A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF MERANAWS’ FACEBOOK POSTS ON THE SOGIE BILL ISSUE

Mohammad Abdul Hamid A. Bantog, 4th Year, AB English.

Abstract

This paper explores the viewpoints of Meranaws on the SOGIE Bill, through an analysis of their Facebook posts. Meranaws have

increasingly partaken of this social media site, and have found in it a platform on which they can express their views. Particularly in the political

environment, Meranaws have also taken stances on sensitive socio-political issues in the Philippines, their posts being influenced by their cultural,

social, and environmental context; as such, their posts on the highly controversial Bill are a rich, in-depth source of their perspectives as a people, not

only on the Bill itself but the surrounding conversations of gender and religious freedom.

This analysis focuses on posts and status updates relating to or expressing views on the Bill, as its material of analysis; being the most

prolific and common medium by which users express their perspectives as a whole on the site. It also does not take comments and responses as part of

its scope.

The analysis explores the main issues and arguments of the Meranaws for and against the Bill, taking into account lexical items, rhetorical

forms, and arguments employed.

Introduction

The Philippines has made numerous strides towards securing the rights of frequently oppressed, marginalized groups. This included

indigenous tribes and ethnic groups, farmers, laborers, and women; much effort has been made by administrations to give rights to these groups,

through methods such as Agrarian Reform (for farmers), Magna Cartas (for women, laborers, public servants, etc.), autonomy (for the Muslims of

Mindanao), etc. (Zaide, 2013). But it is interesting to note how one group has frequently been handed a far less reasonable deal, and whose rights have

been frequently ignored. The LGBT Community has often been passed over, even endangered by the rights afforded to individuals who identify as

heterosexuals. For example, in Article 46 of the Family Code of 1987, homosexuality is considered as a ground for marriage annulment, classified
alongside drug addiction and alcoholism. The RA 9262 also assigns a negative connotation to the LGBT, associating those who identify as part of it as

“socially bad or psychologically detrimental”. The “grave scandal” prohibition in Article 200 of the Revised Penal Code has also been seen as a common

threatening device against gays caught in police raids on bathhouses and other venues wherein homosexual activity is frequent, under the guise of Anti

Trafficking (UNDP, 2014).

With these laws intact, it is clear as to why none of the anti-discrimination bills for LGBT members proposed in the Philippines have ever

been passed, either floundering in the Lower House or failing to find a sponsor in the Upper House. Many anti-discriminatory bills proposed against

racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination have even been discarded due to the inclusion of LGBT rights (Abad, 2019). Of the attempts, only Sen. Miriam

Defensor-Santiago’s 2000 bill has survived to this day; Senate Bill No. 689, the earliest form of the soon to be christened SOGIE Bill. Now, this Bill, one

that has been held up in the Lower House even with LGBT representation in the Congress (Ang Ladlad Partylist), has resurfaced through an August 13

altercation; the ejection of Gretchen Diez, a transwoman, from a mall bathroom has sparked outrage from the LGBT Community in the Philippines (ABS-

CBN News, 2019). The incident became a rallying cry by the latter against discrimination and for the passing of, to them, a long overdue bill, but on the

other hand has become a serious source of counter-outrage by those opposed to the Bill. Sen. Tito Sotto was among the multitude of lawmakers,

religious groups and adherents, and other citizens who indicted this movement as an act that would somehow compromise the rights of women, or

identifying it as too non-inclusive. Their arguments echo much of the same messages against LGBT rights. Morality, religion, the “predation” of gays on

men and children, etc. Sen. Sotto specifically identifies his opposition to this law as precaution against what could be a ploy by the international LGBT

community to “smuggle” same-sex marriage into the Philippines, something he shares with prominent religious institutions such as the CBCP (Gregorio,

2019).

