PER CURIAM:
SP Leon Yatna [Atty. Noel V. Antay, Jr.]Through his Compliance[3] dated October 25, 2021, Atty. Antay, Jr. expressed his deep remorse and profound shame over the incident and extends his sincerest apologies for whatever anxiety and alarm that his posts might have caused. He further asserts that he could barely remember the posts and was only reminded of them when he saw screenshots that had begun circulating. He could no longer recover the posts through his social media account and he can only rely on the unauthenticated screenshots and the forwarded copy of this Court's resolution (he had not yet been served a copy thereof). What makes the incident more perplexing is that his social media profile is locked and its contents cannot be accessed by outsiders. He has always been discreet and private in his personal dealings. He has no excuse about the incident and is mortified of how the breach occurred. He had no intention of disrespecting any magistrate or undermining the Judiciary. His posts did not single out or disparage anyone. His use of the phrase "member of the LGBT community" was merely descriptive, not disparaging nor disrespectful. The word "effeminate" was not used to describe a particular magistrate but merely to describe a non-antagonistic and non-threatening demeanor. He never dreams of discriminating against or disparaging any member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, and more (LGBTQIA+) community. He even tried to politely put an end to the conversation by saying "Bad ka."[4]
Just prosecuted and helped convict a member of the LGBTA community for large scale estafa. The new convict then began cussing at me accusing me of being a bigot. A first for me. =)
The judge (who is somewhat effeminate) comes to my defense and warns the felon to behave.
All in a day's work. =) =) =)
Ernesto Tabujara III
Sino yung bakla na judge sa Taguig sa MTC sa first floor?
Naka eye liner and eye shadow pag nag hehearing. Ang taray pa!
SP Leon Yatna
Napromote na yon, Boss Ticky. RTC Judge na kaya yon. =) =) =)
Ernesto Tabujara III
The joke among lawyers is that sa Taguig sa 2nd floor puro may sira sa ulo mga judge, sa baba bakla at mga corrupt
SP Leon Yatna
No comment, Boss Ticky. May mga kaso pa ako doon eh. =) =) =)
Denden Calderon [Atty. Israel P. Calderon]
Baka type ka.
SP Leon Yatna
Bad ka, Prof. =)
Denden Calderon
SP Leon Yatna malay mo. Nakita n'ya intelligence mo given na good looks eh na convict mo pa s'ya. Tapos syempre di ka mapapasakamay n'ya kaya ayon imbyerna I. Charot haha.
SP Leon Yatna
Ang bad mo sakin, Prof =)
Morgan Nicanor
SP Leon Yatna oo tama. feel ko type ka bossing. hehehe.
SP Leon Yatna
Ay anak ng garapon. Dalawang Profs na. =) =) =)
Ernesto Tabujara III
Dapat kinurot mo! Charot!
Joseph Marion Navarrete
Morgan Nicanor natatandaan ko yung kliente mo dinala sa Ombudsman.
SP Leon Yatna
Kwento ka naman, Prosec Joseph =)
Joseph Marion Navarrete
Pinatawag lang ako ng Prof Morgan Nicanor mga panahon nayan. Tapos bitbit niya kliyente niya. Ang natatandaan ko lang is malagkit tingin kay papa, este Prof. Morgan.
SP Leon Yatna
Matikas kasi si Prof. Morgan eh, Habulin. =) [2]
Lawyers' right to privacy vis-à-vis online activities, not absolute |
Facebook is currently the most popular social media site, having surpassed one (1) billion registered accounts and with 1.71 billion monthly active users. Social media are web-based platforms that enable online interaction and facilitate users to generate and share content. There are various classifications of social media platforms and one can be classified under the "social networking sites" such as Facebook.Belo-Henares then went on to explain why there is no assurance that posts on Facebook, or any social media platform for that matter, can be placed within the confines of privacy, viz.:
Facebook is a "voluntary social network to which members subscribe and submit information. x x x It has a worldwide forum enabling friends to share information such as thoughts, links, and photographs, with one another." Users register at this site, create a personal profile or an open book of who they are, add other users as friends, and exchange messages, including automatic notifications when they update their profile. A user can post a statement, a photo, or a video on Facebook, which can be made visible to anyone, depending on the user's privacy settings.
