Icon injunction
Unlike the American Supreme Court, our local equivalent seems intent on signaling that it intends to promote more, instead of less, human rights. Fresh from the disastrous overturning of Roe v. Wade, it would have been just another slap on the face had the Philippine Supreme Court ruled unfavorably in Espejon v. Lorredo --an administrative case involving one of its own.
The month of June had already met local queer activists with a sweet surprise from the judiciary, when the high court unfurled Pride flags in its premises, and issued a circular enjoining the different lower courts under its jurisdiction to celebrate Pride month. The justices even held a ceremony (posted on YouTube!) that it called “The Judiciary Walks with Pride”.
That newsflash was certainly a quirk never before seen in the annals of Philippine legal history, and could easily have been an aberration, but not necessarily relied upon as binding legal precedent. But then, this case of Judge Emmanuel Lorredo came along.
See, in eviction proceedings before his Metropolitan Trial Court, MTC Judge Lorredo made it abundantly clear to the evictees, Marcelino Espejon and Erickson Cabonita, how he didn’t like badings (homosexuals.) This distaste for gay men was repeatedly expressed, over and over, in an interrogation worthy of the Gestapo.
First probing unfortunate housemates Espejon and Cabonita as to how they were related, then point-blank asking them if they were in a gay relationship, and then badgering them to admit they were bading, Judge Lorredo gave a master class in how a judge should not comport one’s self in the courtroom.
Judge Lorredo even asked the instant lovebirds whether they had girlfriends (obviously never having heard of beards) and whether they entertained lots of male visitors in their residence (a sure-fire tale-tell sign, judge!). I’m surprised the judge didn’t check them out on social media to see whether half-naked boys were cavorting in their posts (on that note, let me take five while I open my browser).
The reason for Judge Lorredo’s inquisition? Well, as it so happens, the judge is a Bible-thumper. In his own words to the two men he had just “shipped” (a term in BoysLove series that means paired together as a couple), Judge Lorredo lectured them about how being gay was forbidden by (his) god.
Further, in an explanation to the Supreme Court, the judge maintained that being a “homosexual pervert” is a good reason for one not being able to own one’s home, and being ejected from their home. “Squatters” were people who were “being punished by God for their sins or for the sins of their ancestors”.
Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa (whom we fondly called ABSC in that Makati law firm where I sharpened my nails) didn’t hesitate to call Judge Lorredo out for his homophobia. As he says in his opinion, which shall now be enshrined in many queer activists’ hearts and hearths, Judge Lorredo’s comments were “tantamount to homophobic slurs which have no place in our courts of law”.
“No place in our courts of law.” Such wonderfully sweet words, ABSC. You are now a bona fide gay icon!
In another passage, the chivalrous knight in shining, shimmering armor that is Justice Caguioa says: “”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." 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 members of the LGBTQIA+ community.”
Such a beautiful word, “inclusivity”. Take note of that, dear Judge Lorredo. Imbibe it. Apply it. Hopefully, when another case involving the LGBTQIA+ (make sure to look that up in the web!) comes before your honor, we may see you practice it with the gravitas expected from you by the Supreme Court.
We don’t want another 30-day suspension, do we?