Abstract: The SOGIE Equality Bill is a notable piece of legislation in advancing the rights of the LGBT+ community in the Philippines, seeking to ban all discrimination on the grounds of sexual identity, gender identity, and expression. Proponents of the SOGIE Equality Bill have attempted to pass the anti-discrimination bill specifically for LGBT+ members of society, failing to garner the traction needed for it to be ratified in the Philippines for about two decades. Shockingly, the SOGIE Equality Bill passed the House of Representatives and even reached the Philippine Senate in 2018 – where it failed to be ratified. This paper seeks to determine how the manipulation and use of rhetoric was a necessary but insufficient variable in passing the SOGIE Equality Bill in the Philippines House of Representatives and in hindering its ratification in the Philippines Senate. It will analyse various press releases from the Senate of the Philippines to outline how both proponents and opponents of the bill utilized various forms of rhetoric to garner mass support and mobilization from varying sects of the Church; with the former using the narrative of Gretchen Diaz and the latter using rhetoric to establish multidimensionality. This paper hopes to expand on the existing literature on the varieties of public Catholicism in the Philippines and their influence on the country’s political processes, specifically with regards to social policies.
Key Words: Narrative, Defensive Reaction, Heresthetics, Rhetoric, Comprehensive Mobilization
Introduction
The Philippines is regarded as one of the most LGBT-friendly nations in the world, an outlier amongst countries that follow the negative correlation between religiosity and the acceptance of LGBTQ+ members in society. This is seen with 73% of Filipino adults believing that society should accept homosexuality[1], the successful election of Congresswoman Geraldine Roman (the first Trans-woman elected in the Philippines), and the registration of Ladlad, the world’s first political party composed of LGBT+ members who participate and are registered in national elections.[2] However, it is also a paradox in that despite the image of acceptance that the previous facts invoke, 65% of adults view homosexuality as morally unacceptable.[3] This paradox is reflective of the history of the SOGIE Equality Bill, which has recently made significant strides in bringing LGBT+ issues to the forefront and advocating for the legal acceptance of the LGBT community in the Philippines. The process which this bill underwent to be passed is indicative of the political influence of the Catholic Church in the Philippines with regards to the ratification of social policies. Both proponents and opponents of the bill acknowledged the significance of mobilising Church elites in garnering support in both the Senate and Congress, altering their rhetoric to expand their policy coalition in hopes of including the Church. Even though both sides used rhetoric in garnering support from the Church, the two differed in how they manipulated it by employing differing strategies. Proponents used narratives conjunctly with the Church’s comprehensive mobilisation capacities to their advantage, while opponents in the Senate used rhetoric to establish multidimensionality and awaken latent attitudes in the Church so as to cause a defensive reaction. In establishing the manipulation of rhetoric from both proponents and opponents, their contrasting strategies in using rhetoric to their advantage, and both of their success in obtaining Church elites in their policy coalitions; this paper argues that the use of rhetoric was a necessary variable in successfully re-filing the bill in the 18th Congress, and in hindering its passage in the Senate during the 18th Congress.
Objective and Provisions of the SOGIE Equality Bill
Standing for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression, the SOGIE Equality Bill seeks to ban all forms of discrimination on the basis of an individual’s sexual orientation[4], gender identity[5] and gender expression[6] in the public sphere. Currently, the sole legal protections that the LGBT+ community in the Philippines possesses is a conglomeration of city ordinances and provincial laws. The bill hopes to become the first piece of federal legislation in the Philippines that explicitly guarantees equality rights for the LGBT+ community in all public spheres on the federal level. It explicitly states that it proposes legal protection for LGBTQIIA+ individuals in a manner that does not impede any individual’s or group’s constitutional right to academic and religious freedom in the Philippines, in private spheres. Its provisions explicitly denounce the use of sexual identity, gender expression, and gender identity (SOGIE) as grounds to restrict an individual’s access to public resources such as education, social welfare, and employment in the military, civil service, and private companies. It also seeks to ban the use of SOGIE as grounds for human resources to impede one’s promotion, for them to encourage a transfer of departments, a change in workload, or even outright dismissal from employment. Lastly, the bill seeks to provide legal protection for LGBT+ individuals from harassment, bullying, and experiencing harsher disciplinary actions stemming from their SOGIE. The bill does not explicitly seek to entrench equality rights for LGBT+ peoples, and explicitly protects the SOGIE of all individuals in the LGBT+ community – including those who identify as heterosexual and/or cisgender.
