Designing deliberation on LGBTQ+ issues in the Philippines: community considerations, challenges, and collaborations

In August 2024, a series of innovative deliberative assemblies were held in Makati City, Philippines on issues related to discrimination against sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics. Against a backdrop of both partial institutional progress and significant gaps in national-level policy, the forum aimed for inclusive and empathetic conversations alongside actionable policy outcomes.

Warning: this article contains homophobic and transphobic language. These terms are quoted in order to illustrate political debates around LGBQT+ rights and contextualise the challenges of organising public deliberation on this topic in the Philippines.

Despite having the largest Pride march in Asia and being tagged as the “most friendly country to LGBTQ+”, the Philippines still has no national anti-discrimination law. Though there are over thirty local anti-discrimination ordinances, the sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) Equality Bill, has remained pending in the National Congress since 2000. Discriminatory acts in educational institutions, the workplace, and in homes and communities continue to be reported. Sites of formal deliberation like legislative debates remain highly contentious due to the actions of several anti-LGBTQ+ organisations and conservative church groups. In recent deliberations in the Philippine senate on the SOGIESC Equality bill, phrases such as “disordered condition,” “wrong lifestyle choice,” “harmful foreign ideology,” and “social problems” were used to describe the “condition” of Filipino LGBTQ+ citizens. Worse, their voices in formal spaces for deliberation are often diluted by representatives of groups which aim to counter the urgency and the need of legislating a separate law for LGBTQ+ protection.

Bringing together both LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ citizens in a local setting thus poses risks, particularly in the context of sociopolitical inequalities that can further hinder meaningful LGBTQ+ participation. To address these challenges, the Deliberative Forum on Acceptance, Understanding, and Equality for LGBTQ+ in Makati City was collaboratively designed with local government units, LGBTQ+ organisations, and community members to ensure its responsiveness to the gendered realities of the LGBTQ+ community and allow their voices to be heard in crucial and consequential policy-making. The forum was divided into two parts: four community meetings in the chosen barangays [villages] and a city-wide gathering with randomly selected participants from the community forums.

Instead of focusing on specific policies, the remit expanded the realm of choices for the participants to develop their own understanding towards the issues and how best to solve them.

The daily realities of LGBTQ+ Filipinos became primary considerations in designing the deliberative forum. Organisers needed to balance the challenge of discussing LGBTQ+ concerns in public spaces with the opportunity to centre their issues in consequential policy-making. The remit – what steps should our community take to promote acceptance, understanding, and equality for LGBTQ+ individuals? – was a product of consultation with deliberative democracy practitioners, experts, and LGBTQ+ organisations. Instead of focusing on specific policies, the remit expanded the realm of choices for participants to develop their own understanding towards the issues, and how best to solve them. This value-based approach reflected the advocacy efforts of the community, and helped to foster a safe space for LGBTQ+ participants. The remit allowed the members to process issues on their own, develop priorities for the solutions, and engage in non-judgmental discussions.

Recruiting participants and selecting forum venues also presented opportunities and challenges. Holding the forum within the community’s vicinity increased accessibility and familiarity for participants. However, recruiting LGBTQ+ participants was difficult due to concerns around the sensitivity of the topic and having their immediate community as audience. Recruitment of heterosexual male participants also proved to be challenging since they assumed the forum to be exclusively for LGBTQ+ citizens. Addressing these issues required collaboration with the local government units such as the city government and barangay council (village council) to build trust and introduce the project to community members.

Recruitment materials were posted in public spaces, such as barangay halls and sari-sari (local convenience) stores, and online Facebook registration was possible for those who were afraid to signify their SOGIESC in public. These efforts engaged more than 200 citizens from diverse SOGIESC backgrounds across four low-income barangays based on the local government data. In consultation with barangay officials, enclosed but accessible venues were chosen to provide privacy for the forums.

The communicative practice of kwentuhan, sharing daily stories with one’s immediate community, also allows for participants to come as they are, and bring their own lives into the deliberative space.

