Atty. Ma. Jiandra Bianca F.

Deslate’s article entitled ‘The SOGIE Equality Bill” discourses

the what-is-behind the aforementioned bill and the importance of its relevance in this
contemporary world. It also talks about the processes of how it was passed.
Geraldine Roman, Bataan’s 1st District Representative, emphasized that the bill is
indispensable. “It is the time to pass the Anti-Discrimination Bill on the Basis of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Identity” she said. The House Bill No. 4982 or “ An Act Prohibiting
Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity Expression (SOGIE) and
Providing Penalties Therefor” is intended to prevent various economic and public
accommodation-related acts of discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation,
gender identity or expression.
Despite of the supports from the lower house, the bill was still debated in the Senate by
some senators—Sotto, Pacquiao, Villanueva—who inflicted a conflict of interest as they argue it
by their personal and religious beliefs. Also, a faction of Christian groups, The Christian Coalition
for Righteousness, Justice, and Truth (CCRJT), reiterates that the SOGIE Bill violates one’s
freedom to express his or her religious beliefs which is embedded in the Constitution.
Villanueva further lamented that cases of discrimination exist not just against the LGBT
community but also against people from different religion or belief, social class, civil status, age,
and race. They argue that the bill actually perpetuates and does not prevent discrimination,
according to the article.

Sen. Joel Villanueva also supports the claim of many about the conflict of freedom to
express one’s religious beliefs. “We need an anti-discrimination law that will promote genuine
equality--a measure that is concrete and holistic. We will never allow the suppression of
people's rights to exercise their religious freedom or cultural beliefs,” Villanueva said. On the
other hand, his co-senator, Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel,
Stresses the importance of a law that will protect people from sexual and gender-based
discrimination, and inequality, and laments that it is long overdue, according to the article.
One of I have seen from the impassioned privilege speech in Congress of Rep. Geraldine
Roman was: her dedication to her fellow LGBTQ+ Community. Majority of youth and older
generations than Gen—Millennial, Baby Boomers and Gen Y—supports the bill as they have
family members who are been a huge influence of their decision. A result of the inevitable
awareness of this issue has become more sensitive. People who are against the said community
are labeled as “homophobic”. According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, it is having or showing
a dislike of or prejudice against gay people. Above this category sits the form of Homophobia.
According to Planned Parenthood, The homophobia definition is the fear, hatred, discomfort
with, or mistrust of people who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual. The truth is: it has now become a
cause of incidents resulting to conflicts of the two opposing parties, often lead to criminal
liability.
The arguments of the CCRJT also differs from other Religious groups. Pope Francis, the
head of the dominant Roman Catholic, also indicates support for same-sex civil unions.
Obviously speaking, if we take this literally, The Pope supports the community but his
statement does not reflect the majority of the stakeholders of the Roman Catholic. But later
that year, a ruling was issued by the Vatican’s doctrinal office, The Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, in response to questions from a number of dioceses as to whether
ministers were allowed to bless same-sex unions. LGBTQ+ community Catholics had been
disappointed as they had hoped that the church was becoming open and not conservative of
contemporary issues regarding the community. Some senators are also in the verge of ring as
their beliefs are in contrast. If Sen. Villanueva’s statement, “conflict of freedom to express one’s
religious belief” can it also be applied for the LGBTQ+ community as they are also stakeholders
under the constitution? There is clearly a paradox: people fight for their freedom to express
one’s religious belief while the other party argues that it is also important to hold their freedom
to express their gender and identity and religious belief that is contrary to what other’s belief.
The opposing party also argues that it discriminates people who are against those who do not
agree with the LGBTQ+ community. Does being a straight man or woman a default gender set
by the constitution or any existing laws? When has it become a default gender? In the day that
a person born? Expressing a feeling discrimination because of discrimination is demise and
paradox.