Origins and Legislative Process
To establish the significance of proponents gaining enough momentum to successfully push for a bill that bans all discrimination based off of SOGIE in the House of Representatives, we must first be aware of the bill’s history. The current SOGIE Equality Bill was originally proposed to the House of Representatives in 2000 by the late Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago; however, it failed to pass through both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the Philippines. Since then, it has been re-filed to both houses multiple times by different Senators and members of Congress; facing heavy opposition from Catholic elites, and subsequently failing to garner the support needed for it to pass either legislative bodies. Aligning with the conservative values of the papacy of that time, under Pope Benedict, the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) stated that if the bill is to be ratified: “it would be penalizing religious groups for excluding a person from Church responsibilities… based upon that person’s moral behaviour, including the practice and promotion of homosexuality.” The most recent and notable version of the SOGIE Equality Bill was proposed by Congresswoman Geraldine Roman and Congressman Thomas Vilarin in Congress in 2017, and by Senator Risa Hontiveros in 2016 where it failed to pass the interpolation stage in the Senate. The SOGIE Bill passed through the House of Representatives notably without any Congress members opposing its ratification. The SOGIE Equality Bill was re-filed by Senator Risa Hontiveros on July 22, 2019, where it is currently being debated. In order for the SOGIE Equality Bill to be ratified, it must pass both the Senate and Congress in the Republic of the Philippines, as the country follows a presidential system.
Inflection Point
Discourse surrounding the SOGIE Equality Bill was propelled on August 13, 2019 due to the video-recorded experience of Gretchen Diez, which instantly became viral in the Philippines. On August 13, 2019, Diez was barred from using a public washroom for women in Quezon City, Philippines by a female janitress on the grounds of her gender identity as a transgender woman. This encounter further escalated when Diez recorded her encounter with the janitress, resulting in the former being handcuffed and escorted from the premises by mall security. This case took the Philippines by storm and was associated with the need to legislate the previously dormant SOGIE Equality Bill. Following this encounter, Ms. Diez became the face of the political campaign to legislate the SOGIE Equality Bill, alongside Representative Geraldine Roman, the first elected transgender woman in the Philippines.
Proponents Use of Narrative
A form of rhetoric manipulation is the use of a narrative. Narratives are defined as a story consisting of a setting or context, a plot with a temporal element, characters (victims, villains, and heroes), and a moral, which is the policy solution offered to remedy the issue.[7] Coincidentally, the incident that occurred to Gretchen Diez had occurred at around the same time as the re-filing of the SOGIE Equality Bill at the 18th session of the Philippine Congress by Senator Risa Hontiveros. Due to the widespread popularity of the incident, Gretchen Diez and her lived experience of being rejected from entering a women’s washroom in a mall became the narrative pushed by proponents of the SOGIE Equality Bill to garner support. Instances of this can be seen in the following press releases of Senator Leila de Lima and Senator Risa Hontiveros, with the former labelling the need to pass the SOGIE Equality Bill as “the need to end bathroom discrimination”.[8] Senator Leila de Lima clearly states that:
“Isa po itong malinaw na paglabag sa karapatang pantao ni Gretchen Diez at isang pananalamin sa kasalukuyang sitwasyon na kinakaharap ng ating mga kapatid sa LGBT community,” she said…”Ang diskriminasyon sa mga miyembro ng LGBT ay nangyayari araw araw at walang pinipiling lugar. Sobra na. This has to stop!… “Buo po ang aking suporta sa pagpasa sa SOGIE Bill…,” she said. “Let’s all rally to support the passage of the SOGIE Equality Bill and let’s work together in putting an end to any form of discrimination against the LGBT community,”
(Translation: “This is a clear violation of Gretchen Diez’s right as a human being and is a situation that sheds light to the current living situation that our brethren face in the LGBT Community. ‘The discrimination that members of the LGBT community occur on an everyday basis and is not limited to a certain space or geographical region. It’s too much. This has to stop! I whole-heartedly support the passing of the SOGIE Bill…’ ‘Let’s all rally to support the passage of the LGBT community,’”)
The use of narrative can also be seen in the following excerpt from Senator Risa Hontiveros’ address in the Senate:
“Mr. President, my dear colleagues, here is Gretchen, a bright young girl. She called the police when she was not allowed to use the female bathroom at Farmers Plaza. She knew there was a Quezon City Pride Ordinance which prohibits discrimination in the access to services, goods and facilities on the basis of her sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.
She was the one that called the police. She was the one that complained. But instead she found herself in handcuffs. She was handcuffed, hurt, belittled, brought to the local police station and wasn’t listened to. Please look at this situation.
