G.R. # G.R. No. 190582.

TITLE: Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC

DATE: April 8, 2010

PONENTE: DEL CASTILLO, J

FACTS

Ang Ladlad, an organization representing the interests of the Filipino LGBT

community, faced a significant legal challenge in its pursuit of official
registration with the Commission on Elections in the Philippines. In 2006, their
initial application was rejected by COMELEC, on the grounds of lacking a
substantial membership base. Undeterred, they reapplied in 2009, only to have
their application dismissed once more, this time on moral and religious grounds.

The Commission on Elections contended that Ang Ladlad, as an LGBT-focused

group, was seen as promoting activities deemed immoral and offensive to
religious beliefs. To justify this viewpoint, they cited references from both the
Bible and the Quran, arguing that homosexual activities were in contravention of
established moral standards. Furthermore, the Commission asserted that they
could only recognize parties and organizations that adhered to the principles of
law and morality.

The Commission's objections were rooted in their interpretation of various

statutes, including Articles 201, 695, and 1306 of the Civil Code of the Republic
of the Philippines. These legal provisions referenced concepts like "morality,"
"mores," "good customs," "public morals," and "morals," which the Commission
believed Ang Ladlad's advocacy for LGBT issues might contravene. In addition,
the Commission contended that approving Ang Ladlad's registration would run
afoul of the constitutional obligation to "promote and protect [the youth's]
physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being."
ISSUE/S: Whether or not the Commission on Elections' rejection of Ang
Ladlad's registration violates the organization’s and its members' rights to
freedom of association, freedom of expression, and political participation?

RULING: Yes

The Supreme Court, in its decision, firmly rejected all the arguments put forth by
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). It pointed out that the Philippine
case law had unequivocally interpreted Article III, Section 5 of the
Constitution as a call for "government neutrality in religious matters."
Consequently, COMELEC's reliance on religious texts like the Bible and the
Quran was a significant breach of constitutional principles.

Additionally, the Court disregarded the argument related to public morals. While
acknowledging the existence of prejudice and discrimination against
homosexuals within society, it refused to accept public sentiment as a basis for
creating laws, stating, "We recall that the Philippines has not seen fit to
criminalize homosexual conduct. Evidently, therefore, these 'generally
accepted public morals' have not been convincingly transplanted into the
realm of law." COMELEC failed to provide evidence supporting a secular,
rather than religious or moral, government interest in prohibiting the formation
of an LGBT political party.

Furthermore, the Court found the accusations of unlawful activity by Ang Ladlad
to be, in its words, "flimsy, at best; disingenuous, at worst." The Court identified
the Commission on Elections' selective targeting of Ang Ladlad as a clear
violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution.

Although the Court declined to classify homosexuals as a distinct group

requiring special treatment, it held that COMELEC's decision violated the Equal
Protection Clause. It reiterated that any government intervention, even when it
did not burden a suspect class or infringe on a fundamental right, must align with
a legitimate government interest. The Court firmly asserted that in this case, the
alleged interest, "moral disapproval of an unpopular minority," did not constitute
a legitimate state interest satisfying rational basis review under the equal
protection clause. The Commission's sole interest seemed to be "disapproval
of or dislike for a disfavored group."

The Court also found that COMELEC's ruling contravened the Philippine
doctrine of freedom of expression. It emphasized that while the Constitution
empowered the majority, it simultaneously limited the majority's power to
"ride roughshod over the dissenting minorities." According to the Court,
freedom of expression could only be restricted by measures that were
"proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued." In the absence of any compelling
state interest, neither COMELEC nor the Court had the authority to impose their
views on the public. This was especially pertinent since homosexual conduct
was not illegal in the Philippines. Consequently, expressions related to one's
homosexuality and the establishment of a political association supporting
LGBT individuals were protected under the law.

The Court's arguments were further fortified by references to international and

comparative constitutional decisions. Constitutionally, when the government
infringed upon the freedom of association of an individual or group, its
actions had to go beyond a mere desire to avoid discomfort and
unpleasantness that typically accompany unpopular viewpoints. Even
radical or shocking political and social ideas were safeguarded through the
exercise of the right of association.

The Court acknowledged the disapproval of homosexuality and Ang Ladlad's

agenda by many Philippine citizens. Nevertheless, it asserted that Philippine
democracy precluded the use of the religious or moral views of a segment of
the community to exclude the values of other community members from
consideration.

Ultimately, the Court ruled that international law mandated COMELEC to

recognize Ang Ladlad. It referenced the Human Rights Committee's decision in
Toonen v. Australia, which asserted that Article 26 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibited discrimination
based on sex, including sexual orientation. Reading the right to participate
in government under Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) in light of Toonen, the Court concluded that international
law safeguarded the right of LGBT organizations to engage in the political
process and that COMELEC's decision contravened that right.

Based on these constitutional and international legal principles, the Court

decreed that Ang Ladlad must be officially recognized as a political party by
the Commission on Elections in the Philippines.

FALLO
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Resolutions of the
Commission on Elections dated November 11, 2009 and December 16, 2009
in SPP No. 09-228 (PL) are hereby SET ASIDE. The Commission on Elections
is directed to GRANT petitioner's application for party-list accreditation.

DOCTRINE

International Law

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 25 (rights to take

part in the conduct of public affairs, to vote and to be elected, to have access on
general terms of equality to public service); and Article 26 (rights of equality
before the law, equal protection of the law, and non-discrimination).

_________________

1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Article II, 13 (State protection of youth),

Article III, Section 1 (equal protection), and Section 5 (freedom of religion).