As an issue that has captivated the entire Philippines at the time, it has not failed to reach social media, whose tremendous growth has led

to it being increasingly used in a political context (Stieglitz & Dang-Xuan, 2012). The SOGIE Bill issue has sparked a firestorm of pro- and anti-SOGIE

Bill ‘netizens’ in social media, in sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Even celebrities such as Anne Curtis and Heart Evangelista have weighed in,

mostly in support of the bill. But the researcher found himself interested in the responses of a group also considered a minority in the Philippines, and

who has also fought for rights against injustice for decades. Specifically, as a Meranaw, he encountered numerous Facebook posts from his fellow

Meranaws and Mindanao State University students, whose responses to the issue range from accepting to downright hostility, the latter of which are
more numerous. Though one could perhaps easily pin these responses on the religious and cultural values of the Meranaw (a starkly anti-homosexual

one), the researcher deems it apt to find out as to whether other factors are at play, through an analysis of the discourse in the Facebook posts of these

Meranaws. Specifically, the researcher wishes to discern: 1) What common discursive practices do Meranaws employ in these posts to express their

views? 2) What common positions, views, and themes of the Meranaws can be interpreted from these posts? 3) What possible socio-historical

conditions and values are revealed to have shaped their posts?

All these questions, patterned after the process of Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis, are meant to study the rhetoric and

communicational devices Meranaws made use of in their posts to identify the perspectives of the Meranaws on such a controversial subject, and

therefore elicit a general statement or picture of the values, conditions, and environment that shaped their views.

Related Literature

LGBT Rights in the Philippines

As early as the 16th and 17th century, what can be identified as an LGBT presence was woven into pre-colonial Philippine culture, with the

babaylan as a prominent example. But after their disappearance with Spanish colonization, it took until the 1960s to observe a spread of gay culture,

literature, and studies throughout the Philippines (UNDP, 2014), and only until the 90s did the Philippines see demonstrations of political activism by

LGBT communities and organizations, such as the Lesbian Contingent group joining the 1993 International Women’s Day March and the 1994’s Pride

March, the first of its kind in the Philippines and Asia (Abad, 2019).

But though these developments exist, and though the Philippines is signatory to many relevant international human rights covenants, the

lack of an anti-discrimination bill still haunts the Philippines. Numerous proposals have been made since the 90s, but without success, such as proposed

bills on establishing an LGBT desk in police stations and allowing same-sex couples to jointly own property. Only at the local government unit level were

anti-discrimination ordinances passed, and just recently. Transgender people are also not allowed to legally change their identity, first name and sex
(intersex people are allowed to do this). Only one anti-discrimination bill, the SOGIE Bill first proposed by the late Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, has

prominently stood the test of time for 19 years, yet it is clear that it is still floundering in the Congress (Deslate, 2016).

As for Philippine society’s attitude towards LGBT people, there are signs of acceptance, but it would seem that Philippine society expects

LGBT Filipinos to fit stereotypes and occupational niches. Perhaps a great obstacle for full acceptance of LGBT rights would be r eligion. With the strong

influence of the Roman Catholic Church on the majority of Filipinos, the church freely opposes anti-LGBT discrimination policies, and endorse programs

such as “ex-gay” Christians as movements to deter LGBT activities (UNDP, 2014).

SOGIE Bill

This Bill, or House Bill No. 4982, “An Act Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation, or Gender Identity or Expression

(Sogie) and Providing Penalties Thereof”, is an act first filled by the late Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Rep. Etta Rosales, on 2000. It is said to be

meant to fulfill the equal protection clause under the 1987 Constitution, by recognizing the LGBTQ++ as equals with equal human rights, and recognizes

as a national and international duty to defend them against discrimination.

In its current form, the bill seeks to define the concepts of sexual orientation,
gender identity, and gender expression, and lists the practices considered
discriminatory and unlawful under the bill, like the denial of rights to LGBTQ+
community on the basis of their SOGIE, such as their right to access public
services, right to use establishments and services including housing, and right to
apply for a professional license, among others.The bill is also punitive: violation of
the acts could result in a fine of one hundred thousand to five hundred thousand
pesos or a prison sentence of one to six years, or both. It is provided that the court
may also impose community service in the form of attendance of human rights
education seminars and classes (congress.gov.ph).

