PARILLA, MAY ANN C.

LLB 2-1
G.R. No. 190582

ELECTION LAW
MONDAYS/CW8
April 8, 2010

ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY VS. COMELEC

Facts:
The Ang Ladlad was denied of its application for registration as party-list organization
anchoring that such organization is immoral and contrary to public policy; has no
concrete and genuine national political agenda to benefit the nation; and, made
untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged its national existence contrary to
actual verification reports by COMELECs field personnel, hence considered nuisance.
This national organization represents the lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans-genders. In
its decision, COMELEC cited certain biblical and quoranic passages, and even declare
that their acts were punishable under the Revised Penal Code in its Article 201. A motion
for reconsideration being denied, Petitioner filed this instant Petition on Certiorari under
Rule 65 of the ROC. Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of accreditation, insofar as it
justified the exclusion by using religious dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees
against the establishment of religion. Petitioner also claimed that the Assailed
Resolutions contravened its 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.

Issue:
Whether or not COMELEC erred in denying Petitioners application.

Held:
Yes. The sectors enumerated in the case of Ang Bagong Bayani by the Court are not
exclusive. The crucial element is not whether a sector is specifically enumerated, but
whether a particular organization complies with the requirements of the Constitution and
RA 7941. COMELEC committed grave violation of the non-establishment clause to utilize
the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. Further, it failed to explain
what societal ills it sought prevent. Moreover, the COMELECs reference to purported
violations of the penal and civil laws is misplaced. It bears to emphasized that mere
allegation of violation of the penal and civil laws is not proof, but a mere blanket
invocation of public morals which cannot replace the institution of civil or criminal

PARILLA, MAY ANN C.

LLB 2-1

ELECTION LAW
MONDAYS/CW8

proceedings and a judicial determination of liability or culpability. As such, we hold that

moral disapproval, without more, is not a sufficient governmental interest to justify
exclusion of homosexuals from participation in the party-list system. The denial of Ang
Ladlads registration on purely moral grounds amounts more to a statement of dislike
and disapproval of homosexuals, rather than a tool to further any substantial public
interest.