Acknowledging that sharing intimate details related to their SOGIESC required building trust, kwentuhan (Filipino talk story) guided the design of the deliberative forum. This communicative practice of sharing daily stories with one's immediate community not only provided a Filipino touch to deliberation but also allowed participants to come as they were, and bring their own lives into the deliberative space.

As early as recruitment, the team sought for endorsement from barangay officials and local LGBTQ+ organizations in order to to activate trust networks among the residents of the barangay. To foster safe spaces during the forums, a co-design workshop with LGBTQ+ organisations ensured that the questions respected the participants’ preparedness in sharing personal and, possibly, emotional stories. Facilitators also took part in a workshop focused on communicative strategies, including appropriate language for discussing sensitive issues and narratives.

Though process design anticipated possible challenges, facilitators still observed traditional gender roles which affected the flow of conversations and even the commitment of the participants. Male participants tended to dominate conversations or disengage with topics or discussions they did not agree with. LGBTQ+ participants also required a safe space to share their stories and lives. Female participants, who were traditionally assigned to care for their children, also brought this role in the forum. The addition of a child-minding area and the presence of psychosocial support built confidence among female participants to engage in the conversation.

Navigating these challenges during the forum required proactive facilitation, especially in breakout groups. Following kwentuhan as a communicative strategy, semi-structured questions and deliberation allowed participants to feel heard and respected, especially to those who were still familiarising themselves with the space and people. Over time, although facilitators gently encouraged more perspective-taking during the community forums, the emphasis on sharing remained. In the end, the community forums served as a crucial rapport-building activity that helped participants feel more open and engaged, setting the stage for more deliberative discussions in the city-wide forum. Mini-games were included in breakout rooms to assign order of speaking which also allowed the group to learn more about one another and where they stayed in the community. Rules such as “pass” when someone was not yet ready to share were devised by the forum members.

After listening and learning from each other’s stories, participants suggested policies and programs they deemed to promote the values of acceptance and equality for LGBTQ+ in their communities: a right to care card, gender sensitivity training for public officials and citizens, and psychosocial support for LGBTQ+ individuals. The variety of practical solutions put forward by the participants reflected an appreciation of ongoing issues for the community. Indeed, the design and outcome of the community forum was a product of the unique sociopolitical landscape of queer citizenship in the Philippines, the active participation of diverse stakeholders, and the openness of participants. These fostered a deliberative space that was collaborative, safe, and meaningful.

The community forum also made a significant impact on the promotion of SOGIESC rights and on bridging the gap between and among LGBTQ+ organisations, the wider community, and the government. The forum enhanced participants' awareness of crucial issues being faced by the LGBTQ+ community and policies implemented in other areas to promote gender equality, whilst challenging gender stereotypes and misconceptions. In addition, the forums established meaningful connections between LGBTQ+ organisations and the participants, laying a strong foundation for future collaborations and collective advocacy efforts. Lastly, LGBTQ+ organisations acknowledged that the presence of representatives from the local government of Makati City allowed a space for their stories and issues to be heard and for future policy proposals to be feasible.

About the Authors
Charles Erize P. Ladia is a faculty member in the Department of Speech Communication and Theatre Arts, University of the Philippines Diliman (UPD). His research interests and advocacy include political rhetoric, civic engagement, and the rhetorical dimensions of youth and gendered social movements. He is currently pursuing a PhD in Political Science at UPD with a dissertation project that examines the intersections of deliberative democracy and the gender advocacy of LGBTQ+ organizations in the Philippines and in Taiwan.

Ferdinand Sanchez II is a researcher and Head of Public Engagement at the Sigla Research Center. He is an MA Sociology student at the University of the Philippines Diliman and a Research Assistant at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy, University of Canberra. His research focuses on influence operations and disinformation in the Global South, deliberative democracy, and Filipino masculinities.

Hazel Jovita-Olvez is a faculty member in the Department of Political Science at Mindanao State University – Iligan Institute of Technology, Iligan City, Philippines. She is a member of the Global Citizen’s Assembly Network. Her research interests include public policy, citizen participation and disaster management.