Should Hiding One’s Sexuality Grounds for Annulment? An LGBTQ+ Voice Speaks Out

Photo credit: Bahaghari Philippines

The Supreme Court’s ruling that concealing one’s homosexuality from a spouse may be considered fraud and a valid ground for annulment underscores the importance of honesty and full disclosure in marital relationships. According to the Family Code of the Philippines, a marriage can be annulled if one party was deceived into giving consent through fraudulent means. In this context, the Court reasoned that hiding one’s true sexual orientation, especially if it fundamentally affects one’s ability or intention to fulfill marital obligations, can amount to deception. This decision reinforces the legal expectation that individuals enter into marriage with sincerity and transparency, and that withholding such a significant aspect of one’s identity may prevent a spouse from giving free and informed consent to the union. However, the ruling has sparked debates on whether it promotes fairness or discrimination, raising complex questions about privacy, identity, and marital consent.

For Criz Teves, a full-time BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) Worker and an incoming 4th-year Political Science Student:

The answer is no, at least not in the way the Supreme Court has interpreted it. While Article 46(4) allows annulment when one party is “defrauded” into marriage, the recent decision categorizes homosexuality as one such form of fraud, alongside conditions like drug addiction and alcoholism. This comparison is deeply troubling”.

By grouping homosexuality, a natural variation of human identity, with problematic or compulsive behaviours, the Court implies that being gay is inherently deceitful or undesirable. It promotes the notion that LGBTQ+ people are incapable of entering honest relationships, simply because of their identity. This interpretation is not only legally flawed but ethically indefensible.

The Family Code, passed in the late 1980s, has long been criticized for being outdated and heteronormative. This ruling makes it clear that unless it is revised to reflect contemporary understandings of gender and identity, it will continue to be used as a tool of oppression, rather than justice.

Is Hiding One’s Sexual Orientation an Act of Deception? 

The Philippines remains a largely unsafe space for many queer individuals. Discrimination, familial rejection, religious condemnation, workplace exclusion, and even violence are daily realities. In such a context, people are often forced to conceal their sexual orientation to navigate a deeply prejudiced society.

To label such concealment as "fraud" is not only misguided, but cruel. It places the burden of truthfulness on the oppressed, rather than demanding that society become a safer, more inclusive space for everyone. The ruling fails to recognize that self-protection is not the same as manipulation.

According to Criz, for many LGBTQ+ individuals in the Philippines, hiding one's sexuality is not an act of deception. It is an act of survival.

“It is wrong to consider the concealment of one’s sexual orientation as deception. Sexual orientation is a personal and sensitive aspect of identity that is often hidden due to fear of violence and judgment from one’s own family and society. Because the current system is semi-colonial and semi-feudal, it is not safe for members of the LGBTQ+ community”.

Moreover, the legal system itself provides no substantial protection to LGBTQ+ individuals. The Philippine Constitution has no explicit provision against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The long-delayed SOGIE Equality Bill, which would outlaw such discrimination, remains stalled in Congress. In this legal vacuum, demanding full disclosure from LGBTQ+ people without ensuring their safety is not only hypocritical. It is deeply unjust.

“If the Philippine legal system considers the concealment of one’s sexual orientation as a form of fraud, then it must first ensure that there are laws in place that genuinely protect LGBTQ+ individuals, so that they can feel safe enough not to hide their true selves. However, the current state of the reactionary government is far from this, and thus, it has no right to label as deception something that LGBTQ+ individuals do as a means of protecting their safety”, Criz well said.

Does This Ruling Help Couples Seeking Annulment?

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not offer meaningful help to couples who want to annul their marriage. It may do more harm than good.

Rather than addressing the true causes of marital breakdown, such as emotional neglect, abuse, incompatibility, or structural issues like poverty and religious constraints. The Court shifts focus to sexual orientation as a scapegoat.

“What’s even more concerning,” Criz said, “is how the Court relied on stereotypes in its decision. In the cited case, the Court noted that the husband was ‘medyo malambot’ (somewhat soft) and that there was a lack of sexual intimacy. indicators they used to infer concealed homosexuality. This kind of reasoning is not scientific, legally weak, and sets a dangerous precedent where gender expression can be used as a ground for annulment. It puts effeminate men, masculine women, and anyone who doesn’t conform to traditional gender norms at legal risk.”

Criz added, “What’s disheartening is that this contradicts the Court’s position in the landmark 2010 case Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, where it upheld the right of LGBTQ+ individuals to participate in the democratic process. Back then, the Court even cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and affirmed that protection from discrimination should include sexual orientation, just like sex. Now, with this annulment ruling, that very principle is being undermined, showing a clear inconsistency in the application of justice.”

What This Says About the State of Our Laws

This case shows that the Philippines needs better laws to protect everyone. Instead of helping people live with respect and freedom, the court's decision makes life harder for LGBTQ+ people by treating them unfairly.

Toward Justice, Not Judgment

The Supreme Court’s decision shows that the Philippines still has a long way to go to achieve real fairness and justice. It's not enough for the law to follow rules word for word. It should also show care, respect for human rights, and dignity.

Calling hidden sexuality a form of lying punishes people who are just trying to survive in a world that already treats them unfairly. That’s not real justice. It’s discrimination made legal.

Real justice doesn’t shame people for who they are. It protects them. It listens to what they go through. And it changes when it no longer helps the people.

Unless our laws are changed and our courts fight for equality, not just for the rich or powerful but for everyone, rulings like this will keep causing harm instead of healing.

Also, many people are using annulment as a way out of broken marriages because the Philippines still has no Absolute Divorce Law. People in unhappy or unsafe marriages are forced to use outdated reasons. Like fraud or mental incapacity, just to end their marriages. This kind of system is not only strict. It’s also unfair and unkind.

In Bahaghari’s Statement on Homosexuality as a valid ground for annulment, they are calling to: 

• Pass the SOGIE (Sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression) Equality Bill to protect LGBTQ+ individuals from discrimination.

• Pass the Absolute Divorce Bill to allow people to leave marriages without being forced to invent legal "defects.