discrimination and abuse, and for different Philippines institutions to be SOGI-

sensitive in order to support LGBT family members. In the Philippines, LGBT

persons do not have the right to marry someone of the same sex.

Adoption is allowed by a single LGBT person but not by two people who

identify as a domestic couple. Participants at the Dialogue identified anti-

discrimination legislation as a higher priority than advocacy for same-sex

marriage.

The realm of religion for LGBT people in the Philippines was discussed

above, noting the strong influence of the Roman Catholic Church, which can

contribute to discrimination. At the same time, Dialogue participants are

heartened by the growing number of LGBT-led churches. A case study described

the gathering of faith-based organizations in June 2013 on HIV and stigma and

discrimination.

Mainstream media is criticized in the way that it stereotypes gay men and

limits representation of lesbians and transgender people; demonstrates

transphobia and homophobia; and sensationalizes coverage of LGBT-related

events. Dialogue participants see LGBT-run media as important and that

Internet media has the strong potential to promote LGBT rights. They see a lack

of a unified voice and priorities as problematic in promoting LGBT rights in the

media. Case studies showed the Internet used as effective media for promoting

HIV testing, the success of Outrage magazine, a comic book series that

highlighted lesbophobia and discrimination, and an LGBT radio show.” ((Being

LGBT in Asia, 2014)

Only in the Philippines? Feels like it. When the world has openly

recognized the LGBTQ+ Community, the Filipinos were at the far end of the

strata. As what was confessed by a member of the said community, the Filipinos

tolerated it, but not accepted it. With the situations given above, it leads us to

question, why is it difficult for the Filipinos to embrace their brothers and sisters

in the LGBTQ+ Community?

 One answer dominates in the opinions and dialogues, it is because the

Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country.

However, taken from a news article is this: “A Catholic nun on Wednesday

defended a proposed bill seeking to protect individuals from gender-based

discrimination, saying it does not give “special rights” to a certain group in

society.” (Placido, 2019)

To quote Sister Mary John Mananzan: ““I don’t see that this bill is giving

any special right to this group. They are just saying that the rights of everybody

should also be applied to them, as a religious woman I believe in the respect,

compassion, and reverence for all persons because I believe they were all made

in the image and likeness of God.”

If one person can see the true message that this bill is crying out, why can’t

others do it? Is this not what God wanted? To have peace and to live accordingly

with love, respect, and compassion for all his creations?”

It may seem that the view of the Catholic faith remained that of the

orthodox, strict, rule while today, even Pope Francis recognizes these people and

embraces them into the church, giving them uncoditional positive regard. Now

may be the time to open the closed minds and hearts that we have.
 CONCLUSION

Numerous proposals have been made since the 90s without success.

Proposed bills in 2013 relate to establishing an LGBT desk in police stations and

to allowing same-sex couples to jointly own property. In the absence of national

legislation, anti-discrimination ordinances at the level of local government units

and cities have been recently passed. Transgender people are not allowed to

legally change their identity, first name and sex (intersex people are allowed to

do this).

At the level of policy, there are both pro and anti-LGBT policies in various

offices, institutions and private establishments. Positive policies include

ordinances against discrimination and gender-based violence and code of ethics

that promote the respect of diversity and promoting LGBT wellbeing. Negative

policy relates to the discharge from the military on the basis of sexual orientation

and barring entry to nightclubs for cross-dressers.

Cultural and social attitudes towards LGBT people are complex, with

signs of acceptance, particularly among the young, but questions of whether that

acceptance is based on LGBT Filipinos conforming to stereotypes and

occupational niches. At the same time, LGBT Filipinos are still being murdered

with 28 LGBT-related killings in the first half of 2011. There is some LGBT

representation on television and other electronic media.

Religion plays a major role in the lives of Filipinos with the strong

influence of the Roman Catholic Church. This affects LGBT people, though a

survey suggests Filipinos are generally accepting of LGBT people, even while the

church opposes anti-discrimination policies and sometimes seeks to influence

public policy in a negative way.

 It is time to make a change. It is time to stand for what is right, to serve

to the people the priveleged rights they deserve to have. It is time to embrace

the changes happening in this modern day society, accepting and not judging,

helping and not pushing away the new men and women of today.

