Definitions and Dimensions of Discrimination case, the Supreme Court made mention of the State’s ratification of CEDAW and how such ratification paved the way for the enactment of corrective labor and social laws on gender inequality. Specific to the case, the Supreme Court cited the Labor Code provisions governing the rights of women as found in articles 130 to 138. It singled out Articles 135 and 136, Article 135 as it provides for women’s right against discrimination with respect to terms and conditions of employment on account simply of sex . Article 136 on the other hand explicitly prohibits discrimination merely by reason of marriage of female employees. 21 been sufficiently proven by petitioner that Belga’s case is such. The Supreme Court in the case ruled that the company’s policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage runs afoul of the test of, and the right against, discrimination, afforded all women workers by our labor laws and by no less than the Constitution. In a later case, Del Monte Philippines, Inc. vs. Velasco (6 March 2007),49 the Supreme Court ruled that the series of absences of the respondent due to pregnancy and its related ailments, such as urinary tract infection, was found not to be a valid ground to dismiss her from employment. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals in concluding that respondent’s sickness was pregnancy-related and, therefore, the petitioner cannot terminate respondent’s services because in doing so, petitioner will, in effect, be violating the Labor Code which, under Article 147 thereof, prohibits an employer to discharge an employee on account of the latter’s pregnancy. The Court was convinced that the petitioner terminated the services of respondent on account of her pregnancy which justified her absences and, thus, committed a prohibited act rendering the dismissal illegal. Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy Discrimination on the basis of Sexual Orientation Aside from decisions prohibiting stipulations against marriage, the Supreme Court also rendered decisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. There are three decided cases by the Supreme Court involving issues on sexual orientation and gender identity. In Silverio v. Republic (2007), Rommel Silverio who was born male but has undergone sex reassignment surgery sought to change his name “Rommel” to “Mely” and his sex from “male” to “female.” The Petition was denied by the Supreme Court ruling that the law does not allow change of first name and change of sex on the basis of sex reassignment surgery. It also stated that such change could not also be granted on the basis of ‘equity’ as it will have public policy consequences and would be used as a prerequisite to marriage, a sacred social institution between a man and woman. In Lakpue Drug, Inc. vs. Belga, (20 October 2005)48 the Supreme Court found the penalty of dismissal for an employee who allegedly concealed her pregnancy and incurred absences without official leave during delivery as too harsh and illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that the alleged misconduct of Belga barely falls within the situation contemplated by the law. Her absence for 16 days was justified considering that she had just delivered a child, which can hardly be considered a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty; much less does it imply wrongful intent on the part of Belga. Petitioner harps on the alleged concealment by Belga of her pregnancy. This argument, however, begs the question as to how one can conceal a fullterm pregnancy. The Court agreed with respondent’s position that it can hardly escape notice how she grows bigger each day. While there may be instances where the pregnancy may be inconspicuous, it has not 48 GR No. 166379, Months after Silverio, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Cagandahan v. Republic.50 In Cagandahan case, Jennifer Cagandahan sought to have her name “Jennifer Cagandahan” changed to “Jeff Cagandahan” and gender from “female” to “male.” The Petition rested on Jennifer’s condition of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which was described by 49 G.R. No. 153477. 50 G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008. CHR Gender Ombud Guidelines