But this Bill has been met with scorn by many, especially by the Roman
Catholic Church and other Christian conservative groups, alongside legislators such
as Sen. Tito Sotto and Sen. Pacquiao. Defenders of the Bill include Sen. Risa
Hontiveros, who is actively pushing for this Bill to be passed (Abad, 2019).

Facebook, Philippines, and Politics

 It is no overstatement to claim that Filipinos are avid consumers of social media, and by 2018 has counted about 67 million people among

social media users. The basis of this is the 67 million Facebook accounts of Filipinos, according to a report by London-based consultancy We Are

Social. A check of the website NapoleonCat’s report yielded even more staggering numbers, counting 74,850,000 (68.4% of the Philippine population)

Filipino Facebook users as of January, 2019 (NapoleonCat, 2019). It is then no surprise that Facebook has deeply penetrated the society of Filipinos, in

all its aspects; most significantly in politics and political discourse.

Meranaws and LGBT Rights

The opposition and persecution against LGBT Filipinos and their rights is not exclusive to the Roman Catholic Church-dominated northern

Philippines. The Muslim- dominated areas of Lanao del Norte and Marawi City in Mindanao is no exception. For example, in 2005, under Mayor Omar

Ali, homosexuality, and its public display, was banned inside Marawi City (MaradikaOnline, 2006). And in a UN Dialogue, p articipants expressed how

being a member of the LGBT is taboo, based on Islamic religious and traditional beliefs. The participants also stated that “most participants who live in a

Muslim context would probably not identify themselves publicly as belonging to the LGBT community nor display same-sex affection in public”. Some of

the participants even said that they avoid association with formal LGBT groups, though they identify as being members of the community.

Though there is a lack of formal studies into the treatment of LGBT Filipinos in Muslim Mindanao, there are reports of LGBT Muslims who

were either disowned or physically harmed by their family members, especially by their male family members. Muslim transgenders seem to take much

of this attack.

Again, this opposition seems to be religiously based: Muslims interpret their holy texts to view homosexuality as “haram” or sinful. Islam is

generally understood to teach that homosexual acts are sinful and punishable by God (Ally, 2008). There are references in the Qur’an that are cited to

oppose same-sex behavior, including the story of prophet Lot. Kugle (2010) stated that, for many Muslims, “dealing with homosexuality or transgender

issues is a matter of sin and heresy, not difference and diversity.” Under Sharia law, homosexuality is also a punishable crime against God, and as such

LGBT Filipinos in traditional Islamic-majority regions faced religiously inspired discrimination and prejudice (UNDP, 2014).
Methodology

The foundation of this paper is Fairclough’s (1995, 1989) critical discourse analysis (CDA), a critical theory of language which sees the use

of language as a form of social practice. This theory, as explained by Janks (1997), assumes that “society is tied to specific historical contexts and are

the means by which existing social relations are reproduced or contested and different interests are served” (Janks, 1997). As for framework of this

theory, Fairclough meant it as an analysis on a number of foci or themes: power and ideology, for discursive participants who are seen to struggle

against a linguistic form of opression; discourse analysis and sociocultural change, which assumes that “the role of discourse within the society and

culture is seen as historically variable”, and that discourse has taken on a major role in sociocultural reproduction and change in modern and

contemporary ('late modem’) society; and finally, discourse analysis along the lines of intertextuality (Fairclough, 1995).

Fairclough’s CDA (1989) is generally applied to study peoples’ choices of words, metaphors, and expressions, in relation to their relational,

experiential, and expressive values, with these choices encoding assumption about power (Orellana, 1996; Orrù, 2014). As for its process, or scope,

Fairclough (1989) identifies three levels of relational discourses: (1) social conditions of production and interpretation, that is, factors in society that led

to the production of texts and how these factors affect interpretation; (2) the process of production and interpretation, that is, how texts have been

produced and this affects interpretation; (3) the product of the first two stages, the text. From these, Fairclough (1989) derives a m odel for CDA,

consisting of three inter-related dimensions of discourse. The three dimensions are: 1. The object of analysis (including verbal, visual or verbal and

visual texts). 2. The processes by means of which the object is produced and received (writing/speaking/designing and reading/listening/viewing) by

human subjects. 3. The socio-historical conditions which govern these processes.

