ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein by its Chair, DANTON

REMOTO,Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Respondent.

G.R. No. 190582

Date: April 8, 2010

Topic: Equal Protection: LGBT rights, Expression/Association: LGBT political
participation, Religious Neutrality: Church-state separation, Public Morality: Secular
versus religious norms, International Rights: Non-discrimination standards, Political
Representation: Inclusive party-list system.
Digested by: Jess Reyrich R. Ac-ac

Recit Ready
In the 2010 case "Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections" (G.R. No.
190582), Ang Ladlad, a political party representing the LGBT community, sought party-list
accreditation in the Philippines. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied the
application, citing moral and religious grounds. Ang Ladlad petitioned the Supreme Court,
challenging the decision as a violation of constitutional rights to equality, freedom of expression,
and non-establishment of religion. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ang Ladlad, overturning
COMELEC's decision and ordering the accreditation of the party. The Court held that the
COMELEC's denial, based on moral and religious reasons, violated the constitutional principles
of equal protection and secular government, setting a significant precedent for LGBT rights in
the Philippines.

Actors

Petitioners:
ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY: LGBT Party founded on September 1, 2003
represented by its Chair, DANTON REMOTO

Respondents:
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Respondent.

Facts:

Justice Robert A. Jackson's Statement: In "West Virginia State Board of Education v.

Barnette," Justice Jackson highlighted the essence of freedom, stating that its true test lies in the
right to differ in matters that are fundamental to societal order.

Philosophical Context: The document acknowledges the long-standing societal struggle with
moral disagreements. It points out the paradox where philosophical justifications for morality are
both essential and yet ineffective in creating consensus. This sets the stage for understanding the
complexity of the case involving Ang Ladlad, which deals with moral and philosophical
viewpoints.

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party Case Background:

Rule 65 Petition: Ang Ladlad filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
to challenge COMELEC’s refusal to accredit it under Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System
Act).
 ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein by its Chair, DANTON
REMOTO,Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Respondent.
G.R. No. 190582

Date: April 8, 2010

Topic: Equal Protection: LGBT rights, Expression/Association: LGBT political
participation, Religious Neutrality: Church-state separation, Public Morality: Secular
versus religious norms, International Rights: Non-discrimination standards, Political
Representation: Inclusive party-list system.
Digested by: Jess Reyrich R. Ac-ac

COMELEC Resolutions Dates: First on November 11, 2009, and second on December 16,
2009, denying accreditation.

Ang Ladlad's Profile: An LGBT organization established in 2003, it first applied for
COMELEC registration in 2006 but was denied due to a lack of substantial membership base. It
reapplied in 2009.

COMELEC's Initial Rejection (November 11, 2009): COMELEC dismissed Ang Ladlad’s
petition on moral grounds. The decision referenced religious texts (Bible and Koran) to support
its view that Ang Ladlad promotes immorality and offends religious beliefs.

Legal Provisions Cited by COMELEC:

Civil Code: Article 695 defines nuisance, and Article 1306 states that stipulations in contracts
must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Article 1409
states contracts with immoral causes are void.

Revised Penal Code: Article 201 states penalties for public exposition of immoral doctrines and
obscene publications.

Reconsideration and Split Decision: COMELEC remained divided on the issue, with the
Chairman upholding the first resolution. The Chairman's argument was that Ladlad's expressed
sexual orientations do not contribute to the nation's benefit as envisioned by RA 7941.

Ang Ladlad's Petition to the Court (January 4, 2010): The organization sought to annul the
COMELEC resolutions, stressing the urgency due to the printing of ballots for the May 2010
elections.

Subsequent Developments:

Temporary Restraining Order: Issued to prevent implementation of COMELEC's resolutions.

Commission on Human Rights Involvement: Supported Ang Ladlad’s position, aligning with
human rights standards.

Interventions by Other Parties: Indicating wider societal interest and implications of the case.
 ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein by its Chair, DANTON
REMOTO,Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Respondent.
G.R. No. 190582

Date: April 8, 2010

Topic: Equal Protection: LGBT rights, Expression/Association: LGBT political
participation, Religious Neutrality: Church-state separation, Public Morality: Secular
versus religious norms, International Rights: Non-discrimination standards, Political
Representation: Inclusive party-list system.
Digested by: Jess Reyrich R. Ac-ac

Parties' Arguments:

Ang Ladlad's Argument: Claimed that the denial based on religious dogma violated
constitutional protections against the establishment of religion and international obligations
against discrimination.

Office of the Solicitor General's Stance: Agreed with Ang Ladlad regarding the immorality
allegations but maintained that there were no infringements on rights of speech, expression, and
assembly.

COMELEC's Position: Argued that Ang Ladlad does not have a national political agenda that
benefits the nation and that its application was rightly dismissed on moral grounds.

Issue

● Whether or not COMELEC's denial of accreditation infringed on Ang Ladlad's

constitutional rights, including freedom of speech and association.
● Whether or not COMELEC's reliance on moral and religious grounds violated the
principle of government neutrality in religious matters.
● Whether or not the LGBT community was eligible as a marginalized and
under-represented sector under the Party-List System Act.
● Whether or not the denial of accreditation contravened international human rights
standards related to non-discrimination and political participation.