The LGBTQ+ community is made up of different people, nevertheless,

they are all people. We are all alike—built in the image and likeness of God.
2019102175

JD 1-A

The School of Law’s International Lecture Series

Katarungang Pambaranggay and Divorce

When I entered law school, many of my friends, and co-workers, even

relatives, often come to me and ask about legal matters. Some of which covers

issues on separation, annulment, trespassing, fraud, theft, etc. and honestly, I am

quite apprehensive to answer because I am only a freshman. Then, the series of

International Lectures happened.

The first lecture was about Katarungang Pambaranggay which was

energetically introduced and explained by Hon. Hermin Arceo, the translator of

the Local Government Code into Filipino. A son of Bulakan, Judge Arceo spoke

in fluent Tagalog, and in spite his age, he kept the audience awake and attentive

because of his happy disposition. He lectured how the Baranggay, as a small state

comprising of its own people, territory, and government, handles problems and

settles disputes. He noted that the Baranggay forms two groups, first is the

Lupon ng Tagapamayapa or the Peace-Making Council and the other one is the

Lupon ng Tagapagkasundo or the Conciliation Panel.

The Lupon ng Tagapamayapa is composed of 10 to 20 members, all

residents of the baranggay, and who are chosen because of intelligence, good

moral standing, and independence of mind. The Lupon hears the problems, talks

to the parties, and pacifies them in order to have a sound and open

communication. If such actions failed, and the parties are still in dispute, the
Lupon ng Tagapagkasundo is formed. The Lupon ng Tagapagkasundo is made

up of only three members, all coming from the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa.

Moreover, the honorable judge stressed that all disputes may be brought

before the Baranggay except when: 1) one party is a public officer or employee,

2) one party is the government or instrumentality; or 3)offenses punishable by

imprisonment exceeding 1 year or a fine exceeding five thousand pesos.

Other concerns about Katarungang Pambaranggay were also discussed in

the open forum conducted after the lecture. Hon. Hermin Arceo gladly answered

the queries of the law students, and was able to enlighten the audience of the

importance of the Katarungang Pambaranggay.

The next lecture was about Divorce and was presented by Atty. Lina Fe

Manio, a California-based lawyer. She presented the California Divorce process

and explained how it is obtained and how it is different from a nullification.

Divorce, as she explained, is a legal termination of a marriage by a court

in a legal proceeding. It is important to note that what had transpired was a valid

marriage in the first place, before the Divorce can be applied. She further said

that a Divorce has two kinds, one is At-Fault Divorce and the other is No-Fault

Divorce. No-Fault Divorce is easily obtained, as this is where neither party is

required to prove fault, and one party must allege and testify only that either

irretrievable breakdown of the marriage or irreconcilable differences between the

parties make termination of the marriage appropriate.

Atty. Manio said that though divorce may seem easy to apply, many still

think twice before filing because divorce tends to be expensive. She pointed out

that support to the other spouse shall still pursue, the amount depending on the

assets of the other, and as the assets grew or deplete, so is the support. With this,
even though there had been a final judgement, it can still be modifiable, again

depending on the situation that may arise, unlike that of nullity wherein once

final judgement is served, it is final and irrevocable.

Divorce is governed by the State Law and only residents of the State may

file for it. So in the case when a Filipino spouse working in California wants to

divorce his Filipino spouse in the Philippines, he may file the divorce in

Californima. The divorce then will be recognized in the Philippines. Further

possible issues about divorce was raised by Judge Arceo himself, in lieu of the

possible approval of the Divorce Bill in the Philippines

The two lectures were timely and educating for me as a first year law

student. I am now aware of the process of Katarungang Pambaranggay and may

somehow confidently advise those who ask the process of settling disputes. Also,

the lecture made me aware that the law seeks justice and harmony even in the

smallest communities, and that the baranggay should not be taken for granted.

Further, with the pending divorce bill in the Philippines, I have

understood why there are people who rallies for this. However, I am still not in

favor of divorce, and still am in favor of preserving the marriage. When problems

between spouses occur, they always have the option of legal separation or

annulment, and not divorce which seems to be the easy way out.

As filipinos who value family, and who grew up within the baranggay, the

lecture series had directed us to what we should value the most, and those are

family and justice.

2019102175

JD 1-A

STATCON

Dura lex sed lex. The law may be harsh, but it is the law.

Yes, I may have wanted to become a lawyer ever since I was young, but

when I heard this Latin maxim from one of my classes in Law School, I thought:

“I just don’t want this, I need this.” Hence, this law school journey.