As such, three inter-related processes of analysis are tied to each dimension, and are the three stages or processes upon which CDA is

based on: text analysis (description), processing analysis (interpretation), and social analysis (explanation). The researcher then found this theory as a

fit to his purpose of understanding the discourse in which Meranaws express their views upon the SOGIE Bill, as its dimensions, goals, and processes is

seen as applicable for analyzing the power hegemony and socio-cultural aspects buried in their discussions and posts. The researcher also found that

applying this to Facebook is no stretch at all; Fairclough’s CDA model has already been used in studies, whether purely linguistic or socio-political in
nature, of Facebook posts as a medium of discourse, such as Orru’s (2014) study on racist discourse and Fahad (2016) on studying the language of

native and non-native speakers in Facebook.

The researcher then began by collecting the samples. The samples are comprised of 30 Facebook posts. Some of these posts were from

personal timelines and status updates, but much of these were originally posted on the MSU Main Campus’ largest private group/page, ‘ Taga MSU-

Main Campus jud ka kung?’, a page with 52,000 members who are either current or alumni MSU Students. These posts were all identified by the

researcher as posted by Meranaws, most from MSU-Main Campus (both current and alumni), and were directly/indirectly addressing or referencing the

SOGIE Bill issue and the Diaz-bathroom controversy. Comments on posts that were meant to be discursive or to allow a discussion over the SOGIE Bill

issue and the controversies, social issues surrounding them were also considered for the samples. The timespan for the collection of the data was from

August 23 to early October, 2019.

The researcher then applied CDA to the samples. The researcher began with a textual analysis of the posts, including l exicalization,

patterns of transitivity, use of active and passive voice, nominalisation, choices of mood, thematic structure, etc., which are based on Fairclough’s key

questions for textual analysis (1985), in turn based on Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (1985). For the second stage of analysis, the

researcher identified the situational context and the intertextual context of the posts, and how the textual description of the posts lend itself to the

purposes of the discursive participant. Finally, the researcher drew from these interpretations a conclusion on the general views of the Meranaws on the

issue, and what this means for their society in this modern, increasingly liberal age.

Conceptual Framework
 The main interest of this study was the discernment of the Meranaw views on the issues and incidents surrounding the SOGIE Bill issue and

LGBT rights, how they expressed their views through their Facebook posts, and the underlying values that shaped their perspectives. Their posts were

subjected to the Critical Discourse Analysis method (CDA), using Fairclough’s three processes of analysis.

The following page contains the Schematic Diagram of the Conceptual Framework, which shows the flow of the research study.
Meranaws’ Facebook Posts on SOGIE Bill and
LGBT Rights/Issues

Language, symbols, rhetoric, and other

linguistic and non-linguistic devices used in the
posts

Critical Discourse Analysis

Socio-historical, political, and cultural values of

the Meranaws with regard to the SOGIE and
LGBT issue

Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of the Conceptual Framework

Analysis

The analysis was guided by the research questions presented by the researcher, the Critical Discourse Analysis of Fairclough (1989),

including his model of textual analysis and interpretation, with some refernces from Halliday’s (1985) Introduction to Functional Grammar and

MacDonald’s

1) What common discursive practices do Meranaws employ in these posts to express their views?

By studying the texts of these posts, the researcher came up with the following observations:

 No significant nominalizations nor lexicalizations were incorporated in the posts as discursive devices.

