UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

2nd Semester A.Y. 2017-2018

LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

LLB 135N

POSITION PAPER

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 190582)

Submitted by:

Abocot, Daryl
Cole, Danica Rose
Dimapinto, Samson Nihar
Espana, Lorebeth
Gorgonio, Kim Cathryn
Labbay, Doreen
(EH 306)

Submitted to:

Atty. Edmar Lerios

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. ISSUES ……………………………….
II. FACTS OF THE CASE ………………………………...
III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………..
IV. ARGUMENTS ………………………………..
V. PRAYER OF RELIEF ……………………………….

1
 I. ISSUES

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (ISSUE/S)

1. Whether or not the assailed resolutions contravened the constitutional rights of freedom of
expression and association and equal protection of laws of Ang Ladlad.

2. Whether or not the assailed resolutions violate the international treaties of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

FACTS OF THE CASE

Ang Ladlad, (hereinafter referred to as “petitioner”), is an organization composed of men

and women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender individuals
(LGBTs). In the year 2003, it incorporated itself. Then, in the year 2006, its members applied to be
part of the party-list system under Republic No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System
Act in the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), (hereinafter referred to as “respondent”).
However, their application was denied by COMELEC on the ground that the organization had
no substantial membership base.

On August 17, 2009, they again filed a petition for registration with the COMELEC
arguing that the LGBT community is a marginalized and underrepresented sector that is
particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and gender identity; that LGBTs
are victims of exclusion, discrimination, and violence; that because of negative societal attitudes,
LGBTs are constrained to hide their sexual orientation; and in addition, they complied with the
8-point guidelines in the case of Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections. They
laid out its national membership base consisting of individual members and organizational
supporters, and outlined its platform of governance.

On November 11, 2009, COMELEC (Second Division), after taking into accounts the
evidences presented by the petitioner, COMELEC saw that Ang Ladlad is not eligible to be a
party-list because a party-list should be based on moral grounds. Ang Ladlad is not based on
moral grounds according to the evidence gathered by the COMELEC (Second Division) from
biblical and quranic passages which they cited in their decision. They also stated Ang Ladlad’s
doctrines are immoral and contrary to public policy, thus they are considered as a nuisance. In
fact, their acts are even punishable under the Revised Penal Code, Article 201. Therefore, Ang
Ladlad should not be accredited to be a party-list member.

Petitioner in disbelief in the First Assailed Resolution of the COMELEC (Second Division),
filed a motion for reconsideration. However, it was denied by the COMELEC, upholding the
First Assailed Resolution by a 4-3 vote. Petitioner filed an instant Petition on Certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Ang Ladlad made the argument that the denial of COMELEC for their accreditation,
wherein it justified the exclusion by using religious dogma, was violative of the constitutional
guarantees against the establishment of religion. They also argued that the Assailed Resolutions
contravened its constitutional rights specifically, 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.

2
 The COMELEC, reiterating in their comment that the petitioner does not have a national
agenda which is solid and genuine to benefit the nation and in addition, argued that the petition
was validly dismissed by them on moral grounds. They also argued that under sectors
enumerated in by the Constitution as well as Republic Act 7941, the LGBT sector is not among
those listed. Also, the petitioner made untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged that
they have a national existence contrary to the actual verification reports by COMELEC’s field
personnel.

III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. For purposes of the party-list system, petitioner is not a marginalized sector.

In this case, petitioner asserts that is is entitled to accreditation as a marginalized and

underrepresented sector under the party-list system. However, the Commision on Elections
(COMELEC) disagrees. Even assuming that petitioner was able to show that the community of
lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals (LGBT) is underrepresented, it cannot be properly
considered as marginalized under the party-list system. The COMELEC reiterated that
petitioner does not have a concrete and genuine national political agenda to benefit the nation
and that the petition was validly dismissed on moral grounds. It also argued for the first time
that that LGBT sector is not among the sectors enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941.

2. The petitioner or Ang Ladlad party-list was advocating “immorality" and that
homosexuals were a “threat to the youth."

We will be exposing our youth to an environment that does not conform to the teachings
of our faith. As an agency of the government, ours too is the State's avowed duty under Section
13, Article II of the Constitution to protect our youth from moral and spiritual degradation. In
addition, there is no question about not imposing on Ladlad Christian or Muslim religious
practices. Neither is there any attempt to any particular religious group's moral rules on Ladlad.
Rather, what are being adopted as moral parameters and precepts are generally accepted public
morals. They are possibly religious-based, but as a society, the Philippines cannot ignore its
more than 500 years of Muslim and Christian upbringing, such that some moral precepts
espoused by said religions have sipped [sic] into society and these are not publicly accepted
moral norms.1

3. It violates rights guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of universal application.

This certain group violated Article III, Section 5 and Article III, Section 1 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution. Furthermore, Ang Ladlad party is fully in accord with our international
obligations to protect and promote human rights. In particular, we explicitly recognize the
principle of non-discrimination as it relates to the right to electoral participation, enunciated in
the UDHR and the ICCPR.

