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 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 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.

In 2018, Maria Eloisa Sarmiento Fouts filed an action against her former partner, Sandra Jane Gagui Jacinto, for physical assault. The couple had been together for 16 years before Jacinto ended the relationship while celebrating a holiday in Hong Kong. Soon after their return form the holiday, Jacinto physically attacked Fouts; inflicting injuries that required surgery and physical therapy, and causing her to miss work.

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, Jeff B. Cagandahan filed a petition to change his first name and gender marker on his birth certificate. Cagandahan specifically sought to change his first name to “Jeff” and his sex from female to male. Cagandahan was assigned female at birth, but later developed secondary male characteristics throughout adolescence and was diagnosed with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (“CAH”) and clitoral hypertrophy.

In 2002, ​​Mely Silverio filed a petition to change her first name and sex on her birth certificate. Mely was a trans woman and sought to change her first name to “Mely” and her gender marker from male to female on legal identification documents. The Regional Trial Court of Manila ruled in favor of her and allowed the amendments to her birth certificate, finding that Silverio’s identity should not disfavor her and that the changes would not harm, injure, or prejudice any other member of the community.

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.

A 36-year-old member of the Manobo indigenous people was accused of abducting a 12-year-old girl from the community, forcing her to accompany him to various locations, and raping her. He argued that he and the victim were properly engaged under Manobo traditions because the victim’s father allegedly accepted a dowry in exchange for the marriage. He was ultimately convicted of forcible abduction with rape, which he subsequently appealed.

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.