 Perhaps the most notable is the pronoun use: the posts always assign the pronoun ‘they’, ‘their’, ‘sila’ to refer to the LGBT

Community, which are meant to characterize them as the other, as these pronouns are classified as ‘exclusive’. ‘We’, ‘atin’, ‘tau

(tayo)’ are used by these posts to identify solidarity with one another, as they are inclusive pronouns. This denotes an ‘other’

persona being assigned to the LGBT Community to persuade fellow Meranaws to stand against them. ‘You’, a pronoun meant to

establish a personal connection/reaction, was also used by the posts in referring to the readers yet to make a decision regarding

the Bill, as a way to encourage them to stand against the Bill, or to either deliberately challenge, question, indict, or empathize with

the LGBT Community, in the purpose of persuading them to desist from their protests.

 Capital letters are usually employed for text that these posts mean to emphasize, such as “NO TO SOGIE EQUALITY BILL”, “sa

dami dami ng WORLD ISSUES”.

 The choices of mood across the posts are telling. The posts are usually in a declarative mood, as the posts clearly declare their

anti-stance on the SOGIE Bill either at the beginning or end of the texts, or declare, even predict that the SOGIE Bill would spark

‘enmity’. Some are interrogative, but the questions are meant rhetorically. For example, a post that poses multiple questions that

challenge the reader’s faith, make a rhetorical point, or challenge the reader to action: “Bakit ang mga Christian religious groups ay

mga super aktibo…samantalang tayong mga Muslim ay wari baga walang pakialam?”, “Dumating na ba ng panahon na bawal nang

ipagbawal ang kasamaan?”. Other posts are directly imperative in their moods, as they call readers to action or warn them, such as

this example: “Maranao ladies, prepare your kumbong pins to use as weapons just in case”.

 The posts are usually in the Active Voice, especially when denoting their stance against the Bill.

 The tense used in the posts also fit certain purposes; the posts use future tenses to describe possible scenarios if the Bill is passed:

“Magiging COED na ang mga dorms sa MSU”. The present tense is commonly used for posts that mean to call readers to action, or

patronize/reproach those in support of the Bill: “Lumalabas din ang pagka-lalake pag away na.,”, and “I am calling for moderation in

all actions related to fighting for our ‘rights’,”. The past tense is almost never used, unless in referring to relatively past information.

 The information focus of the posts, if not their declaration of opposition against the SOGIE Bill, are their reasons why: some

posts focus on respect for the law, and for other communities and religious viewpoints that they argue should be respected and

considered by the LGBT Community; some share information about the threat of the sanctions and restrictions of the Bill’s

provisions on religious freedom; many levy their arguments against the bills by focusing on the restroom controversies, with

warning anecdotes about members of the LGBT causing scenes or threatening restroom-goers, with some offering solutions to

the issue (for example,, separate bathrooms for the LGBT).

 Most of the posts are written in short texts, with short independent clauses in separate sentences. Cohesion devices were only

used only to link their reasons for opposing the Bill to their arguments (“Because of SOGIE…”).
 These discursive devices/grammar used in these posts’ texts are clearly meant to serve the most common, even overwhelming

purpose of these posts: to declare, persuade, and call readers to oppose the SOGIE Bill, through evoking guilt from the readers by

challenging their moralities and faith, warning them against its implications.

2) What common positions, views, and themes of the Meranaws can be interpreted from these posts?

What can be observed from the posts is that most, if not all, of the responses of these selected posts from Meranaws are clearly

negative, or anti-SOGIE. The following are common subjects, contents, and themes from the posts:

A common argument raised by the posts is that this Bill proposes “special rights for the LGBT Community, and not equal rights”,

and that an anti-discrimination bill for all is preferable. A post argues that the word Discrimination should not be abused”, and that these

complaints about discrimination are too shallow; the individual poster even points out that his being a Muslim, and his struggles to fit in a

society that often does not cater to his religious needs, is not him being discriminated, and nothing to be fought for. This post emphasized

that “hindi-lahat mag-a-agree sa paniniwala ko because I chose this life”, and so he should not expect preferential treatment – something he

equates to the LGBT Community’s protests. Posts also approach this argument by calling for respect on both sides, telling the LGBTQ

