In the case of ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY v.

COMMISION ON ELECTION,
accredtaton of the Ang Ladlad LGBT Party !as dened "# the COMELEC on $ora%
&ro'nds statn& that that the (ettoner to%erates $$ora%t# !hch offends re%&o's
"e%efs that co%%des !th Artc%e )*+, of the Cv% Code- .The contractn& (artes $a#
esta"%sh s'ch st('%atons, c%a'ses, ter$s and condtons as the# $a# dee$ convenent,
(rovded the# are not contrar# to %a!, $ora%s, &ood c'sto$s, ('"%c order or ('"%c
(o%c# . Pettoner ar&'ed that LGBT co$$'nt# s a $ar&na%/ed and 'nder0re(resented
sector that s (artc'%ar%# dsadvanta&ed "eca'se of ther se1'a% orentaton and &ender
dentt#2 that LGBTs are vct$s of e1c%'son, dscr$naton, and vo%ence2 that "eca'se
of ne&atve soceta% attt'des, LGBTs are constraned to hde ther se1'a% orentaton.
COMELEC stated that (art#0%st s#ste$ s not a too% to advocate to%erance and acce(tance
of $s'nderstood (ersons. Offce of the So%ctor3s Genera% conc'rred !th Ang Ladlad
statn& that COMELEC erred n den#n& (ettoner3s a((%caton contravened !th
constt'tona% r&hts to (rvac#, freedo$ of s(eech and asse$"%#, and e4'a% (rotecton of
%a! and that no "ass for COMELEC3s a%%e&atons of $$ora%t#. The case !as then
"ro'&ht to the S'(re$e Co'rt and t !as r'%ed o't that the en'$eraton of $ar&na%/ed
and 'nder0re(resented &ro'( n Art. VI sec.5(2) s not e1c%'sve and that the (ettoner s
s'ffcent%# co$(%ed !th %e&a% re4're$ents for accredtaton stated n RA 567). The
(etton !as &ranted "eca'se the &ro'nds for $$ora%t# does not constt'te to the %a! of
the Ph%((nes for t does not cr$na%/e ho$ose1'a% cond'ct.