To address concerns about privacy, but without defeating its purpose, Facebook was armed with different privacy tools designed to regulate the accessibility of a user's profile, as well as information uploaded by the user. In H v. W, the South Gauteng High Court of Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa recognized this ability of the users to "customize their privacy settings," but with the cautionary advice that although Facebook, as stated in its policies, "makes every effort to protect a user's information, these privacy settings are however not foolproof."
Consequently, before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her online social networking activity - in this case, Facebook - it is first necessary that said user manifests the intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. This intention can materialize in cyberspace through the utilization of Facebook's privacy tools. In other words, utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation, in the cyber world, of the user's invocation of his or her right to informational privacy.[20] (Emphasis supplied.)
Moreover, even if the Court were to accept respondent's allegation that his posts were limited to or viewable by his "Friends" only, there is no assurance that the same – or other digital content that he uploads or publishes on his Facebook profile – will be safeguarded as within the confines of privacy, in light of the following:In light of Belo-Henares, the Court cannot give credence to Atty. Antay, Jr.'s invocation of his right to privacy. His excuse - that his social media account is locked and the contents thereof cannot be accessed by outsiders – is a mere allegation at best. Allegations are not proof.[22] Further, the fact that the exchanges leaked means that his social media account is not locked as he claims or that there is a rat amidst them.Thus, restricting the privacy of one's Facebook posts to "Friends" does not guarantee absolute protection from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one's circle of friends. The user's own Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is Facebook friends or not with the former. Also, when the post is shared or when a person is tagged, the respective Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or who was tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of which was set at "Friends." Under the circumstances, therefore, respondent's claim of violation of right to privacy is negated.[21] (Underscoring and emphases supplied.)
(1) Facebook "allows the world to be more open and connected by giving its users the tools to interact and share in any conceivable way;" (2) A good number of Facebook users "befriend" other users who are total strangers; (3) The sheer number of "Friends" one user has, usually by the hundreds; and (4) A user's Facebook friend can "share" the former's post, or "tag" others who are not Facebook friends with the former, despite its being visible only to his or her own Facebook friends. (Emphasis supplied)
The lawyers' duty to use respectful language and duty to observe due respect for the courts and its officers; consequences of breach |
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.Indeed, lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a high degree of social responsibility and, hence, must handle their personal affairs with great caution.[25] Citing anew Belo-Henares v. Atty. Guevarra,[26] the Court suspended Atty. Roberto C. Guevarra for one year from the practice of law for his defamatory posts on Facebook. The Court noted his breach of Rule 7.03 in this wise:
By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI, respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life. He overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm, and decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used words unbecoming of an officer of the law, and conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling insults and maligning complainant's and BMGI's reputation.Undoubtedly, inappropriate, disrespectful, and defamatory language of lawyers, even in the private sphere, are still within reach of this Court's disciplinary authority.
That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public personage who is exposed to criticism does not justify respondent's disrespectful language. It is the cardinal condition of all criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. In this case, respondent's remarks against complainant' breached the said walls, for which reason the former must be administratively sanctioned.
"Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in their private capacity, as long as their misconduct reflects their want of probity or good demeanor, a good character being an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for continuance of such privilege. When the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Rules of Court speaks of conduct or misconduct, the reference is not confined to one's behavior exhibited in connection with the performance of lawyers' professional duties, but also covers any misconduct, which—albeit unrelated to the actual practice of their profession—would show them to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which their license and the law invest in them." Accordingly, the Court finds that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, as originally recommended by the IBP-CBD, with a stem warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.[27] (Emphasis supplied)
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably received but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb. Any restriction imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Absent any compelling state interest, it is not for the COMELEC or this Court to impose its views on the populace. Otherwise stated, the COMELEC is certainly not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one.More, the Court reiterates that the Philippines adheres to the internationally-recognized principle of non-discrimination and equality. CBEAI v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas[30] is apropos:
This position gains even more force if one considers that homosexual conduct is not illegal in this country. It follows that both expressions concerning one's homosexuality and the activity of forming a political association that supports LGBT individuals are protected as well.