I enrolled in law school bearing in mind that I am here to fulfill my

childhood dream.

I thought that maybe this is the mission I ought to do, the mission I have been

delaying in years. I was encouraged even more, when I sat down for the

Freshmen Application Interview. I was glad to know that somebody, outside of

my network or the people I know, was looking forward to see how I’d perform

in law school. I became much more eager then. I became much more excited.
 August 6, 2019 was the official first day of this journey. It was the TSU

School of Law Freshmen Orientation and General Assembly, and that day too,

was my 30th birthday. I thought of it as a sign that I will eventually succeed in law

school because back in 2005, I took up the UPCAT on the same date. I

successfully passed, and finished my undergraduate course in my dream

university, and so I claim, and I pray, that the same fate shall happen again.

I was still in euphoria when I heard a bang on the table, and then I saw

the words Dura lex sed lex written on the board. I was in our Statutory

Construction class, and our professor was Atty. Daniel Laynes who was

introduced to us, during the orientation, as a Captain in the military. The

euphoria was replaced with anxiety. He seemed strict, and tough, and I didn’t

know what that maxim meant. My heart was really pounding. I know I was

nervous.

“The law is harsh, but it is the law,” said one of my classmates, but the

professor said that it was wrong. What the maxim meant was “the law may be

harsh, but it is the law.” I can’t voice out a word because as I have said, I was

nervous. And so, questions just stayed floated in my mind: “What is the

difference of that?” “It was just a change in the verb so how does it affect the

meaning of it?” “I am a Creative Writing teacher why can’t I comprehend this?”

I was confused.

The stress in the words “may be” was made, and the professor explained

that there are circumstances when the law may not result into something “good”
but we cannot do anything about it, because it is already the law. I then

understood the importance of construction. The importance of interpretation.

The importance of every word written in our Constitution, in our laws. I realized

the importance of these words into the lives of the people who has faith in our

judicial system.

To those who do not know, or to those who are underprivileged, they may

not be able to fully understand the meaning of the law, and some people may

mislead them into doing things, bad things even, because they will not know

whether what was told to them was right or wrong. They wouldn’t know if that

was the proper interpretation of the law, and some people might use the law

against them or to scare them. These realizations woke me up.

I realized that although I know I can comprehend the English language

well, I need to exert more effort to not only fully understand, but to make the

right interpretations of the laws as well. This career means much more to me

now than just a dream. It has now become a duty.

As idealistic as it may seem, I want to bring justice to those who feel like

it is impossible, or that justice is out of their reach, or to those who even think

that justice is too expensive for them to afford. I want to be a lawyer for the

mass, for the marginalized, for the indigenous ones. I want to be the lawyer who

will make them understand how justice is served, and I believe I can only do that

if I can make them understand the laws that we have, the laws that they should

follow, incorporated into are the rights that they should fight for.
 Statutory Construction will be my key to doing this. I believe this subject

will open my mind to understanding words, not only through context clues, but

to literally know it and how it was applied in our laws. As to the words of Atty.

Laynes: “Statutory Construction is very important,” and now I agree with that.

As weeks passed by, my nervousness was replaced with eagerness. I now

look forward to every meeting, and to every learning opportunity that this

subject has to offer. I know I can survive law school if I’d get things right at

StatCon. I know I will be a lawyer, and one of my strongest pillars will be

StatCon.
2019102175

JD 1-A

Republic Act No. 4200

In this day and age, when cellphones and the internet—specifically the

social media—have earned their name in the centennial spotlight, do we still have

the exercise of the right to privacy? Or should I say, are we still conscious of our

right to privacy?

Technically almost everything is at our fingertips—our way of life became

easier and everything seemed to be at reach. We need this, and we need that, and

with little taps, either we instantly have it on our hands, we know where to find

it, or we have already ordered it. The acquisition process has been as easy as

counting 1, 2, 3 and singing the A, B, C.

Everything—literally everything, can be acquired that fast. Everything,

including, our personal data, our personal files, and our personal lives. We are

amazed and overwhelmed on how these came to happen, but unconsciously, we

are being robbed of something we earned the right to have. We are being robbed

of our right to privacy.

 As quoted by Senator Panfilo Lacson in his speech—in the case of Morfe

vs Mutuc,

“The constitutional right to privacy has come into its own. xxx The

right to privacy as such is accorded recognition independently of its

identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully deserving of constitutional

protection.”