Why was she forcing herself to go the women’s bathroom? First of all, she is a woman. A trans-woman is a woman. Second, the experience that LGBTQ individuals, especially trans-women face in men’s washrooms is one filled with harassment, abuse, and mockery
To all that say that discrimination towards our LGBTQIA brethren does not occur in the Philippines, here is Gretchen Diez in the Senate plenary right now. Tell her this yourself, and all the other plentiful siblings, friends, and children that do not receive respect or protection from their fellow country men, in establishments, government agencies and from lawmakers similar to the ones here
What this underscores, Mr. President, is that there is a grave and urgent need for a SOGIE Equality Bill. The time has come for us to say that we will not accept the fact that LGBTQI individuals are handcuffed, slapped, or humiliated because of who they are. It is time that we say we will stand by those who speak their truths
I am calling my colleagues in this plenary and in Congress, to pass the SOGIE Equality Bill, for Gretchen, and for all the Filipino lesbians, gays, transgenders, intersex, queers, and asexuals, who have faced humiliation and discrimination for too long.”[9]
In analyzing both of these press releases it becomes clear that Gretchen Diez’ lived experience became a narrative pushed by proponents of the bill by clearly establishing the elements of a narrative in the discrimination Diez faced when she was barred from using a washroom. Both of these Senators clearly defined the context, with the temporal elements consisting of Diez wishing to go to the washroom but ending up being handcuffed due to her gender identity. Interestingly enough, the senators both comply with how scholars of narratives and policy expected proponents to frame the narrative in that they: diffuse the costs of the policy status quo, concentrated the policy status quo to an elite few, and used symbols and/or policy surrogates.[10] They accomplished this by clearly establishing characters, with the costs of the policy status quo being burdened on a multitude of victims in claiming that the Diez incident was not an isolated one, and one that LGBTQIA people face on a daily basis in different forms and contexts in the Philippines. In concentrating the policy status quo to an elite few, they decreased the beneficiaries by emphasising who should be blamed. Both Senators asserted that the perpetrator who inflicted injury onto the victims of this narrative were the politicians in Congress and the Senate who disagree with, deny the existence and the need for, and wish to hinder the ratification of the SOGIE Equality Bill. Lastly, they use symbols and policy surrogates, by highlighting not only the heroes but also the moral of the story. They do so by asserting that the ratification of the SOGIE Equality Bill is long overdue as the discrimination that LGBT+ individuals like Diez faced, occur on an everyday basis in multiple contexts and is implicitly permitted to operate by the passivity of the law towards LGBT+ individuals.
In strategically employing this rhetoric and narrative, proponents purposely framed the dire need to ratify the SOGIE Equality Bill as not only an issue of LGBT+ rights, but rather one that falls under the scope of universal social rights. In doing so, they were able to identify with Church elites that participated in comprehensive mobilization – a strategy employed by public religions in the Philippines that had newly been empowered in the Philippines due to the papacy of Pope Francis. Comprehensive mobilisation is an approach that public religions can undertake to exert political influence, consisting of adopting a broad social agenda and universalistic rhetoric including social equality. Therefore, it does now view the ratification of a progressive social policy as a threat to the religion’s doctrine.[11] Had Pope Francis not been elected, proponents would not have been able to use rhetoric to garner enough support from Church elites to re-file the SOGIE Equality Bill in the 18th Congress. Instead, the Church would have continued to employ defensive reaction as an approach to exert political influence as a public religion, as was the case during the conservative Papacy of Pope Benedict. This strategy seeks “to protect select Church interests on policy arenas that challenge traditional doctrine from secularism.”[12] The impact of this is that under Pope Benedict, gender equality and the outlawing of discrimination on the basis of sexuality, gender identity and gender expression is in itself “limiting religious communities from acting in accordance with its beliefs”.[13] The effects of this in the Philippines was translated onto the CBCP’s stance towards Anti- LGBTQ+ discrimination, which stated that if the bill is to be ratified: “it would be penalizing religious groups for excluding a person from Church responsibilities… based upon that person’s moral behaviour, including the practice and promotion of homosexuality”.[14] Since the election of Pope Francis, church elites in the Philippines such as the CBCP quickly adopted comprehensive mobilization as an approach, and even favoured the ratification of the SOGIE Equality Bill specifically because it complied with universalistic social values such as equality. This can be shown in the CBCP’s 2015 Pastoral Moral Guidance on the Anti-Discrimination Bill, which stated that: “‘any bill that counters discrimination is a gesture of charity’ and that ‘there should be zero-tolerance for bullying against LGBT’s in Catholic institutions’”.[15] Therefore, rhetoric such as the use of Diez’ narrative was a necessary variable in garnering sufficient political support from church elites to re-file the SOGIE Equality Bill in the 18th Congress.