Community that their protests for the Bill is earning them enmity rather than respect, and that the LGBT Community would earn no respect

from others if this bill is passed. A couple of posts share anecdotes by LGBT Filipinos who are against the SOGIE Bill themselves to

strengthen the intended implication. One even shared a news post (Philippine Star) of Sen. Nancy Binay explaining that the SOGIE equality

bill should cover all kinds of discrimination, and captioned that it should be beneficial to everybody. There are numerous warnings about how

the LGBT might abuse the rights given to them by the Bill, as posts share incidents wherein LGBT members appear to threaten others by

referencing the bill; this is meant to imply that that once the SOGIE Bill is passed, LGBT members would abuse their newfound rights to

oppress those outside their Community. The use of pronouns to highlight the two sides in the conflict (“they” for the LGBT and “we” for the

opposition, or those who have yet to choose”), a clear bipartisan side is established; the LGBT Community who is fighting for its rights alone,

or the opposition whose rights would be superseded by the LGBT.

 Many posts, on the other hand, argue this issue on the basis of the restroom controversy. For example, a post predicts that

passing the Bill might cause dorms in MSU to be “COED”, and if left unchecked could take the right to protest this away from the

establishments that might oppose this move.

Many of these posts go as far as to present the entire issue and oppose the bill as a matter of choosing between LGBT and

women’s rights. They reason that women should feel comfortable with their comfort rooms, and that these recent developments push them

into warning women to carry possible weapons for self-defense and ‘prepare to drive males out’ of their restrooms, that women and utility

workers are powerless to defend them, and that the SOGIE Bill would be violating their right to privacy.

Some posts even opt to downplay the matter altogether. There are suggestions of making a “separate restroom for LBTQI+” as

the immediate solution. Posts reason that the SOGIE Bill is not needed, or deflecting the argument by reasoning that it is irrelevant

compared to other problems (“Sa dami dami ng WORLD ISSUES”).

A few of the posts even take the religious route: they argue that the provisions of the SOGIE against discrimination includes

restrictions on calling homosexuality a sin in Islamic preaching and discussions, and as such threatens their religion; the post even states

that “Heto na ba ang panahon na bawal nang ipag-utos ang kasamaan?”, calling out Muslims who do not actively fight against the bill

alongside Christian religious groups through scathing rhetorical questions meant to stoke their faith against homosexuals.

3) What possible socio-historical conditions and values are revealed to have shaped their posts?

Conclusions

References
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. Longman Publishing: New York

Lie, S. (2017). Cultural discourse analysis. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue. 80.

Van Dijk, T. (1995). Aims of critical discourse analysis. Japanese Discourse. 1: 17-27.

Sen, N. (2016). The discourse analysis of Facebook and its impact on language learning: a study. Dissertation. BRAC University.

Cervera, H. F. (2016).

Faces, facets, and Facebook: a discourse analysis on ethos. Dissertation.

Gee, J.P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method. 2nd ed. Routledge: New York.

Glynos, J., Howarth, D., Norval, A., Speed, E. (2009). Discourse Analysis: Varieties and Methods. University of Essex

Halliday (1985). Retrieved from http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/ed270/Luke/SAHA6.html

Rambe, P. (2012). Critical discourse analysis of collaborative engagement in Facebook postings. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology.

28(2): 295-314

Wu,

Hongzhi. (2010). A social cultural approach to discourse analysis. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 1(2): 130-132.

Fahad, A. (2016). A critical discourse analysis of synchronous Facebook communication: native and non-native English speakers. Arab World English

Journal Special Issue on CALL. 3: 87-98

Orrù, P. (2014). Racist discourse on social networks:

a discourse analysis of Facebook posts in Italy. Rhesis. International Journal of Linguistics, Philology, and Literature. 5(1): 113-133.

Retrieved http://www.diplist.it/rhesis/index.php.