If we are being protected by our constitution as to the safeguarding of our rights,

we shall all be cautious and aware of what we have been doing, what we have

been missing out, of what we should have been doing, especially as law students.

Let us look at Social Media. Posts proliferated from simple one liner

statuses, to paragraphs, to pictures, to videos, to songs, and to movies. Well, it

might be okay if we post our own things, our own songs, our own videos, our

own pictures, those that we own, those that personally belong to us, those that

we are ready to share to the rest of the world. But what is happening is that, we

do not only share what we have, we even share those that aren’t ours.

We’ve heard people who are victims of these shared unauthorized

circulations, which have been the talk of the town, with false messages or stories

attached to their pictures or videos, or recordings. These people have been

shamed and bashed, and it seemed like we don’t even care. That despite the

warnings, despite the reminders, we still do not care.

 Also it is very much easy to complain and rant as much as it is that easy

to advertise and collect hearts and likes. The problem is that, when people hate

something, or someone, taking videos of them, recording what their saying, or

what they have been talking about is as easy as sharing what you have for lunch

or where you at ATM (at the moment).

We must be aware of Republic Act 4200 also known as “An Act to

Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of the Privacy

of Communication, and for Other Purposes.” It is stated in Section 1 of RA 4200

that;

“It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the

parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or

cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,

intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a

device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or

walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described:

It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not

in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly

possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record,

or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either

before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by

this law; or to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to
 communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to

furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other

person: Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as

evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned

in section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.”

This act, though still being lobbied by Senator Lacson to be expanded,

should make each one of us aware, that we should be cautious of what we post,

what we record, what we video, and think twice before we share it, especially via

social media.

We must be responsible enough, as law students, to know this law so that

we may share it with other people, especially to the young ones, and make them

realize that if we can get things in a snap of a finger from our phones, or the

internet, or the social media, we can be robbed too, or abused, or exploited even,

with also just a snap of a finger.

We must be wise. We must be careful. We must keep ourselves secure.

my dear pat, the dinner we shared the other night -- it was

absolutely lovely not in my wildest dreams could i ever imagine

anyone as perfect as you are could you -- if only for a moment -

- think of our being together forever what a cruel joke to have

you come into my life only to leave again it would be heaven

denied the possibility of seeing you again makes me giddy with

joy i face the time we are apart with great sadness john p.s.: i

would like to tell you that i love you i can't stop thinking that you

are one of the prettiest women on earth

pat, the dinner we shared the other night -- it was absolutely

lovely not in my wildest dreams could i ever imagine anyone as

perfect as you are could you -- if only for a moment -- think of

our being together forever what a cruel joke to have you come

into my life only to leave again it would be heaven denied the

possibility of seeing you again makes me giddy with joy i face

the time we are apart with great sadness john p.s.: i would like

to tell you that i love you i can't stop thinking that you are one of

the prettiest women on earth

pat, the dinner we shared the other night -- it was absolutely

lovely not in my wildest dreams could i ever imagine anyone as

perfect as you are could you -- if only for a moment -- think of

our being together forever what a cruel joke to have you come

into my life only to leave again it would be heaven denied the

possibility of seeing you again makes me giddy with joy i face

the time we are apart with great sadness john p.s.: i would like

to tell you that i love you i can't stop thinking that you are one of

the prettiest women on earth

pat, the dinner we shared the other night -- it was absolutely

lovely not in my wildest dreams could i ever imagine anyone as

perfect as you are could you -- if only for a moment -- think of

our being together forever what a cruel joke to have you come

into my life only to leave again it would be heaven denied the

possibility of seeing you again makes me giddy with joy i face

the time we are apart with great sadness john p.s.: i would like
to tell you that i love you i can't stop thinking that you are one of

the prettiest women on earth

My Dear Pat,

The dinner we shared the other

night -- it was absolutely lovely! Not

in my wildest dreams could I ever

imagine anyone as perfect as you

are. Could you -- if only for a

moment - think of our being

together forever? What a cruel joke

to have you come into my life only

to leave again; it would be heaven

denied. The possibility of seeing

you again makes me giddy with

joy. I face the time we are apart

with great sadness.

John

P.S.: I would like to tell you that I

love you. I can't stop thinking that

you are one of the prettiest women

on earth.