Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v COMELEC (2010)

Doctrine: the enumeration of marginalized and under-represented sectors is 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.
Petitioner: Ladlad Party List
Respondent: COMELEC
Nature: Petition of Certiorari + writ of preliminary mandatory injunction on COMELECs refusal to
accredit Ang Ladlad as a party list organization under RA 7941
Facts:

And Ladlad, organization of LGBTs applied for registration on 2006; was denied on the groud
that organization had no substantial membership base
Petition: LGBT is a marginalized and under-represented sector, LGBT are victims of exclusion,
discrimination and violence, LGBTs are constrained to hide their sexual orientation; they
complied with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by this court in case: ang bagong bayani-ofw
labor party v Comelec
Comelec dismissed petition on moral grounds:
o Collides with Art. 695 of NCC nuisance: (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or
morality
o Art 1306 of NCC: 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
o Art 1409 CC- contracts whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy are inexistent and void from the beginning.
o Art. 201 of RPC- immoral doctrines obscene publications and exhibition and indecent
shows. (1) those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to
public morals
o Petitioner not being truthful when it said that it or any of its nominees/party-list
representatives have not violated or failed to comply with laws, rules or regulations
relating to the elections.
o Cited Lehman Strauss, famous bible teacher in one article that says older practicing
homosexuals are a threat to the youth. Saying that it is their duty under Sec 13 Art II of
the constitution to protect the youth.
o Party-list system is a tool for the aspiration of the marginalized individuals whose
interests are also the nations- until the time comes when Ladlad is able to justify that
having mixed sexual orientation and transgender identities is beneficial to the nation,
application will not be approved.
o US equal protection doctrine pervades Philippine jurisprudents do not recognize LGBT as
a special class- they will remain either male or female protected by the same Bill of
Rights that applies to all citizens alike
o As a society, we cannot ignore more than 500 years of Muslim and Christian upbringing

Jan 4, 2010 Ang Ladlad filed this petition; this court ordered the OSG to files its Comment: OSG
supported the petitioner, thus this court ordered Comelec to file their own.
CHR filed a motion to intervene, saying that denial of Ang Ladlads petition on moral grounds
violated the Standards and principles of the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Petitioners Arguments:

Denial of accreditation through exclusion by using religious dogma, violated the constitutional
guarantee against establishment of religion.
Contravened its constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and equal
protection of laws as well as violations to international obligations against discrimination on
sexual orientation
OSG concurred except on the freedom of speech, expression and assembly.

Respondents Arguments:

Petitioner does not have concrete and genuine national political agenda
LGBT sector is not among the sectors enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941
Petitioner made untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged national existence contrary
to actual verification reports by comelecs field personnel.

Issues/Held:

WON only the sectors specifically enumerated in the law or related to said sectors (Labor,
peasan, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped,
women, youth, veterans, overseas workers and professionals) may be registered under the
party-list system?
o NO. The enumeration is not exclusive, crucial element is whether a particular
organization complies with the requirements of the constitution and RA 7941.
WON Ang Ladlad made untruthful statements in its petition being of nationwide existence.
o NO, there was incongruence between the statements of the comelec of the untruthful
statements by Ang Ladlad, and either accusation of untruthfulness are not grounds for
denial of accreditation- the change in respondents theory is a serious violation of the
petitioners right to procedural due process.
o Comelec erred in their assessment of the representation of Ang Ladlad because they
searched for registered Ang Ladlad affiliates, whereas Ang Ladlad gave their own list
of affiliates all throughout the country.
WON petition can be dismissed on the basis of Religious Morals
o the court cited Article 3 Section 5 No law shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Thus, comelec is of grave violation of
the non-establishment clause when they utilized the Bible and Koran
WON public morals as used by comelec, can be used to deny petition
o NO, there are no laws in the Philippines criminalizing homosexual conduct, therefore
these generally accepted public morals have not been convincingly transplanted into
the realm of the law.

The comelec also failed to explain the societal ills sought to be prevented or why special
protection is required for the youth.
o LGBT have the same interest in participating in the party-list system on the same basis
as other political parties. Laws of general application should apply with equal force to
LGBTs
WON petitioners violated Art 694 and RPC Art 201
o No, violations would require proof beyond reasonable doubt to support a criminal
conviction, and mere allegation of violation is not proof. Mere blanket invocation of
public morals cannot replace the institution of civil or criminal proceedings and judicial
determination of liability or culpability.
WON LGBT are a separate class
o No, there are not enough evidence to support the claim and that the comelec made an
unwarranted and impermissible classification not justified by the circumstances of the
case.
WON comelec violated Ang Ladlads right to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly and
equal protection of laws
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and
this freedom applies not only to those that are favourably received but also to those that
offend, shock, or disturb. Absent of any compelling state interest, it is not for the COMELEC or
the Supreme Court to impose its views on the populace. Otherwise stated, the COMELEC is
certainly not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved
message or discouraging a disfavored one. 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-represented sectors. This is in accord with the countrys
international obligations to protect and promote human rights. The principle of nondiscrimination as it relates to the right to electoral participation, enunciated in the UDHR and
the ICCPR, should be recognized. The Constitution and laws should be applied uninfluenced by
public opinion. True democracy should be resilient enough to withstand vigorous debate due to
conflicting opinions.