UP Gender Law and Policy Program

02/06/2026

On 25 May 2026, the UP Gender Law and Policy Program (GLPP) participated in the hearing of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Health on several bills recognizing the designation of healthcare proxies nationwide. GLPP stated its position of support and highlighted that the bill should promote the recognition of patient autonomy.

In May, three more LGUs passed their own Healthcare Proxy Ordinances—Parañaque, Mandaluyong, and Cavite, with Cavite making a major milestone as the first to pass a province-wide ordinance of its kind. Earlier this year, Iloilo City also made history by being the first local government in the Philippines outside the National Capital Region to have passed a Healthcare Proxy Ordinance. These LGUs join pioneering cities like Quezon City and San Juan in leading this change.

This development among LGUs indicates the demand for such legislation, and the rising demand is indicative of the success of the earlier initiatives. As of 2025, in Quezon City, 468 q***r couples have applied for a Right to Care Card. Last April, Quezon City made available online the registration process for wider reach and easier access.

UP GLPP stands with these LGUs in affirming our commitment to advance gender justice through responsive legal reform.

The passage of these bills will uphold our constitutional right to health by ensuring that Filipinos, regardless of civil status or S*xual Orientation, Gender Identity, Gender Expression, and S*x Characteristics (SOGIESC), can choose a legal representative to make healthcare decisions in their incapacity. These bills consolidate these localized efforts in addressing the lived realities of contemporary and nontraditional families in our society and advances individual right to autonomy.

01/06/2026

Happy 2026 Pride Month!

All people are entitled to fundamental human rights, regardless of their SOGIESC. The UP Gender Law and Policy Program is one in solidarity in the celebration of this year’s Pride Month. Through its projects and legislative advocacies, the Program seeks to meaningfully contribute to the elimination of the discrimination and stigma against persons with diverse SOGIESC.

It is high-time for the passage of the long-lodged S*xual Orientation, Gender Identity, Gender Expression, or S*x Characteristics (SOGIESC) Equality Bill and the Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Bill (CADB). On the other hand, the Program welcomes the growing number of local CAD ordinances and right-to-care ordinances.

The establishment of a gender-aware and gender-responsive legal framework is part of the State’s duty in respecting, protecting, and fulfilling the LGBTQI community’s human rights.

Towards gender justice!

25/05/2026

Matapos ang ating pagtalakay sa iba’t ibang mito at katotohanan kaugnay sa SOGIESC Equality Bill, tutugunan natin ang isang napakahalagang katanungan:

𝑩𝒂𝒌𝒊𝒕 𝒌𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒈 𝑺𝑶𝑮𝑰𝑬𝑺𝑪 𝑬𝒒𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝑩𝒊𝒍𝒍?

Sa loob ng mahigit dalawang dekada, paulit-ulit nang inihahain sa Kongreso ang mga panukalang batas na naglalayong tahasang ipagbawal ang diskriminasyon batay sa s*xual orientation at gender identity. Ang unang panukalang nakatuon sa SOGIE ay inihain noong Ika-11 Kongreso ng yumaong Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago at Rep. Etta Rosales. Mula noon, maraming bersyon na ng panukalang ito ang muling inihain, ngunit hanggang ngayon ay wala pa ring komprehensibong pambansang batas na nagpoprotekta sa mga tao laban sa diskriminasyon batay sa SOGIESC.

Dahil sa kawalan ng ganitong batas, marami pa ring Pilipino ang nakararanas ng mga hadlang sa trabaho, edukasyon, serbisyong pangkalusugan, pabahay, at mga pampublikong serbisyo, dahil lamang sa kung sino sila. Ipinapakita ng mga ulat at tala ng mga pagdinig sa Kongreso ang mga kaso ng diskriminasyon sa trabaho, pagpapatalsik sa paaralan, pagtanggi sa pagbibigay ng serbisyo, panliligalig, gender profiling, at maging sapilitang mga gawain. Bagama’t may ilang lokal na pamahalaan na may mga ordinansa laban sa diskriminasyon, hindi pantay ang proteksyon at kadalasang nakadepende sa lugar kung saan nakatira ang isang tao.

