The Bar is Humanity

In April 2025, Heidi Mendoza, a lauded anti-corruption icon and former COA commissioner, declared that she would not oppose same-sex union legislation. This came days after backlash over her public admission that she does not support same-sex marriage and has reservations about the SOGIE Equality Bill. In an emotional apology to the LGBTQIA+ community, she pledged to "listen”, to deepen her understanding, and to serve justice—not doctrine.

Cartoon: Bianca Diane Beltran

And yet, the damage had already been done.

Here lies the tension: Can we celebrate integrity while criticizing selective justice? Yes—and we must.

This is not a question of decency versus depravity. It is a question of whether our leaders can grow beyond their personal convictions to meet the needs of every Filipino. Mendoza’s anti-corruption record is stellar, and her service is courageous. But public service is not a shrine for personal belief—it is a platform for public duty. In that duty, silence or reluctance on human rights is complicity.

In a country where good governance feels like a rare currency, we often find ourselves clinging to scraps of decency. When President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. expressed support for same-sex civil unions, it seemed—at first—like a step forward. But praise was quickly drowned out by the louder truth: that this same president is still criticized for shielding corruption and calling modern sex education a “woke absurdity” unfit for children. Rightfully so—because one good position doesn’t excuse the harm of others.

The same goes for former Vice President Leni Robredo. She did not support same-sex marriage either—but unlike many of her peers, she pushed for civil unions. She made space, despite personal belief, to offer protection where the law still denies it. That’s not perfection. That’s public service—imperfect, but adaptive, and humane.

Let’s be blunt. The SOGIESC Equality Bill has been rotting in legislative limbo for over two decades. During that time, queer students have been bullied, queer families denied rights, and queer lives lost to hate crimes. This isn’t about symbolism. It’s about survival. Queer couples still cannot make medical decisions for each other. They are still not recognized as family. They are still waiting. We cannot keep on voting for caution when courage is required.

When a leader says “I’ll listen,” but stops short of backing concrete legislation, it is not neutrality, but neglect. Good intentions don’t legislate protections, policies do.

Mendoza insists that her stance is shaped by personal beliefs and cultural context. But so is every law that has ever been oppressed. The same argument was once used against women’s suffrage, against divorce, and the Reproductive Health Law. If every public servant refuses to challenge the status quo because of their upbringing, the nation would still be governed by silence and superstition. Furthermore, she says her job is not to impose doctrine but to serve justice. That is correct. However, serving justice means challenging the systems that exclude. It means being uncomfortable. It means making decisions that may not align with your upbringing—but align with the dignity of the people you claim to represent.

If we can criticize a president who supports civil unions but blocks sex education, if we can question a former vice president who found compromise despite religious conservatism—then yes, we can and should hold Mendoza accountable for sidestepping issues that affect lives just as deeply as graft and corruption. 

Criticism is not cruelty, it is citizenship. We don’t elect saints—we elect public servants. These officials are measured not just by their courage in courtrooms, but by their compassion in policymaking. The moral clarity isn't just about clean audits, it is about whether your vision of justice includes everyone.

Following Mendoza’s backlash, she acknowledged on a Facebook post how her statements have disappointed and hurt her supporters. As she offered her apologies, she vowed to establish a deeper understanding of inclusive policy-making regardless of gender identity and orientation. She has also committed to empowering the voices of the LGBTQIA+ as she will also actively collaborate with them. Mendoza emphasized that in promoting the welfare of the LGBTQIA+ community and marginalized sectors, fighting corruption is crucial to prevent silence and abuse.

Mendoza’s response to the criticisms is proof that if a person running for public office truly cares about their constituents, they will acknowledge and take action. Therefore, we must refuse to settle for a politician’s questionable beliefs simply because they are seemingly a ‘better’ choice. Having to choose among lesser evil shouldn’t be an option, because an aspirant who genuinely champions the welfare of the Filipinos will refrain from being held back by their limited beliefs. 

To vote is not to idolize, it is to assess. To weigh policies, principles, and potential. To choose those who are not only competent but complete—complete in conscience, compassion, and commitment to all Filipinos.

The bar is not just honesty. The bar is humanity. Our votes should reflect nothing less.

Written by Ariane Claire S. Galpao

Cartoon by Bianca Diane Beltran