Philippines

In 2016, the Supreme Court ordered the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to observe the basic requirements of due process in the testing, evaluation, and approval of contraceptive drugs and devices, and to determine whether the contraceptives Implanon and Implanon NXT are abortifacients or non-abortifacients. A drug or device is an abortifacient if it is proven to primarily induce abortion, destroy a fetus inside the womb, or prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum.

In 2006 and 2009 the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied the Ang Ladlad LGBT Party’s request to register as a political party in the Philippines. The petitioner, Ang Ladlad, is an organization of individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. COMELEC denied their request under “moral” reasons, arguing that the organization is contrary to Christian and Muslim beliefs and thereby conflicts with the secularity of public morality.

In 2003, several female flight attendants (collectively the petitioners) employed by Philippine Airlines (the respondent), alleged that a provision in their collective bargaining agreement was discriminatory because it required women to retire at 55 years of age, while men could work until 60 years of age. Philippine Airlines Inc. claimed that because the case involved a labor dispute, the court to which the case was assigned, the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

A law student filed an administrative harassment complaint against her professor, alleging that she was given a poor final grade because he wanted to go on a date with her. A school committee found that the professor had improperly conducted school-related activities outside school premises, indicative of sexually motivated intentions, in violation of his obligation to provide students with an environment free from sexual harassment under the school’s policy.

The petitioners alleged that Republic Act 10354, also known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act (“RH Law”), was unconstitutional because it violated the right to life of the unborn, the right to health, the right to freedom of religion, and the right to free speech. The RH Law provides poor and marginalized Filipinos with information and access to family planning methods, such as supplies, services, and education related to reproductive health.

In 2021, an administrative complaint was filed regarding Filipino lawyers’ Facebook posts. The Facebook messages exchanged between the lawyers consisted of homophobic language and boasts about the prosecution and conviction of a member of the LGBTIQ+ community. The messages also disparaged an “effeminate” judge. The lawyers claimed that, because they restricted the posts to those they are “friends” with on Facebook, their actions should be shielded by the right to privacy.

The respondent successfully obtained a temporary protection order against her husband, Jesus C. Garcia, under Republic Act No. 9262, which defines and criminalizes acts of domestic violence against women and their children. The husband appealed, claiming the Act was unconstitutional because it favored women as victims of violence and abuse to whom the State offers its protection.

In 2015, a citizen of the Philippines filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines as unconstitutional. Articles 1 and 2 specify that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Therefore, in effect, Filipino law does not recognize marriage between same-sex couples. He additionally sought to nullify Articles 46(4) and 55(6) of the Family Code of the Philippines.

The petitioner filed for a declaration of nullity of marriage with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City because her husband (the respondent), had subjected her to significant abuse, including stalking, sexual coercion, and pointing a gun at her head. A clinical psychologist testified as an expert witness and recommended that the petitioner’s marriage be annulled due to the respondent’s severe personality disorder and his incapacity to perform marital obligations.

The appellant was convicted of raping his 12-year-old daughter. He claimed that the rape had not happened because his daughter was not home, and she was not a credible witness. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the findings and conclusions of the trial and appeals courts that he had committed the crime of rape. The Supreme Court noted that the testimony of a child-victim is to be given full weight and credence.