Layunin ng SOGIESC Equality Bill na punan ang matagal nang kakulangang ito sa batas. Nakabatay ito sa Equal Protection Clause ng 1987 Konstitusyon ng Pilipinas at kaayon ng mga obligasyon ng bansa sa mga pandaigdigang kasunduang pangkarapatang pantao tulad ng Universal Declaration of Human Rights at International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Nililinaw ng panukalang batas ang mga diskriminatoryong gawain, nagtatakda ng mga parusa, lumilikha ng mga mekanismo ng pananagutan, at nagsusulong ng mga hakbang na pang-iwas tulad ng edukasyon at mga reporma sa mga institusyon.

Ang panukalang batas na ito ay hindi tungkol sa pagbibigay ng espesyal na karapatan. Ito ay tungkol sa pagtiyak ng pantay na proteksyon sa ilalim ng batas. Ito ay tungkol sa pagkilala sa dignidad, pag-iwas sa pang-aabuso, at pagbibigay sa bawat Pilipino ng paraan upang makamit ang hustisya kapag sila ay nakaranas ng diskriminasyon.
Pagkaraan ng mga dekada ng pagkaantala, ang tanong ay hindi na kung umiiral ba ang diskriminasyon, kundi kung handa ba natin itong tugunan.

Maraming salamat sa pagiging bahagi ng usapang ito. Abangan ang susunod pang talakayan. 🌈

25/05/2026

After going through the different myths and facts concerning the SOGIESC Equality Bill, we now ask the most important question:

𝑾𝒉𝒚 𝒅𝒐 𝒘𝒆 𝒏𝒆𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝑶𝑮𝑰𝑬𝑺𝑪 𝑬𝒒𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝑩𝒊𝒍𝒍?

For more than two decades, proposals seeking to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on s*xual orientation and gender identity have been filed in Congress. The first SOGIE-specific measure was introduced during the 11th Congress by the late Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Rep. Etta Rosales. Since then, multiple versions have been refiled yet a comprehensive national law protecting people from discrimination based on SOGIESC has still not been enacted.

In the absence of such a law, many Filipinos continue to face barriers in employment, education, healthcare, housing, and public services simply because of who they are. Reports and legislative records have documented cases of workplace discrimination, school expulsion, denial of services, harassment, gender profiling, and even coercive practices. While some local governments have anti-discrimination ordinances, protection remains uneven and dependent on location.

The SOGIESC Equality Bill seeks to close this long-standing gap. Grounded in the 1987 Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and aligned with the Philippines’ obligations under international human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the bill defines discriminatory acts, provides penalties, establishes accountability mechanisms, and promotes preventive measures such as education and institutional reforms

This bill is not about granting special rights. It is about ensuring equal protection under the law. It is about recognizing dignity, preventing abuse, and giving every Filipino the means to seek justice when discrimination occurs.

After decades of delay, the question is no longer whether discrimination exists but whether we are willing to address them and make tangible changes.

Stay tuned and thank you for being part of this conversation. 🌈

24/05/2026

Today is Pans*xual and Panromantic Visibility Day.

The Program is one in recognizing and celebrating the pans*xual and panromantic community. For pan people, s*xual and/or romantic attraction is not dependent on gender. Today, the Program reiterates and supports advocacy campaigns debunking myths and harmful stereotypes against pan people. The focus of the pans*xuality and panromantic identity is the primacy of being attracted to the person, regardless of their gender; it is not to be equated to polyamory. All persons with diverse SOGIESC deserve to be recognized, respected, and affirmed in their truth.

Beyond this day of visibility, the Program is committed to its continuous work towards a more inclusive and respectful legal environment and community. Specifically, the Program calls for the passage of the lodged Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination bills and SOGIESC Equality bills in Congress.


*xualPanromanticVisibilityDay

22/05/2026

On 18 March 2026, the UP Gender Law and Policy Program held a discussion entitled, “Josef v. Ursua: Implications on Family Relations and Property Rights” at the Malcolm Theater, Malcolm Hall, UP Diliman, Quezon City.

If you missed the event, stay tuned for the Proceeding Notes to be released on 28 May 2026; it will contain the summary and salient points discussed during the discussion. Before its release, here’s a primer on the case’s details and salient points.



