Sex

• Civil status of a person acquired by birth having a system of reproduction corresponding

to that belonging to either male, female or intersex
• Biological differentiation between male and female
Gender
• A social construct used to categorize a man, woman, or other identity which is usually
based on one’s assigned sex at birth
• Determined by the conception of tasks, functions and roles attributed to women and
men in society and in public and private life.
Sexual Orientation
• Direction of emotional, sexual attraction, or conduct towards:
1. Homosexual - people of the same gender;
2. Bisexual – people of more than one gender;
3. heterosexual – people of different gender;
4. asexual attraction – absence of sexual attraction.
Gender Identity
• Reflects a deeply felt and experience sense of one’s own gender; not determined by
assigned sex
• A person’s innermost concept of one’s self as a man, woman, or another non-binary
identity which may or may not correspond with their sex or gender assigned at birth
1. Transgender/ trans – is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or
expression is different from those typically associated with the sex assigned to them at
birth.
2. Queer
o an umbrella term for gender identities other than man and woman;
o being both man and woman, neither man or woman, or as falling outside these
categories
o refers to those who transgress and challenge the socially-constructed gender
binary.
3. Gender Transitioning – the process some transgender people go through in order to
be and live as the gender with which they identify, rather that the gender that
corresponds with the sex assigned to them at birth.
4. Cisgender - relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender
corresponds with their birth sex.
5. Trans woman - is a woman who was assigned male at birth.
6. Trans man - a man who was assigned female at birth
7. Transsexual - relating to, or being a person whose gender identity is opposite the sex
the person had or was identified as having at birth
Gender Expression
• refers to the external manifestation of a person’s gender identity
• may or may not conform to socially-defined behaviors and characteristics typically
associated with being either as masculine or feminine.
• Refers to the way a person communicates gender identity to others through behavior,
clothing, hairstyles, communication or speech pattern, or body characteristics, among
others.
1. Masculine - manly
2. Feminine - effeminate
3. Gender Non-conforming - not adhering to society's gender norms. People may
describe themselves as gender nonconforming if they don't conform to the gender
expression, presentation, behaviors, roles, or expectations that society sees as the norm
for their gender.
4. Androgynous - partly male and partly female in appearance; of indeterminate sex.
Sex Characteristics
• Intersex
• Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia

Gender Fair Languange

I. Eliminate language, written and spoken, that excludes or renders invisible persons of another
gender and/or people with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sex
characteristics (SOGIESC)

1. The use of generic masculine (man, mankind) to subsume all of humanity

• Use gender-neutral mass nouns such as people, person, human, humankind
• Include women in a general statement about the human condition
2. The unwarranted use of masculine pronouns
* Stop using singular masculine pronouns unless antecedent is unequivocally male.
• Using plural nouns to avoid third person singular pronouns
o Lawyers shall avoid testifying in behalf of their clients
o Their homes, instead of “his home”
• Use articles (a, an, the) as substitute for pronouns
The appellee may file his memorandum
The appellee may file a memorandum.
3. The use oof masculine terms for professions, occupations and roles
*Stop using terms ending in “-man” to refer to functions that may be performed by individuals
of either sex
• Use widely-used gender neutral forms of professions:
o Business owners, layperson, chairperson
• Use gender-neutral terms that the law employs:
o Punong Barangay, Members of House of Rep, Kasambahay
4. The use of sex-appropriated terms
* Stop using as though they apply to adult males only, or are appropriated to a particular sex
• Use “spouses” for wives, “family” for “wife and child”
o Such judge or his or her spouse or child is…..

II. Eliminate language that trivializes or diminishes the stature of persons of another gender
and/or people with diverse SOGIESC

1. The use of diminutive feminine suffixes

* Stop the use of feminine suffixes “-ess, -ette, -trix, or -enne” which make unnecessary
reference to the person’s sex and suggest triviality, unimportance, or inferiority of women
occupying such position.
• Use gender-neutral terms
o Actor instead of starlet; executor instead of executrix; usher instead of usherette.
2. The use of sex-linked modifiers
* Stop using gratuitous and patronizing sex-linked adjectives and modifiers
• Use gender neutral-forms of occupations and/or common nouns
o Physician instead of lady doctor; lawyer instead of lady lawyer; secretary instead
of male secretary.
3. The use of gender-linked modifiers that carry disrespectful, if not pejorative, connotations
• Remove reference to gender identity and/expression when irrelevant
o Use entertainer instead of gay entertainer; lover instead of gay/lesbian lover;

4. The use of outdated honorifics and forms of address which obscure women and trivialize
their achievements.
• Use Ms. Instead of Mrs. When the woman’s marital status is irrelevant; or if the woman’s
preferred form of address is unknown.
• Use a married woman’s name instead of her husband’s
• Use gender-neutral honorifics or terms;
o Dear Editor, Manager, Colleague instead of Dear Sir; Dr. Fronda instead of Dra.