4. The assailed resolutions did not violate the international treaties of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant of Civil and
Political Right (ICCPR) against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

We adhere to the international laws. There is, likewise, non-discrimination of the LGBT
community and non-violation of the international law.

5. The definition of the LGBT sector provided by Ang Ladlad makes it crystal clear that
petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs.

This petition is dismissible on moral grounds as Petitioner defines the Filipino Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Community as a marginalized and underrepresented
sector that is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and gender identity

1
Human Rights Watch. (2018). Important International Jurisprudence Concerning LGBT Rights. Available at:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/05/25/important-international-jurisprudence-concerning-lgbt-rights [Accessed 7 Feb. 2018].

3
and proceeded to define sexual orientation as that which refers to a person’s capacity for
profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to and intimate sexual relations with
individuals of a different gender, of the same gender, or more than one gender. The definition
given by Ang Ladlad fails to prove an agenda that would protect the youth from moral and
spiritual degradation. The petitioners were, likewise, not 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.” The COMELEC claims that upon verification by its field
personnel, it was shown that “save for a few isolated places in the country, petitioner does not
exist in almost all provinces in the country.”

6. It is infringing on more important freedoms, like freedom of religion and speech.

There is no prior restraint nor subsequent punishment imposed on Ang Ladlad. Its
members were also not deprived of their right to voluntarily associate. Ang Ladlad therefore
cannot claim that COMELEC’s denial of their petition to qualify as a party-list infringed on their
freedom of religion and speech.

IV. ARGUMENTS

1. For purposes of the party-list system, petitioner is not a marginalized sector.

Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which stated;

“The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total
number of representatives including those under the party list. For three
consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the
seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law,
by selection of election from labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women youth , and such other sectors as may be provided by
law, except the religious sector.”2

Section 5 of RA 7941 to wit:

Section 5. REGISTRATION - Any organized group of persons may register as a party,

organization or coalition for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not
later than ninety (90) days before the election a petition verified by its president or secretary
stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as a national, regional or sectoral party or
organization or a coalition os such parties or organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, by-
aws, platform or program of government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other relevant
information as the COMELEC may require: provided, that the sectos shall include labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women,
youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.3

Unless an overly strained interpretation is resorted to, the LGBT sector cannot establish a
close connection to any of the said sectors. Indeed, petitioner does not even try to show its link
to any of the said sectors. Rather, it represents itself as an altogether distinct sector with its own
peculiar interests and agenda.

Second, petitioner’s interest as a sector, which is basically the legal recognition of its
members’ sexual orientation as a right, cannot be reasonably considered as an interest that is
traditionally and historically considered as vital to national interest. At best, petitioner may cite
an emergent awareness of the implications of sexual orientation on the national human rights
agenda. However, an emergent awareness is but a confirmation of lack of traditional and
historical recognition. Moreover, even the majority admits that there is no “clear cut consensus
favorable to gay rights and claims.”4

2
Article VI, Section 5(3) of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.
3
RA 7941, Section 5. "Party-List System Act."
4
Acslaw.org. (2018). Available at: https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Sex_Discrimination_Law_and_LGBT_Equality.pdf [Accessed 7 Feb.
2018].
4
 Third, petitioner is cut off from the common constitutional thread that runs through the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors under the party-list system. It lacks the vinculum, a
constitutional bond, a provision in the fundamental law that specifically recognizes the LGBT
sector as specially significant to the national interest. This standard, implied in BANAT, is
required to created the necessary link of a particular sector to those sectors expressly mentioned
in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and Section 5 of RA 7941.5

Finally, considering our history and tradition as a people, to consider the promotion of the
LGBT agenda and “gay rights” as a national policy as beneficial to the nation as a whole is
debatable at best. Regardless of the personal beliefs and biases of the individual members, this
Court can only apply and interpret the Constitution and the laws. Its power is not to create
policy but to recognize, review or reverse the policy crafter by the political departments if and
when a proper case is brought before it.