Other jurisdictions have gone so far as to categorically rule that even overwhelming public perception that homosexual conduct violates public morality does not justify criminalizing same-sex conduct. European and United Nations judicial decisions have ruled in favor of gay rights claimants on both privacy and equality grounds, citing general privacy and equal protection provisions in foreign and international texts. To the extent that there is much to learn from other jurisdictions that have reflected on the issues we face here, such jurisprudence is certainly illuminating. These foreign authorities, while not formally binding on Philippine courts, may nevertheless have persuasive influence on the Court's analysis.
In the area of freedom of expression, for instance, United States courts have ruled that existing free speech doctrines protect gay and lesbian rights to expressive conduct. In order to justify the prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, public institutions must show that their actions were caused by "something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint."x x x
We do not doubt that a number of our citizens may believe that homosexual conduct is distasteful, offensive, or even defiant. They are entitled to hold and express that view. On the other hand, LGBTs and their supporters, in all likelihood, believe with equal fervor that relationships between individuals of the same sex are morally equivalent to heterosexual relationships. They, too, are entitled to hold and express that view. However, as far as this Court is concerned, our democracy precludes using the religious or moral views of one part of the community to exclude from consideration the values of other members of the community.[29] (Emphases supplied)
The principle of equality has long been recognized under international law. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Non-discrimination, together with equality before the law and equal protection of the law without any discrimination, constitutes basic principles in the protection of human rights.Clearly, the principles of non-discrimination and equality are deeply embedded in the Philippine system of laws. As such, every member of the legal profession is bound to observe and abide by them, especially when dealing with LGBTQIA+ individuals. Incidentally, any discriminatory act can be a source of civil liability as underscored in Social Security System v. Ubaña:[32]
Most, if not all, international human rights instruments include some prohibition on discrimination and/or provisions about equality. The general international provisions pertinent to discrimination and/or equality are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD); the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
In the broader international context, equality is also enshrined in regional instruments such as the American Convention on Human Rights; the African Charter on Human and People's Rights; the European Convention on Human Rights; the European Social Charter of 1961 and revised Social Charter of 1996; and the European Union Charter of Rights (of particular importance to European states). Even the Council of the League of Arab States has adopted the Arab Charter on Human Rights in 1994, although it has yet to be ratified by the Member States of the League.
The equality provisions in these instruments do not merely function as traditional "first generation" rights, commonly viewed as concerned only with constraining rather than requiring State action. Article 26 of the ICCPR requires "guarantee[s]" of "equal and effective protection against discrimination" while Articles 1 and 14 of the American and European Conventions oblige States Parties "to ensure ... the full and free exercise of [the rights guaranteed] without any discrimination" and to "secure without discrimination" the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed. These provisions impose a measure of positive obligation on States Parties to take steps to eradicate discrimination.[31]
"That public policy abhors inequality and discrimination is beyond contention. Our Constitution and laws reflect the policy against these evils. The Constitution in the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights exhorts Congress to 'give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities.' The very broad Article 19 of the Civil Code requires every person, 'in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, [to] act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.'"[33]We also reckon with Falcis v. Civil Registrar General,[34] where the eminent Associate Justice, now Senior Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen aptly noted:
"[t]hose with sexual orientations other than the heteronormative, gender identities that are transgender or fluid, or gender expressions that are not the usual manifestations of the dominant and expected cultural binaries—the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and other gender and sexual minorities (LGBTQI+) community—have suffered enough marginalization and discrimination within our society."He also went on to highlight the severity of discriminatory acts inflicted on the LGBTQIA+ community in the Philippines, viz.:
A 2012 coalition report submitted by OutRight Action International, together with 40 Philippine LGBTQI+ and human rights group and 13 activists, to the 106th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Committee showed that from 1996 to 2012, 163 LGBTQI+ persons have been murdered due to their gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation. The report documented discriminatory acts against LGBTQI+ groups and persons both by State and non-State actors.Too, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 11313[35] also known as the "Safe Spaces Act" explicitly states that: "It is the policy of the State to value the dignity of every human person and guarantee full respect for human rights. It is likewise the policy of the State to recognize the role of women in nation-building and ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. The State also recognizes that both men and women must have equality, security and safety not only in private, but also on the streets, public spaces, online, workplaces and educational and training institutions."
