Separate Concurring Opinion of J. Puno (ret.) in Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v.

Commission on Elections, GR
190582, Apr. 8, 2010, 618 SCRA 32

FACTS:

This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, with an application for a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction, filed by Ang Ladlad LGBT Party organization composed of men and
women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs)
against the Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The case rooted in the COMELEC’s
refusal to accredit Ang Ladlad as a party-list organization under Republic Act (RA) No. 7941, otherwise
known as the Party-List System Act.

The COMELEC dismissed the Petition for registration of the petitioner on moral grounds that the
petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs, and advocates sexual immorality.
Furthermore, states COMELEC, Ang Ladlad will be exposing the youth to an environment that does not
conform to the teachings of our faith.

ISSUE:

1. Whether 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.

2. Whether or not the Assailed Resolutions contravened

RULING/ANALYSIS: The SC granted the petition and the Commission on Elections is directed to grant
petitioner’s application for party-list accreditation.

Comelec’s citation of the Bible and the Koran in denying petitioner’s application was a violation of the
non-establishment clause laid down in Article 3 section 5 of the Constitution. The proscription by law
relative to acts against morality must be for a secular purpose (that is, the conduct prohibited or sought
to be repressed is “detrimental or dangerous to those conditions upon which depend the existence and
progress of human society"), rather than out of religious conformity. The Comelec failed to substantiate
their allegation that allowing registration to Ladlad would be detrimental to society. The LGBT
community is not exempted from the exercise of its constitutionally vested rights on the basis of their
sexual orientation. 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. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not tolerated ---not by our own laws nor by any
international laws to which we adhere.

CONCLUSION:

Further, former Chief Justice Reynato Puno emphasized on his separate concurring opinion the
relevance of intermediate scrutiny test which applies when a classification does not involve suspect
classes or fundamental rights, but requires heightened scrutiny, such as in classifications based on
gender and legitimacy.