III. Eliminate language which disparages and marginalizes persons of another gender and/or
persons of diverse SOGIESC

1. The use of disparaging language

* Stop perpetuating unfounded generalization
 • Weaker sex; natural timidity of the woman;
*Stop the use of antiquated terms
• Use non-oppressive, modern terms
o Use unmarried instead of spinster
o Sales employee instead of salesgirl
3. Gender stereotypes
*Stop using terms with sexist assumptions that the occupant has a particular sex or are
demonstrable only by a certain sex
• Use in the spirit of fair play instead of sportsmanship
• Police officer instead of policeman
• Flight attendant instead of stewardess
• Gentleman’s agreement

IV. Eliminate language that fosters unequal gender relations

1. The use of words or phrases which lack parallelism
• Husband and wife instead of man and wife
• Young men and women instead of young men and girls
2. Calling attention to a person’s sex
• Deliverer instead of Employed as a delivery boy
• Parenthood instead of motherhood
• Chastity and virtues instead of womanly virtues

V. Eliminate sexist language in quoted material

• Start paraphrasing the quote using non-sexist language
• Adding “sic” in a direct quotation
• Partially quoting the material and rephrasing the sexist part put [ ]

1. Distracting, pointless and gratuitous language which perpetuate stereotypes and double-
meanings.

ANG LADLAD

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
• Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society,
and this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably received but also to those
that offend, shock, or disturb.
• Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society,
and this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably received but also to those
that offend, shock, or disturb. Any restriction imposed in this sphere must be proportionate
to the legitimate aim pursued.
• This position gains even more force if one considers that homosexual conduct is not illegal
in this country. It follows that both expressions concerning one’s homosexuality and the
activity of forming a political association that supports LGBT individuals are protected as
well.
EQUAL PROTECTION
• The equal protection clause guarantees that no person or class of persons shall be
deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes
in the same place and in like circumstances.
• From the standpoint of the political process, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
have the same interest in participating in the party-list system on the same basis as other
political parties similarly situated. State intrusion in this case is equally burdensome. Hence,
laws of general application should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to
participate in the party-list system on the same basis as other marginalized and under-
represented sectors.

Article 26 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, as follows:

• All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the
equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and
 guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any
ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national
or social origin, property, birth or other status.

CONCURRING OPINION OF JUSTICE PUNO

• COMELEC’S denial of ang Ladlad’s petition for registration as a sectoral party because
Ang Ladlad tolerates immorality which offends religious (i.e., Christian and Muslim)
beliefs, violates non-establishment clause of the Constitution
• the assailed resolutions of the COMELEC are violative of the constitutional directive that
no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.7 Ang Ladlad’s
right of political participation was unduly infringed when the COMELEC, swayed by the
private biases and personal prejudices of its constituent members, arrogated unto itself
the role of a religious court or worse, a morality police.
• This position, however, would deny homosexual and bisexual individuals a fundamental
element of personal identity and a legitimate exercise of personal liberty.
• a necessary corollary of giving individuals freedom to choose how to conduct their lives
is acceptance of the fact that different individuals will make different choices.
• Prescinding from these premises, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate
or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment,
because a person's sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one's identity.
• any state action singling lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans-genders out for disparate
treatment is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny to ensure that it is not the product of
historical prejudice and stereotyping.
• I likewise see no logical or factual obstacle to classifying the members of the LGBT
community as marginalized and underrepresented, considering their long history (and
indeed, ongoing narrative) of persecution, discrimination, and pathos. In my humble
view, marginalization for purposes of party-list representation encompasses social
marginalization as well.

DISSENTING OPINION OF J. CORONA

Even assuming that petitioner was able to show that the community of lesbians, gays, bisexuals
and transsexuals (LGBT) is underrepresented, it cannot be properly considered as marginalized
under the party-list system. First, petitioner is not included in the sectors mentioned in Section
5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and Section 5 of RA 7941. Unless an overly strained
interpretation is resorted to, the LGBT sector cannot establish a close connection to any of the
said sectors. Indeed, petitioner does not even try to show its link to any of the said sectors.
Rather, it represents itself as an altogether distinct sector with its own peculiar interests and
agenda.