In this instance, Congress, in the exercise of its authority under Section 5(2), Article VI of
the Constitution, enacted RA 7941. Sections of the said law instituted a policy when it
enumerated certain sectors as qualified marginalized and underrepresented sectors under the
party-list system. Respect for that policy and fidelity to the Court’s duty in our scheme of
government require us to declare that only sectors expressly mentioned or closely related to
those sectors mentioned in section 5 of RA 7941 are qualified to participate in the party-list
system.6 That is the tenor of the Court's rulings in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party and
BANAT7. As there is no strong reason for the Court to rule otherwise, stare decisis compels a
similar conclusion in this case. The Court is called upon to exercise judicial restraint in this case
by strictly adhering to, rather than expanding legislative policy on the matter of marginalized
power to mend and expand the sections stated in the law in the guise of interpretation. The
Constitution expressly and exclusively vests the authority to determine “such other
marginalized sectors” qualified to participate in the party-list system to Congress. Thus, until
and unless Congress amends the law to include the LGBT and other sectors in the party-list
system, deference to Congress’ determination on the matter is proper.

In Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party, the Court stressed that the party-list system is
reserved only for those sectors marginalized and underrepresented in the past. They are those
sectors traditionally and historically marginalized and deprived of an opportunity to participate
in the formulation of national policy although their sectoral interests are also traditionally and
historically regarded as vital to the national interest. This Court, therefore, cannot allow the
party-list system to be sullied and prostituted by those who are neither marginalized or
underrepresented.8

As provided in Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno’s opinion in Barangay Association for

National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) vs. Commision on Elections: “...
Similarly, limiting the party-list system to the marginalized and excluding the major political
parties from participating in election of their representatives is aligned with the constitutional
mandate to “reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequalities
by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.” 9 Surely, the
enumeration of sectors considered as marginalized and underrepresented in the fundamental
law and in the implementing law (RA 7941) cannot be without significance. To ignore them is to
disregard the texts of the Constitution and of RA 7941. For the eight guidelines for screening
party-list participants is for the purpose that the parties, sectors or organizations “must
represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in section 5 of RA 7941.”

2. The petitioner or Ang Ladlad party-list was advocating “immorality" and that homosexuals
were a “threat to the youth."

5
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party and BANAT v Comelec. G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001.
6
RA 7941, Section 5 (2). "Party-List System Act."
7
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party and BANAT v Comelec. G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001.
8
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party and BANAT v Comelec. G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001.
9
Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) vs. Comelec. G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009.
5
 Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that "[n]o law shall be made respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Bottomline, what our non-
establishment clause calls for is "government neutrality in religious matters."10

We are not blind to the fact that, through the years, homosexual conduct, and perhaps
homosexuals themselves, have borne the brunt of societal disapproval. It is not difficult to
imagine the reasons behind this censure. Religious beliefs, convictions about the preservation of
marriage, family, and procreation, even dislike or distrust of homosexuals themselves and their
perceived lifestyle.

Our founders were intelligent enough to recognize that every religion has its own set of
taboo “sins,” and that our country’s laws must be based around secular morality rather than
religious taboo. To this end, they wrote the 1st Amendment to the constitution in order to
prevent future generations from enshrining their personal religious ideals into the secular law. 11

Many religions particularly fundamentalist Christianity and Islam have classified

homosexuality as among their most severe sins. Such religious groups often put up extreme
resistance to legal equality for homosexuals in societies which they have a strong influence. In
the United States, most of these anti-gay religious individuals are fundamentalist Christians.12

The Philippines, as a secular country, is supposed to honor the separation of the State and
the Church. Article 3, Section 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states: “No law shall be made
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Philippines
is also party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and is therefore
obliged to comply with the articles that allow the right to religion, and prohibit discrimination
based on the same. However, the segregation of the State and the Church is not always
practised. In fact, the Philippines has a law to protect “religious feelings” (Article 133 of the
Revised Penal Code). This has been used by the Roman Catholic Church to persecute those who
protested against it. With over 80 percent of the population of the Philippines belonging to the
Roman Catholic Church, this church continues to affect the lives of LGBT Filipinos.13

Many forms of religions, including the Eastern faiths and Abrahamic faiths, do not
support homosexual sex. Evangelical Christianity, Catholicism, Mormonism, Orthodox
Judaism,and Islam, hold the view that homosexual sex is a sin and that its practice and
acceptance in society weakens moral standards.