–

In the recently decided case of Josef v. Ursua[1], the protection for property rights available to individuals in a same-s*x relationship were highlighted. In this case, Josef and Ursua were in a same-s*x relationship. They lived together as a couple and jointly purchased a house & lot in Quezon while cohabiting.

Their relationship reached an end; they then agreed to sell the property. Ursua executed an Acknowledgment stating that Josef financed and paid half or fifty percent of the expenses in the acquisition and renovation of the subject property. However, Ursua changed her mind and refused to sell the property. Ursua also refused to recognize Josef as a co-owner of the subject property and to give Josef her share in the property. Ursua alleged that the signature on the Acknowledgment was forged, that Josef did not offer any proof of contribution. On the other hand, Josef demanded for the partition of the subject property. The lower courts ruled in favor of Ursua: aside from the Acknowledgment, Josef was not able to offer any other proof to establish co-ownership.

At the Supreme Court (SC) level, Josef argued that same-s*x couples should also be able to avail of the protection of the property rights under the Family Code (FC), specifically arts. 147 and 148. Notably, the SC expressly acknowledged and recognized this gender gap in the law. Specifically, it expressly recognized the “inherent and discriminatory favor towards heteros*xual couples” present in the framework of the Family Code. It emphasized that this discrimination “deprives petitioner [Josef] of her property rights and interests.”

In interpreting said articles, the SC ruled that the term “capacitated to marry each other" under Art. 147 pertains to the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage. Considering that the FC defines marriage to be a union between a man and a woman, the SC concluded that the Josef and Ursua are governed under Art. 148 for having no legal capacity to marry each other as they are of the same s*x during their cohabitation.

Under Art. 148, FC, properties acquired during cohabitation can be considered as the common property of a couple provided that there is proof of actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry. Moreover, it also provides for a presumption that both the contributions and shares are equal unless proven otherwise. Here, the Acknowledgement was appreciated as the requisite proof of contribution required to establish the co-ownership of Josef.

Atty. Virginia Viray, UP College of Law Senior Lecturer & UP GLPP Faculty Member, noted the significance of this recognition. Co-ownership under the law of contracts must be expressed clearly. Now, under the Family Code, it can be established by virtue of a relationship.[2] Prior to this ruling, there is no clear applicability of such protections under the Family Code for LGBTQ couples.

However, even the SC emphasized on the role of Congress in comprehensively addressing gender gaps in the law.

The Court stated that political departments, especially Congress, must be involved in the quest for solutions. While the GLPP lauds the relief now available to same-s*x couples, the Program is one with the Court in calling Congress to act and sufficiently address gender gaps in the law.

The case of Josef is one of the many lived realities of same-s*x couples that show the real consequences of the lack of legal recognition for same-s*x relationships. These couples are unable to access rights and protections related to property, healthcare, social security, and family life. Similar property regimes and protections arising from heteros*xual unions should be equally accessible to non-heteros*xual unions. This starts with the legal recognition of same-s*x unions. The Program reiterates its call for Congress to swiftly act on bills aimed to establish a legal framework for the property relations of same-s*x couples.



[1] G.R. No. 267469, February 5, 2025
[2] https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CDp8R7rTc/

19/05/2026

The Legal Education Board, in partnership with the University of the Philippines College of Law – Gender Law and Policy Program (UP GLPP), invites law professors and faculty to the 4th iteration of Gender Sensitivity Orientation for Law Faculty on May 30, 2026, 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM via Zoom.

This webinar is dedicated to promoting gender awareness and sensitivity in the legal profession, academe, and broader society, and to provide law school faculty with essential gender-related concepts and principles.

We invite all law faculty to take part in this meaningful conversation toward inclusivity and understanding, marking a significant stride in our collective efforts to foster gender sensitivity and awareness within legal education and practice.

You can register using this link: https://tinyurl.com/RegForm4thLEBGSTforFaculty

For inquiries, you can send a message to GLPP’s page or email them at [email protected].

For the full issuance, click here: https://bit.ly/LEBMOC-No-020s2026

The Legal Education Board, in partnership with the University of the Philippines College of Law – Gender Law and Policy Program (UP GLPP), invites law professors and faculty to the 4th iteration of Gender Sensitivity Orientation for Law Faculty on May 30, 2026, 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM via Zoom.

