22 Definitions and Dimensions of Discrimination the court as a condition where persons thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics. In granting the Petition, the Supreme Court relied on Jennifer’s medical condition, which it states, was beyond her control. In contrast to the two previous cases, Silverio in denying changes in the birth certificate on the basis of sexual reassignment surgery and Cagandahan in allowing the same on the basis of medical condition, the case of “Ang Ladlad” took a more progressive stance in favour of the LGBT community, framing arguments on the basis of non-discrimination and equal protection of the laws. In “Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. COMELEC” (28 April 2010)51 the Supreme Court overturned the Resolutions of the COMELEC en banc denying the accreditation of Ang Ladlad as a party-list under Republic Act no. 7941, otherwise known as the PartyList System Act. The Supreme Court in deciding in favor of Ang Ladlad included a discussion on nondiscrimination wherein it stated that it “explicitly recognize the principle of non-discrimination as it relates to electoral participation, enunciated in the UDHR and the ICCPR.” The Supreme Court then cited non-discrimination as laid out in Article 26 of the ICCPR as follows: Article 26 All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The Supreme Court added that “laws of general application relating to elections be applied equally to all persons, regardless of sexual orientation” and that “although sexual orientation is not specifically enumerated as a status or ratio for discrimination in Article 26 of the ICCPR, the ICCPR Human Rights 51 G.R. No. 190582. Committee has opined that the reference to “sex” in Article 26 should be construed to include “sexual orientation.” Specific Measures on Women, not discriminatory to men The case of Garcia vs. Hon. Ray Alan Drilon (June 5, 2013)52 finally laid to rest the challenge on the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9262, entitled “An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes.” The law which took effect on 27 March 2004 was formally challenged before the Supreme as being violative of the equal protection and due processes clauses, and an undue delegation of judicial power to barangay officials. In ruling in favour of RA 9262, the Supreme Court discussed at length the legislative history of the law in excluding men in its coverage and ruled that the exclusion of men in the measure does not violate the equal protection clause as the Constitution allows classification and that all that is required is that it be reasonable, which means that the classification should be based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences; that it must be germane to the purpose of the law; that it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and that it must apply equally to each member of the class. All these, according to the Supreme Court have been fulfilled in the case of RA 9262. In explaining that the law is based on substantial distinction, the Supreme Court discussed (a) how violence against women is an expression of the unequal power relations between men and women tracing the history of VAW as historically sanctioned in many societies, (b) that women are the “usual” and “most likely” victims of violence, and on (c) gender bias and prejudice. It is here that the SC explained that the enactment of R.A. 9262 aims to address the discrimination brought about by biases and prejudices against women and that as emphasized by the CEDAW Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, addressing or correcting discrimination through specific measures 52 G.R. No. 179267. CHR Gender Ombud Guidelines