In 2016, EnGendeRights, Inc. and OutRight Action International, as with 34 Philippine groups and individuals, submitted a report to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. This report documented the lack of national anti-discrimination, gender recognition, and hate crime legislation, as well as cases of discrimination by police, health workers, educators, employers, and the judiciary against LGBTQI+ persons.
A more recent report submitted in 2017 by civil society organizations to the Universal Periodic Review of the United Nations Human Rights Council continued to document human rights violations against LGBTQI+ persons, including an existing legal framework inadequate to address systemic problems of discrimination and exclusion.x x x
Analogous cases and the corresponding administrative penalties under Rule 8.01 and Canon 11 under the CPR |
In the case of Judge Dojillo, he should be admonished to be more circumspect in his choice of words and use of gender-fair language. There was no reason for him to emphatically describe Concepcion as a "lesbian" because the complained acts could be committed by anyone regardless of gender orientation. His statements like "I am a true man not a gay to challenge a girl and a lesbian like her," "the handiwork and satanic belief of dirty gossiper," and "the product of the dirty and earthly imagination of a lesbian and gossiper" were uncalled for.In Espejon v. Judge Loredo,[44] Judge Jorge Emmanuel M. Lorredo was found to have committed simple misconduct when he badgered litigants about their sexual orientation and used homophobic slurs[45] during court proceedings and even in his comment to the administrative complaint against him. There, the Court pronounced:
Being called to dispense justice, Judge Dojillo must demonstrate finesse in his choice of words as normally expected of men of his stature. His language, both written and spoken, must be guarded and measured lest the best of intentions be misconstrued.[43] (Emphasis supplied)
The statements Judge Lorredo made during the preliminary conference, and especially in the Comment he filed in this case, are clearly tantamount to homophobic slurs which have no place in our courts of law. The fact that they were made by no less than a magistrate should be rightfully upset the Court and must perforce be penalized. It was not too long ago when the Court in Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections declared that "as far as this Court is concerned, our democracy precludes using religious or moral views of one part of the community to exclude from consideration the values of other members of the community." Thus, it should come as a matter of course for all judges to desist from any word or conduct that would show or suggest anything other than inclusivity for the members of the LGBTQIA+ community. (Emphasis supplied)Going now to analogous disciplinary measures meted under Canon 11,[46] it is a lawyer's sworn duty to maintain a respectful attitude towards the courts.[47] A lawyer must not sow hate or disrespect against the court and its members. He or she must be at the forefront in upholding its dignity.[48] Tiongco v. Hon. Aguilar[49] outlines the intricacies of a lawyer's obligation under Canon 11, viz.:
This duty is closely entwined with his vow in the lawyer's oath "to conduct himself as a lawyer with all good fidelity to the courts;" his duty under Section 20 (b), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court "[t]o observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;" and his duty under the first canon of the Canons of Professional Ethics "to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance."[50]Indubitably, violation of Canon 11 warrants the imposition of an administrative penalty.
The respective administrative liabilities of Attys. Antay, Jr., Tabujara III, Calderon, Nicanor and Navarrete |
A warning, in ordinary parlance, has been defined as "an act or fact of putting one on his guard against an impending danger, evil consequences or penalties," while an admonition, "refers to a gentle or friendly reproof a mild rebuke, warning or reminder, counselling, on a fault, error or oversight, an expression of authoritative advice or warning." They are not considered as penalties. A reprimand, on the other hand, is of a more severe nature, and has been defined as a public and formal censure or severe reproof, administered to a person in fault by his superior officer or a body to which he belongs. It is more than just a warning or an admonition.[57] (Emphasis supplied)So must it be.