Second, petitioner’s interest as a sector, which is basically the legal recognition of its members’
sexual orientation as a right, cannot be reasonably considered as an interest that is
traditionally and historically considered as vital to national interest. At best, petitioner may cite
an emergent awareness of the implications of sexual orientation on the national human rights
agenda. However, an emergent awareness is but a confirmation of lack of traditional and
historical recognition.24 Moreover, even the majority admits that there is no "clear cut
consensus favorable to gay rights claims."25

Third, petitioner is cut off from the common constitutional thread that runs through the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors under the party-list system. It lacks the vinculum,
a constitutional bond, a provision in the fundamental law that specifically recognizes the LGBT
sector as specially significant to the national interest. This standard, implied in BANAT, is
required to create the necessary link of a particular sector to those sectors expressly
mentioned in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and Section 5 of RA 7941.

SEPARATE OPINION OF J. ABAD

 • Ang Ladlad sectoral party was not marginalized and underrepresented since it is not
among, or even associated with, the sectors specified in the Constitution and in R.A.
7941
• If one were to analyze these Constitutional and statutory examples of qualified parties,
it should be evident that they represent the working class (labor, peasant, fisherfolk,
overseas workers), the service class (professionals), the economically deprived (urban
poor), the social outcasts (indigenous cultural minorities), the vulnerable (women,
youth) and the work impaired (elderly, handicapped, veterans). This analysis provides
some understanding of who, in the eyes of Congress, are marginalized and
underrepresented.
• Ang Ladlad has amply proved that it meets the requirements for sectoral party
accreditation. Their members are in the vulnerable class like the women and the youth.
Ang Ladlad represents a narrow definition of its class (LGBTs) rather than a concrete and
specific definition of a sub-group within the class (group of gay beauticians, for
example). The people that Ang Ladlad seeks to represent have a national presence.
• The lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans-gendered persons in our communities are our
brothers, sisters, friends, or colleagues who have suffered in silence all these years. True,
the party-list system is not necessarily a tool for advocating tolerance or acceptance of
their practices or beliefs. But it does promise them, as a marginalized and
underrepresented group, the chance to have a direct involvement in crafting
legislations that impact on their lives and existence. It is an opportunity for true and
effective representation which is the very essence of our party-list system.

KAGANDAHAN CASE

• Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex
the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like
respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex.
Respondent here thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces
high levels of male hormones (androgen) there is preponderant biological support for
considering him as being male. Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes
the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such
persons, like respondent, is fixed.

• The current state of Philippine statutes apparently compels that a person be classified
either as a male or as a female, but this Court is not controlled by mere appearances
when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid classification.

FALCIS
petitioner and petitioners-in-intervention, as professed homosexuals, gays and lesbians, assert
a fundamental right to enter into same-sex marriage. They argue that the legal requirement
that marriage be a union between a male and a female violates their rights to due process
and the equal protection of the laws. On the former, they claim that there is no rational nexus
between limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples and the state interest of protecting
marriage as the foundation of the family. They assert that: homosexuals can fulfill the essential
marital obligations, heterosexuals are no better parents than homosexuals, and homosexuals
can raise children well in the same manner that heterosexuals can. With respect to their equal
protection claim, petitioner asserts that classification on the basis of sexual orientation is
suspect, because, among others, sexual orientation is an immutable trait. Since the
classification is suspect, strict scrutiny review must be resorted to. Petitioner further argues that
even applying the rationality test, no substantial distinction can be made between same-sex
and opposite-sex couples, because gay couples can do everything that opposite-sex couples
are required to do by the Family Code, even if they cannot by themselves procreate.

To my mind, however, these conflated claims to violations of due process and equal rights are
uniformly anchored on assertions that present triable questions of fact, the resolution of which
needs the reception of evidence. These questions, among others, include: (a) whether
homosexuals, gays and lesbians can fulfill the essential marital obligations; (b) whether or how
procreation is an essential marital obligation; (c) whether homosexuals, gays and lesbians can
raise children in a manner as well as heterosexuals can; (d) whether Filipino tradition can
accommodate/accept same-sex marriage; and (e) whether homosexuals are, and should
be, treated as a separate class.

Petitioner alleges that even if only the rational basis test is applied, the assailed provisions will
fail since there is no substantial distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex
couples respecting marriage. Both can perform the essential marital obligations under the
Family Code. These are: (a) the obligation to live together, observe mutual love, respect, and
fidelity, and render mutual help and support; (b) fix the family domicile; and (c) support the
family and pay the expenses for such support and other conjugal obligations. To reiterate, this
argument still requires the presentation of documentary and testimonial evidence. It cannot
be assumed especially since there are conflicting claims on these assertions.

With respect to petitioner's claim that same-sex couples can raise children as well as opposite-
sex couples, We note that the intervenors-oppositors expressed a strong contrary view and
argue that children raised by heterosexual couples fare better than those who are not. The
reception of scientific and expert opinion is probably necessary to assist the Court in resolving
this issue.