Opponents’ Use of Dimensionality
In policy studies, to manipulate the dimensionality of a contested policy is to tap into latent attitudes of the electorate without challenging their group identity or convincing them that they were wrong, unlike employing rhetoric alone.[16] Rhetoric is a necessary and sufficient component in manipulating dimensionality. This can be seen in the discourse of those against the ratification of the SOGIE Equality Bill. Opponents of the bill sought to trigger latent attitudes amongst Church elites and other members of the electorate who supported the SOGIE Equality Bill on different fronts. In pertinence to the Church, opponents of the bill increased the dimensions of the bill to include academic and religious freedom, despite the bill explicitly stating that it could not impede on these entrenched rights. The opposition strategically did so to split Church elites and gain the support of those who decided to employ defensive reaction by framing the bill as a clear breach of Roman Catholic doctrines. This is shown in the following excerpt from the Senate:
We are grateful that you are one of our formidable allies when it comes to this issue. Secondly, in regards to this issue, in our view, in the view of Philippines for Jesus Movement, this is a very pressing issue for us as it shows that as a country we are straying away from the real way and principle of God Almighty and his desires for our country.[17]
Aside from this, the opposition increased the dimensionality and decided to invoke perversity (that the policy will produce effects contrary to what is intended)[18] by framing the SOGIE Equality Bill as a bill that stratifies people according to sexuality and gives preference to solely those who identify as gay amongst the LGBT+. This is reflected in the sentiment in the opposition’s press release, which urged the public to “Please read it, it is so concentrated on the G of the LGBT.”[19]
To further increase dimensionality and awaken latent attitudes amongst supporters of the bill, the opposition framed the ratification of the SOGIE Equality Bill as a women’s issue and same-sex marriage bill. This is clearly shown in the following statement:
“That is hard. If you will transgress on religious freedom, academic freedom, women’s rights, how will it pass the plenary? On top of this, they may even find a way to smuggle in same-sex marriage, because based on the SOGIE bill that is filed here in the Senate, you cannot discriminate on a person if he wants to get any kind of government license. Even a marriage license, so if two of you men wish to obtain a marriage license, there is no way to refuse giving you guys a marriage license.”[20]
Thus, it becomes clear that the opposition’s use of dimensionality sought to create schisms amongst the supporters of the bill, with its discourse asserting that the bill was a clear threat to academic and religious freedom, that it institutionalized unequal power relations even within the LGBT+ community in the Philippines, that it infringed on the rights of women, and that it sought to legalize same-sex marriage. Therefore, the opposition had used dimensionality to concentrate on the costs of the policy status quo by decreasing the number of victims to the policy status quo. As well, it diffused the policy status quo’s benefits onto women, other members of the LGBT+ community, and religious groups and academia. It did so whilst staying away from using divisive symbols by increasing the beneficiaries to include members of the electorate who would traditionally counter one another. Rhetoric, thus, was a necessary but insufficient value in hindering the ratification of the SOGIE Equality Bill in the Senate, as dimensionality was used to garner opposition to the bill without challenging group identity and framed it as a perverse bill that would generate inequality even amongst the very communities it seeks to empower.
Alfonso Ralph Mendoza Manalo is a third-year student at the University of Toronto Scarborough, majoring in Co-op Public Policy and Global Asia Studies and minoring in Critical Migration Studies. He currently works as an Immigration Data researcher at the Filipino Centre Toronto and as the Racialized Student’s Collective coordinator for the Scarborough Campus Student’s Union and is passionate about Filipinx and Diasporic Studies.
Bibliography
Buckley, David T. “Catholicism’s Democratic Dilemma Varieties of Public Religion in the Philippines.” Philippine Studies: Historical & Ethnographic Viewpoints 62, no. 3/4 (December 2014): 313–39. https://www-jstor-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/stable/24672315?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
Coloma, Roland Sintos. “Ladlad and Parrhesiastic Pedagogy: Unfurling LGBT Politics and Education in the Global South .” Curriculum Inquiry 43, no. 4 (September 2013): 483–511. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/doi/full/10.1111/curi.12020.
Cornelio, Jayeel, and Robbin Charles M Dagle. “Weaponising Religious Freedom: Same-Sex Marriage and Gender Equality in the Philippines.” Religion & Human Rights 14 (2019): 65–94.https://brill.com/view/journals/rhrs/14/2/article-p65_1.xml?language=en
Drew, Joseph. “How Losers Can Turn into Winners in Disputatious Public Policy: a Heuristic for Prospective Herestheticians.” Australian Journal of Political Sciences 54, no. 1 (September 14, 2018): 167–82. https://www-tandfonline-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/doi/full/10.1080/10361146.2018.1520195.