Proscribed then are, inter alia, the use of unnecessary language which jeopardizes high esteem in courts, creates or promotes distrust in judicial administration (Rheem, supra), or tends necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people in the integrity of the members of this Court and to degrade the administration of justice by this Court (In re: Sotto, 82 Phil. 595 [1949]); or of offensive and abusive language (In re: Rafael Climaco, 55 SCRA 107 [1974]); or abrasive and offensive language (Yangson vs. Salandanan, 68 SCRA 42 [1975]); or of disrespectful, offensive, manifestly baseless, and malicious statements in pleadings or in a letter addressed to the judge (Baja vs. Macandog, 158 SCRA 391 [1988], citing the resolution of 19 January 1988 in Phil. Public Schools Teachers Association vs. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 76180, and Ceniza vs. Sebastian, 130 SCRA 295 [1984]); or of disparaging, intemperate, and uncalled-for remarks (Sangalang vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 177 SCRA 87 [1989]).[59]The Court notes that, unlike the other lawyers here, Atty. Tabujara III did not sincerely apologize. He only said: "Unfortunately, some conversations may rub some persons the wrong way or offend certain people. I do not profess to be perfect. I do make mistakes occasionally. If I have hurt anyone, I am sorry and seek to make amends. No one is 100% perfect."[60] He is the only one so far who has not acknowledged his participation in the conversation and he seems to completely sidestep the fact that he made such sweeping statements against judges pertaining to their mental health or their sexual orientation. There is no slightest hint of remorse. What makes the offense worse is that Atty. Tabujara III is a professor. On this score, Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Cresencio P. Co Untian[61] expounds:
Respondent's responsibilities and expectations are even more heightened because he is a law professor. He should be a beacon of righteous and conscientious conduct. Respondent, as a molder of minds of soon-to-be lawyers, should guide his students to behave and act in a manner consistent with the lofty standards of the legal profession. Instead, he abused his position of authority creating an offensive and uncomfortable atmosphere in school. Again, what should be a place of learning and growth had become a place of fear and distrust for the affected students.Here, the Court is disturbed by the unapologizing stance of Atty. Tubajara III and his seeming disregard of his position as "molder of minds of soon-to-be lawyers" who is tasked with guiding "his students to behave and act in a manner consistent with the lofty standards of the legal profession." Nor can his claims of being an ally and supporter of the LGBTQIA+ community absolve him of any liability. In fact, it smacks of hypocrisy, for if he was truly unbiased, he would have refrained from engaging in a homophobic and disrespectful conversation. No one consciously and intentionally disrespect or humiliate those they hold with esteem and affection. And if hurt was unintentionally inflicted, a sincere apology can lessen the sting.
Further, it is even more disappointing that respondent fails to acknowledge the consequences of his actions and disregard the hurt Sagarbarria, Toyco and Dal may have felt. He generally claimed that they did not express any distress, embarrassment, or humiliation during the incidents complained of. It must be stressed that as their law professor, respondent exercised moral ascendancy over them. Thus, it is within reason that the concerned students could not have readily expressed disgust or annoyance over a person in authority. It takes courage and strength to stand up and speak against any form of sexual harassment. This is especially true considering that in most cases, the offender wields power, authority, or influence over the victim.[62]
1) | REPRIMAND Atty. Morgan Rosales Nicanor, Atty. Joseph Marion Peña Navarrete, Atty. Noel V. Antay, Jr. and Atty. Israel P. Calderon for violation of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely; and |
2) | IMPOSE A FINE in the amount of PHP 25,000.00 on Atty. Ernesto A. Tabujara III for violation of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. |
Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People, 70 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST 832, 862 (2015), available at <https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf> (last visited on September 2, 2019), provides:"Gender identity" and "gender expression" were defined as:
Sexual orientation: a component of identity that includes a person's sexual and emotional attraction to another person and the behavior and/or social affiliation that may result from this attraction. A person may be attracted to men, women, both, neither, or to people who are genderqueer, androgynous, or have other gender identities. Individuals may identify as lesbian, gay, heterosexual, bisexual, queer, pansexual, or asexual, among others.[2]
SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act:Further, Falcis recognized that our Constitution is "capable of accommodating a contemporaneous understanding of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics"[4] in its provisions. As such, this Court has noted that the term "marriage" in Article XV, Section 2 is textually not defined or restricted based on sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.[5]
....
