Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v.

COMELEC
Nature of the Case: Petition for Certiorari with a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against
the Resolutions of COMELEC.
Facts:

Issue:
1.

The case has its roots in the COMELEC's refusal to accredit Ang Ladlad as a party-list
organization under RA 7941 or the Party-List System Act.
Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves
as LGBTs (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals). They were
incorporated in 2003 and was denied accreditation for lack of substantial membership
base.
COMELEC's First Resolution:

Ang Ladlad collides with Article 695 of the Civil Code which defines nuisance as
'any act or ommission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything
else which shocks, defies, or disregards decency or morality.'

It also collides with Art 1306 of the Civil Code: The contracting parties may
establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem
convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy.

The granting of this petition would mean exposing our children to an environment
that does not conform to the teachings of our faith.
Petitioners sought reconsideration but the First Resolution was affirmed, stating:

The spirit of RA 7941... Even stating that it has properly proven its underrepresentation and marginalization, it cannot be said that Ladlad's expressed
sexual orientations per se would benefit the nation as a whole.

The party-list system is not a tool to advocate tolerance and acceptance of

misunderstood persons or groups. Rather, it is a tool for the realization of
aspirations of marginalized individuals whose interests are also the nation's. Until
the time comes when Ladlad is able to justify that having mixed sexual
orientations and transgender identities is beneficial to the nation, its application
for accreditation under the party-list will remain just that.

On public morals, as a society, the Philippines cannot ignore its more than 500
years of Muslim and Christian upbringing, such that some moral precepts
espoused by said religions have seeped into society and these are not publicly
accepted moral norms.
Petitioners prayed for the annulment of the Resolution and an ex parte of a
preliminary mandatory injunction against the COMELEC's printing of the final ballots.
CHR filed a Motion to Intervene or to Appear as Amicus Curiae and opined that the
denial of petition of Ang Ladlad on moral grounds violated the standards and
principles of the Constitution, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.
OSG concurred with petitioner and argued that COMELEC erred in denying
accreditation.

WON Ang Ladlad complied with the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941.

2.

WON or not the denial of accreditation by COMELEC, violated the constitutional

guarantees against the establishment of religion. insofar as it justified the exclusion by
using religious dogma.

3.

WON the Assailed Resolutions contravened the constitutional rights to privacy,

freedom of speech and assembly, and equal protection of laws, as well as constituted
violations of the Philippines' international obligations against discrimination based on
sexual orientation.

Held: Petition GRANTED.

Ratio:
1.

Respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani stands for the
proposition that only those sectors specifically enumeration in the law or related to
said may be registered under the party-list system. The ruling was explicit in saying
that 'the enumeration of marginalized and under-representated sectors is not
exclusive.' The crucial element is whether a particular organization complies with RA
7941. Nowhere in the records has the responded found that Ang Ladlad is not
qualified to register under the requirements of RA 7941.

2.

Our Constitution provides in Art III Sec 5, 'no law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Clearly,
'governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of
neutrality.' We thus find that it was a grave violation of the non-establishment clause
for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad.
The government must act for secular purposes and in ways that are primarily secular
effects.
On the argument of public morals as a ground to deny accreditation of Ang Ladlad, we hold that
moral disapproval is not a sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals
from participation in the party-list system. The denial on purely moral grounds amounts more to
a statement of dislike and diapproval of homosexuals rather than a tool to further any substantial
public interest.
3.

Equal Protection - We are not prepared to single out homosexuals as a separate class
meriting special or differential treatment. Laws of general application should apply with
equal force to LGBTs and they deserve to participate in the party-list system on the
same basis as other marginalized and under-representated sectors.

Freedom of expression and association Freedom of expression constitutes one of the

essential foundations of democracy and this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably
received but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb. Homosexual conduct is not illegal in this
country. It follows that both expressions concerning one's homosexuality and the activity of
forming a political association that supports LGBTs are protected as well. Only if a political party
incites violence or puts forwards policy contrary to democracy does it fall outside the protection
of freedom of speech and association.
Non-discrimination and international law Principle of non-discrimination requires that laws of
general application relating to elections be applied equally to all persons, regardless of sexual
orientation. UN bodies have declared discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be
prohibited under various international agreements.

Dissenting Opinions:
Corona:
According to RA 7941, the marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be represented under
the party-list system are enumerated as that sectors including labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban
poor, indigenous cultural communities elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas
workers, and professionals.
While the enumeration of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not exclusive, it
demonstrates the clear intent of the law that not all sectors can be represented under the partylist system.