This webinar is dedicated to promoting gender awareness and sensitivity in the legal profession, academe, and broader society, and to provide law school faculty with essential gender-related concepts and principles.

We invite all law faculty to take part in this meaningful conversation toward inclusivity and understanding, marking a significant stride in our collective efforts to foster gender sensitivity and awareness within legal education and practice.

You can register using this link: https://tinyurl.com/RegForm4thLEBGSTforFaculty
For inquiries, you can send a message to GLPP’s page or email them at [email protected].

For the full issuance, click here: https://bit.ly/LEBMOC-No-020s2026

18/05/2026

FACT:
The SOGIESC Equality Bill does not penalize honest mistakes or casual social errors. It targets intentional and systemic discrimination that denies a person access to jobs, education, or healthcare.

Legal penalties are reserved for severe acts, such as inciting violence, public humiliation, or the repeated denial of basic rights.

The bill aims to prevent harm and exclusion in public life, not to police private conversations or accidental slips of the tongue.

18/05/2026

And now we’re down to the last myth to be debunked for our SOGIESC Bill Awareness Campaign. For this last post, we aim to address the worry that…

“If SOGIE Bill gets passed, I will face criminal liability and go to jail if I accidentally misgender someone or use the wrong pronouns.”

FACT:
The SOGIESC Equality Bill does not criminalize honest mistakes or accidental slips of the tongue. This bill is aimed at addressing the systemic and intentional acts of discrimination that result in denial of rights, such as refusing to hire someone, denying entry to a public space, or publishing hate speech that insights violence.

Criminal liability under the bill requires intent and harm. Simply making a mistake in a conversation is not the same as the “repeated and intentional” harassment or the “public and malicious” humiliation that the bill seeks to prevent. The goal of the bill is to stop people from being dehumanized or barred from public life, not to police everyday language or casual social interactions.

With the last myth for this awareness campaign debunked, we hope that we were able to help you clarify your questions and uncertainties about the SOGIESC Equality Bill.

Stay tuned for our last and final post wrapping up our SOGIESC Bill Awareness Campaign.

18/05/2026

Narito na tayo sa huling mito na ating pabubulaanan para sa ating SOGIESC Bill Awareness Campaign. Para sa huling post na ito, layunin nating tugunan ang pangamba na…
“Kapag naipasa ang SOGIE Bill, magkakaroon ako ng pananagutang kriminal at makukulong kung hindi ko sinasadyang magkamali sa pagtukoy ng kasarian (misgender) o maling pronoun ang magamit ko sa isang tao.”

KATOTOHANAN:
Hindi pinarurusahan ng SOGIESC Equality Bill ang mga tapat na pagkakamali o hindi sinasadyang pagkakalito sa pananalita. Ang layunin ng bill na ito ay tugunan ang mga sistematiko at sadyang gawain ng diskriminasyon na nagreresulta sa pagkakait ng karapatan—gaya ng pagtangging tumanggap ng empleyado, pagbabawal sa pagpasok sa mga pampublikong lugar, o paglalathala ng hate speech na nag-uudyok ng karahasan.

Ang pananagutang kriminal sa ilalim ng bill na ito ay nangangailangan ng malisya (intent) at pinsala (harm). Ang simpleng pagkakamali sa isang usapan ay hindi kapareho ng “paulit-ulit at sadyang” (repeated and intentional) na harassment o ang “pampubliko at malisyosong” pagkapahiya na nais pigilan ng panukalang batas. Ang mithiin ng bill ay itigil ang pagtrato sa mga tao nang walang dangal o ang pagharang sa kanila sa pampublikong buhay, hindi para maging "pulis" ng pang-araw-araw na lengguwahe o kaswal na pakikipag-ugnayan.

Sa huling mitong ito na ating nalinawan, umaasa kami na nakatulong kami sa pagsagot sa inyong mga katanungan at pag-aalinlangan tungkol sa SOGIESC Equality Bill.

Manatiling nakasubaybay para sa aming huling post na magsisilbing pagtatapos ng ating SOGIESC Bill Awareness Campaign. 🌈