Ruling

SC

The Supreme Court of the Philippines granted the petition of Ang Ladlad, an LGBT rights
organization, thereby directing the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to grant their
application for party-list accreditation. This decision was anchored on a nuanced interpretation of
several specific laws and constitutional principles.
 ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein by its Chair, DANTON
REMOTO,Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Respondent.
G.R. No. 190582

Date: April 8, 2010

Topic: Equal Protection: LGBT rights, Expression/Association: LGBT political
participation, Religious Neutrality: Church-state separation, Public Morality: Secular
versus religious norms, International Rights: Non-discrimination standards, Political
Representation: Inclusive party-list system.
Digested by: Jess Reyrich R. Ac-ac

COMELEC's Denial Based on RA 7941 and the Constitution:

The COMELEC's refusal to register Ang Ladlad as a party-list organization stemmed from its
interpretation of Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941), also known as the Party-List System Act,
and the Philippine Constitution. COMELEC argued that the LGBT sector was not explicitly
enumerated in RA 7941 or the Constitution, which lists sectors like labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, and others. However, the
Supreme Court cited the case of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on
Elections, which clarified that the enumeration in RA 7941 is not exclusive. The critical factor,
as determined by the Court, was an organization’s compliance with the requirements of the
Constitution and RA 7941.

Misrepresentation Allegations and Ang Ladlad’s Nationwide Presence:

The COMELEC accused Ang Ladlad of misrepresentation regarding its nationwide presence.
However, the Court found no deceit, noting Ang Ladlad's claim of a substantial LGBT
community in the Philippines, with 16,100 affiliates and members nationwide. The Court listed
numerous LGBT organizations affiliated with Ang Ladlad across the country, demonstrating a
significant presence.

Religion as the Basis for Refusal:

The Court addressed the issue of using religion as a basis for refusing Ang Ladlad's registration.
It referenced Article III, Section 5 of the Philippine Constitution, which ensures the separation of
church and state and government neutrality in religious matters. The Court found the
COMELEC's use of religious texts to justify Ang Ladlad's exclusion as a violation of this
constitutional principle.

Public Morals and Legal Justifications:

In discussing public morals, the Court acknowledged societal disapproval of homosexual

conduct but emphasized that Philippine law does not criminalize such conduct. Citing Estrada v.
Escritor, the Court maintained that government actions, including the proscription of immorality,
 ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein by its Chair, DANTON
REMOTO,Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Respondent.
G.R. No. 190582

Date: April 8, 2010

Topic: Equal Protection: LGBT rights, Expression/Association: LGBT political
participation, Religious Neutrality: Church-state separation, Public Morality: Secular
versus religious norms, International Rights: Non-discrimination standards, Political
Representation: Inclusive party-list system.
Digested by: Jess Reyrich R. Ac-ac

must have a secular purpose. Furthermore, it noted the lack of specific immoral acts attributed to
Ang Ladlad and the absence of legal justification for their exclusion.

Equal Protection and Rational Basis Review:

The Supreme Court utilized the Equal Protection Clause under Article III, Section 1 of the
Constitution, affirming that no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws. The Court
rejected the COMELEC's argument that moral disapproval of homosexuality justified Ang
Ladlad's exclusion, employing the "rational basis" test established in Central Bank Employees
Association, Inc. v. Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas. The Court determined that the COMELEC's
action did not serve a legitimate state interest and was therefore unconstitutional.

Freedom of Expression and Association:

The Court upheld the freedom of expression and association, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
It argued that all groups, including LGBT organizations, have the right to promote their agenda
and participate in the democratic process. The Court also noted that homosexual conduct is not
illegal in the Philippines, further supporting Ang Ladlad's right to form a political association.

Non-Discrimination and International Law:

International law and treaties also played a significant role in the Court's reasoning. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), particularly Article 21, and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), especially Articles 26 and 25, were cited to
reinforce the principles of non-discrimination and equal participation in the electoral process,
regardless of sexual orientation.

The Court also discussed the Yogyakarta Principles on the application of international human
rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. Although these principles are not
binding international law, the Court acknowledged their persuasive influence in interpreting the
rights of LGBT individuals.
 ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein by its Chair, DANTON
REMOTO,Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Respondent.
G.R. No. 190582

Date: April 8, 2010

Topic: Equal Protection: LGBT rights, Expression/Association: LGBT political
participation, Religious Neutrality: Church-state separation, Public Morality: Secular
versus religious norms, International Rights: Non-discrimination standards, Political
Representation: Inclusive party-list system.
Digested by: Jess Reyrich R. Ac-ac

SC DECISION:

The Supreme Court's decision to set aside COMELEC's resolutions dated November 11, 2009,
and December 16, 2009, in SPP No. 09-228 (PL), and to direct the COMELEC to grant Ang
Ladlad's application for party-list accreditation, was a significant affirmation of the rights of
marginalized groups in the Philippines. This ruling demonstrated a progressive interpretation of
Philippine laws and constitutional principles, aligning them with international human rights
standards.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court granted Ang Ladlad's petition, set aside the COMELEC's
resolutions, and directed the COMELEC to grant Ang Ladlad's application for party-list
accreditation. The decision, affirming the principles of non-discrimination, equal protection, and
freedom of association and expression, marked a significant moment in the legal recognition of
LGBT rights in the Philippines.

Link: G.R. No. 190582