1

STATEMENT
On Senate Bill 2814 Legal Office, Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines Manila, December 7, 2011

Non-discrimination bills are not new in the Philippine Congress. In the Senate, however, Senate Bill 2814 has overstepped legal bounds. As a whole, and in relation to each paragraph, clearly the bill prohibits all unlawful acts directed at a persons ethnic roots, race, religion/belief, language disability or other status. During a recent Senate plenary proceeding, however, very disturbing provisions were added that penalize unlawful acts and so called intolerance when directed at sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity. Marriage and family rights to homosexual relationships Malevolence lurks in Section 7 of the Bill, with the addition of the criteria of gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation, whereby there shall be equal access to ALL PERSONS without distinction (hence, including LGTBs) to: Marriage Adoption (hence, parenting rights) Tax Exemption Inheritance (Succession) Immigration Social security, health/life insurance, and Other related matters Taking into account other paragraphs, Other include related matters would also

Housing (Section 9, 2nd par.), and Accommodation (Section 4 [4] , Sec. 3 [10]) This is not all: Automatic repeal Under Section 7s 2nd paragraph, all laws that will hinder access on matters related to marriage, adoption,, tax exemption, social security , health

2 benefits, insurance, immigration, succession, custody and other related matters shall be inoperative within three (3) years from the passage of the bill into law. Such hindering laws would include, the Family Code, the Social Security Act, Philhealth, the Civil Code of the Philippines (on Succession), the Immigration Act, among others. This automatic repeal is apart from the Repealing Clause that is standard in most laws, as in Section 16 of this Bill. There is more to this: Hate speech; hate crimes There is created a new crime called hate speech (Section 4 [10 & 11]) which is, when you ridicule a person, insult, suggest inferiority or hatred, or when one uses adjectives against the other person, and hate crimes on account of another persons sexual orientation. The penalties can be stiff. Should a hate crime cause dealth or serious physical injuries, the maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment. (Section13a, Penal Clause) This is 5 years more than than reclusion perpetua which is 20 years, the penalty for serious offenses. This is cruel and unusual punishment. There are graduated penalties for hate speech. (Section 13b) The offender will also be liable for actual, moral, punitive and other damages. (Section 12, Civil Liability and Reparations) Furthermore, on top of these penalties and liability, the offender can still be charged under other laws including the Revised Penal Code. (Sec. 13, last par.) Religious intolerance a crime? What is highly disturbing is the crime of RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE defined in Section 3 (6) as: Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief, including practices when a society, religious group [Church?] specifically REFUSES TO TOLERATE PRACTICES, PERSONS or BELIEFS ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS. So what is wrong with all these? 1. Creating the crimes of hate speech and hate crimes violates religious freedom and freedom of speech. 2. The installation of spousal, parental, and family rights to LGBT persons jeopardizes the interest of children and family.

3 WE SHALL EXPLAIN

Religious Freedom Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is one of the foundations of a democratic society. It includes the fundamental right to act according to religious beliefs in the field of morality. Only the manner of religious exercise is subject to potential regulation by the State, but even here, such interference is to be narrowly applied, and only for compelling reasons. It should be recalled that freedom of religion also protects the freedom of the public expression of religious belief and religious doctrines. Consequently, public expressions of faith or religious morality should receive a greater level of protection than other forms of free speech. Such is the case for example, for the religious sermons of ministers. Effectively, the public expression of faith or religious morality should not be liable to prosecution because of their opposition to certain ideas or practices morally objectionable, so long as that opposition is expressed peacefully. It has never been a crime to merely express religious belief, nor should it ever be. Thus, government may not penalize a religious organization for determining that it can exclude a person from Church responsibilities, for example, based upon that persons moral behavior, which could include the practice or promotion of homosexuality or other behaviors contrary to the sacred texts or doctrines of the Church. Government should not meddle in religious doctrine and faith: Religious witnessing (viewed in the bill as intolerance) is also a form of ethical, moral, ideological and spiritual expression, protected by the Constitution. Freedom of Speech The bills intrusive provisions violate the principle of No Prior Restraint accorded by law to freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of expression applies not only to information and ideas that are favorably received or unoffensive , but also to expression that may offend, shock, or disturb the State or any sector of the population. The free and robust exchange of ideas is, after all, the reason for this liberty.

4 And so, freedom of expression cannot, needless to say, be restricted out of deference to certain dogmas or the beliefs of a particular religious community and the State must at least remain neutral and impartial, and may further be required to institute measures to protect the rights of those wishing to speak out against homosexuality as part of their religious beliefs. Children, Parenting, Family Strength The higher interest of children is jeopardized and endangered with the grant of access to marriage and adoption to all persons including LGTB citizens. After all, the State has a sovereign interest and right to protect public morality, family and the best interests of the child. In our Constitution, the State guarantees its protection of the familyof husband (male), wife (female), childrenas a sacred social institution. There are existing laws enforced by authorities and courts in defense of equality and fundamental human rights: The Revised Penal Code, the Civil Code of the Philippines, the Magna Carta of Women, the Labor Code. So what if the rest of the world penalizes hate speech and hate crimes The Philippines has clear delineations on marriage, parenting, and family life. Of our distinct laws and principles, the Civil Code expressly states that: Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. (Article 17, 3rd par., Civil Code of the Philippines.

ATTY. JO IMBONG Executive Secretary Legal Office, CBCP Mobile No. 0917 851 7878