Drew, Joseph, and Glenn Fahey. “Framing Unpopular Policies and Creating Policy Winners: the Role of Heresthetics.” Policy and Politics 46, no. 4 (October 2018): 627–43. Drew, Joseph. “How Losers Can Turn into Winners in Disputatious Public Policy: a Heuristic for Prospective Herestheticians.” Australian Journal of Political Sciences 54, no. 1 (September 14, 2018): 167–82. https://www-tandfonline-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/doi/full/10.1080/10361146.2018.1520195.
Fontanos, Naomi. “Media Coverage on the Proposed Anti‐Discrimination Legislation in the Philippines.” Asian Politics & Policy 11, no. 4 (October 2019): 701–5. https://doi-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1111/aspp.12491
McBeth, Mark K, and Michael D Jones. “A Narrative Policy Framework: Clear Enough to Be Wrong?” Policy Studies Journal 38, no. 2 (May 2010): 329–53. https://search-proquest-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/docview/210543073?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=14771.
“Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress.” Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress. Senate of the Philippines, August 14, 2019. https://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2019/0814_hontiveros2.asp.
“Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress.” Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress. Senate of the Philippines, August 17, 2019. https://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2019/0817_delima1.asp.
“Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress.” Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress. Senate of the Philippines, September 4, 2019.
https://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2019/0904_prib1.asp.
“Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress.” Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress. Senate of the Philippines, September 11, 2019. https://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2019/0911_prib1.asp.
“Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress.” Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress. Senate of the Philippines, September 30, 2019. https://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2019/0930_prib2.asp.
Shanahan, Elizabeth A, Michael D Jones, and Mark K McBeth. “Policy Narratives and Policy Processes.” Policy Studies Journal 39, no. 3 (August 2011): 535–61. https://search-proquest-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/docview/887282322?accountid=14771&pq-origsite=summon.
[1] Jayeel Cornelio and Robbin Charles M. Dagle. “Weaponising Religious Freedom: Same-Sex Marriage and Gender Equality in the Philippines.” Religion & Human Rights 14 (2019): 65–94.https://brill.com/view/journals/rhrs/14/2/article-p65_1.xml?language=en
[2] Roland Sintos Coloma. “Ladlad and Parrhesiastic Pedagogy: Unfurling LGBT Politics and Education in the Global South .” Curriculum Inquiry 43, no. 4 (September 2013): 483–511. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/doi/full/10.1111/curi.12020.
[3] Cornelio and Dagle, 65–94.
[4] An aspect of one’s identity deriving from the sex/gender they are attracted in
[5] An aspect of one’s identity deriving from the gender that one identifies with, which may or may not deviate from their biological sex
[6] An aspect of one’s identity deriving from the correlation between how one expresses themself in regard to behaviour and appearance, in relation to their gender identity
[7] Mark K. McBeth and Michael D. Jones. “A Narrative Policy Framework: Clear Enough to Be Wrong?” Policy Studies Journal 38, no. 2 (May 2010): 329–53. https://search-proquest-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/docview/210543073?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=14771.
[8] Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress.” Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress. Senate of the Philippines, August 17, 2019. https://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2019/0817_delima1.asp.
[9] “Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress.” Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress. Senate of the Philippines, August 14, 2019. https://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2019/0814_hontiveros2.asp.
[10] McBeth and Jones, 329–53.
[11] Buckley, David T. “Catholicism’s Democratic Dilemma Varieties of Public Religion in the Philippines.” Philippine Studies: Historical & Ethnographic Viewpoints 62, no. 3/4 (December 2014): 313–39. https://www-jstor-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/stable/24672315?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
[12] David T. Buckley. “Catholicism’s Democratic Dilemma Varieties of Public Religion in the Philippines.” Philippine Studies: Historical & Ethnographic Viewpoints 62, no. 3/4 (December 2014): 313–39. https://www-jstor-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/stable/24672315?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Cornelio and Dagle: 65–94.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Joseph Drew. “How Losers Can Turn into Winners in Disputatious Public Policy: a Heuristic for Prospective Herestheticians.” Australian Journal of Political Sciences 54, no. 1 (September 14, 2018): 167–82. https://www-tandfonline-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/doi/full/10.1080/10361146.2018.1520195.
[17] “Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress.” Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress. Senate of the Philippines, September 30, 2019. https://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2019/0930_prib2.asp.
[18] Drew, 167–82.
[19] “Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress.” Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress. Senate of the Philippines, September 4, 2019.
[20] “Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress.” Senate of the Philippines 18th Congress. Senate of the Philippines, September 11, 2019. https://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2019/0911_prib1.asp.
Leave a Reply