Safeguarding gender justice
At the request of Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, I represented our country in the recent Asean Law Association (ALA) “Inaugural Lecture Series on Gender Justice” in Kuala Lumpur, sponsored by the Malaysian Supreme Court. It was keynoted by ALA President and former Chief Justice of Malaysia Tun Tengku Maimun binti Tuan Mat (CJ Maimun). Her lecture was both intellectually rigorous and deeply humane, grounded in constitutional interpretation yet attentive to lived realities in societies shaped by multiple legal traditions.
MANY ASEAN COUNTRIES, including Malaysia and the Philippines, uphold legal pluralism—the coexistence of multiple laws within one nation. Our legal system has a blend of civil and common law, though it also recognizes the customary laws of indigenous peoples under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act and the Code of Muslim Personal Law (Presidential Decree No. 1083).
Notably, President Marcos approved in 2024 the creation of three new Shari’a Judicial Districts and 12 additional Shari’a Circuit Courts. These courts, as first codified by his late father, enforce PD 1083, which adjudicates matters of marriage, divorce, and inheritance, areas where gender equality issues are relevant.
Bondagjy v. Bondagjy (Dec. 7, 2001) ruled that a custody proceeding between two Muslim parents should be decided according to ordinary Philippine civil law if one parent—whose fitness to care for the child had become the issue—has converted to a non-Muslim faith. The Supreme Court held that the best interest of the child should have the highest priority and affirmed the maternal preference in the custody of young children.
These diverse systems coexist within our Philippine democratic society. However, the challenge, as CJ Maimun articulated in her lecture, is not to deny pluralism but to ensure that constitutional guarantees of equality prevail when plural systems collide with fundamental rights.
She emphasized, and I respectfully agree, “Equality does not always demand identical treatment in all circumstances. What it requires is that any difference in treatment must rest on an intelligible differentia and that such differentia must bear a rational nexus to the objective of the law.”
THE PHILIPPINES CAN BE PROUD OF ITS TRACK RECORD in advancing gender justice and in overcoming the challenges posed by both legal and religious pluralism. As a predominantly Catholic country, religious teachings, particularly biblical views on women and life, continue to influence social attitudes and, at times, policy debates.
Husbands, citing the Bible, insist that wives must be submissive to their husbands as to the Lord. They, however, forget the crucial portion that follows: Husbands must love their wives as Christ loved the Church to the point of death.
The Constitution is clear in recognizing the role of women in nation-building and ensuring the fundamental equality of women and men before the law. Over the years, these constitutional commitments have been translated into laws and influenced legal decisions.
While still an Associate Justice, I penned People v. Genosa (Jan. 15, 2004), adopting for the first time the “battered woman syndrome” as a form of self-defense, or at least as a mitigating circumstance, in a prosecution for parricide committed by a wife against her husband. This ruling acknowledged the mental state of a pregnant woman who, at the time of the crime, had endured sustained and medically documented abuse by her spouse for over 13 years.
THE FIRST ASEAN COUNTRY to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw) was the Philippines in 1981, and locally adopted the convention’s measures through the Magna Carta for Women (Republic Act No. 9710). In the words of CJ Maimun, “Cedaw serves as a bridge in harmonizing diverse legal traditions with universal principles of equality, justice, and fairness.”
Moreover, the esteemed former Malaysian Chief Justice appealed for the international recognition and fulfillment of Cedaw’s aspirations into practical tools for justice. She cited the Malaysian highest court’s commitment to Cedaw in ruling that pregnancy cannot be a legal basis for gender discrimination.
For its part, our Supreme Court reiterated its transformative work in fulfilling “Equal and Inclusive Justice” via its Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations, otherwise known as SPJI 2022 to 2027. Specifically, in the “2025 Campaign to End Violence Against Women,” the Court stressed that vigilance, clarity, and empathy must be continuing standards in decision-making.
As CJ Maimun concluded, gender justice transcends legal systems and borders. Legal pluralism is not a barrier but a source of strength. It should not become an excuse to perpetuate inequality. Quite the contrary, it should be a pathway toward a more inclusive and just regional order.
And if I may be allowed to add humbly, gender justice is not about privileging women over men, but about fairness, dignity, and assuring that our legal systems—plural as they may be—do not leave more than half of our population marginalized and vulnerable.
—————-
Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com