(f) Gender identity and/or expression refers to the personal sense of identity as characterized, among others, by manner of clothing, inclinations, and behavior in relation to masculine or feminine conventions. A person may have a male or female identity with physiological characteristics of the opposite sex, in which case this person is considered transgender[.]
Gender identity has also been defined in Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People, 70 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST 832, 862 (2015), available at <https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf> (last visited on September 2, 2019), as follows:
Gender identity: a person's deeply felt, inherent sense of being a boy, a man, or male; a girl, a woman, or female; or an alternative gender (e.g., genderqueer, gender nonconforming, gender neutral) that may or may not correspond to a person's sex assigned at birth or to a person's primary or secondary sex characteristics. Because gender identity is internal, a person's gender identity is not necessarily visible to others. "Affirmed gender identity" refers to a person's gender identity after coming out as [transgender and gender non-conforming] or undergoing a social and/or medical transition process.
Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics at the Universal Periodic Review, ARC INTERNATIONAL, THE INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANS AND INTERSEX ASSOCIATION 14 (2016), available at <https://ilga.org/downloads/SOGIESC_at_UPR_report.pdf> (last visited on September 2, 2019), provides:
Gender expression: External manifestations of gender, expressed through one's name, pronouns, clothing, haircut, behavior, voice, or body characteristics. Society identifies these cues as masculine and feminine, although what is considered masculine and feminine changes over time and varies by culture. Typically, transgender people seek to make their gender expression align with their gender identity, rather than the sex they were assigned at birth.[3]
SECTION 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.Respect is at the core of human dignity, and this includes respect for each person's SOGIESC.
Cultural hegemony often invites people to conform to its impositions on their identities. Yet, there are some who, despite pressures, courageously choose to be authentic to themselves. This case is about the assurance of genuine individual autonomy within our constitutional legal order. It is about the virtue of tolerance and the humane goal of nondiscrimination. It is about diversity that encourages meaningful—often passionate—deliberation. Thus, it is about nothing less than the quality of our freedom.[6]I agree with the ponencia in that LGBTQ+ people's freedom to be themselves and expression of who they are is part of their constitutionally granted right of freedom of expression.[7] But more than that, LGBTQ+ people's struggle for respect goes hand in hand with the defense of their right to exist. As with other marginalized peoples, LGBTQ+ people have been historically perceived to be undeserving of being treated with dignity. To this day, their dehumanization and othering persist. Treating LGBTQ+ people as though they are subhuman or "the other" too often becomes license for the deprivation, time and time again, of their fundamental human rights, including their right to life.
It is not a defense that the discriminatory language was uttered in what was seemingly intended to be private exchanges among the macho men. The fact that their exchanges became public trumps whatever intention they may have had to keep their communications private. Seekers of righteousness cannot seek cover under a pledge of anonymity when the[ir] actions are brought to light for everyone's scrutiny. Here, this was what happened. Unfortunately or fortunately, respondents' true character came to light. Their secret codes divulged. This was their undoing. Their conversations became public and have become a public proceeding by the turn of events, as if they were uttered in a public discourse such as a court hearing.[8]The fitness to practice law is not only a matter of competence, but also of character. Respondents' acts are in violation of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and they must be disciplined accordingly.
1) | REPRIMAND Atty. Morgan Rosales Nicanor, Atty, Joseph Marion Peña Navarrete, Atty. Noel V. Antay, Jr. and Atty. Israel P. Calderon for violation of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely; and |
2) | IMPOSE A FINE in the amount of PHP 25,000.00 on Atty. Ernesto A. Tabujara III for violation of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. |