Passages in the Old Testament that prohibit man "lie with mankind as with womankind"
Christians who take a conservative position on homosexuality endorse this reading of these
passages in the belief that God is against same-sex sexual activity, while Christians who take a
liberal position believe that these same passages refer to more specific situations, such as rape or
abuse, and not homosexuality.14

In Islamic opposition, sodomy is regarded as criminal and forbidden in most Islamic

countries, according to Sharia law, and officially carries the death penalty in Saudi Arabia,
United Arab Emirates, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan and Yemen.15
On the other hand, Scientologist opposition like the Scientologist founder L. Ron Hubbard
classified homosexuality as a mental illness and paraphilia (then known as "sexual perversion"),
citing contemporary psychiatric and psychological textbooks to support his view. 16

10
Article III, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.
11
Law.georgetown.edu. (2018). Available at:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesproject/Library/Papers/Feldblum_BLawReview_MoralConflict.pdf [Accessed 7 Feb. 2018].
12
Lib.ohchr.org. (2018). Available at:
http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session13/PH/JS1_UPR_PHL_S13_2012_JointSubmission1_E.pdf [Accessed 7 Feb. 2018].
13
Human Rights Watch. (2018). Important International Jurisprudence Concerning LGBT Rights. Available at:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/05/25/important-international-jurisprudence-concerning-lgbt-rights [Accessed 7 Feb. 2018].
14
Acslaw.org. (2018). Available at: https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Sex_Discrimination_Law_and_LGBT_Equality.pdf [Accessed 7
Feb. 2018].
15
Human Rights Watch. (2018). Important International Jurisprudence Concerning LGBT Rights. Available at:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/05/25/important-international-jurisprudence-concerning-lgbt-rights [Accessed 7 Feb. 2018].
6
 Thus, those who support this argument are letting their religious ideology and personal
biases overshadow their understanding of fact. Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, thus
the government has the duty to ban it. Furthermore, our State guarantees full respect to human
rights and every person has the right to equal protection of the laws, but sexual orientation and
gender identity are not explicitly mentioned. The Philippine laws are respectful to both moral
and human rights. This does not include sexual orientation or those of LGBT because it
promotes immorality and a danger to the youth. Clearly, even though we adhere to international
laws and we respect human life, however, we in the same vein, in contrary, we are protecting
our people from those endangered it, like those of LGBT.

When we say “gay rights” what exactly comes to your mind? Many people would think
of the government passing bills, people arguing their opinions, and the people bullying others
for who they are and what they think. In modern day, the discussion of gay rights has grown to
be a very popular topic of argument. There are many methods in which people are sharing their
opinions on this topic. Books have been written, movies have been produced, and songs have
been sung, that help exemplify certain people’s takes on this taboo subject. Not only is the
government engaging in this discussion, but there are also celebrities who are putting their
opinions out there, and there are also civilians that are arguing their thoughts.

Is being a gay a sin? Is it a sin to be a gay?

In order to answer the question “Is being gay a sin?” we need to challenge some
assumptions upon which the question is based. Within the past fifty years, the term gay, as
applied to homosexuality, has exploded into mainstream culture, and we are told that “being
gay” is as much outside one’s control as “being short” or “being black.” So the way the question
is worded is already a loaded gun and impossible to adequately answer in that form. Therefore,
we need to break this question into pieces and deal with each piece separately, because they
have different answers. Rather than ask, “Is being gay a sin?” we need to ask, “Is it sinful to have
same-sex attractions? And is it sinful to engage in homosexual activities because of those
attractions?”

In answer to the first question, “Is it sinful to have same-sex attractions?” the simple
answer is “YES”. Same-sex attraction is abnormal and unnatural, and it is the result of humanity
being infected with sin. But we can no more control our interests, attractions, or feelings than we
can control the weather. Sinful human beings, as we all are (Romans 3:23), can be pelted with a
plethora of curiosities, interests, and even perverted thoughts that embarrass us.

Some people, for a variety of reasons, are not romantically attracted to members of the
opposite sex in the way they were designed to respond. Instead, they yearn for intimacy with
someone of their own gender. The causes for this same-sex attraction are varied and under
discussion, but the fact remains that this temptation is very real. Many who struggle with same-
sex attraction report suffering through years of wishing things were different. This attraction is
not always a choice, and those who wrestle with it deserve our compassion and understanding.

We recognize them, respect them, but their situation is an abnormality. The person is
approving and encouraging an abnormality, which is unnatural. Here, petitioner’s accreditation
was denied not necessarily because their group consists of LGBTs but because of the danger it
poses to the people especially the youth. Once it is recognized by the government, a sector which
believes that there is nothing wrong in having sexual relations with individuals of the same
gender is a bad example. It will bring down the standard of morals we cherish in our civilized
society. Any society without a set of moral precepts is in danger of losing its own existence. We
are not blind to the fact that, through the years, homosexual conduct, and perhaps homosexuals
themselves, have borne the brunt of societal disapproval. It is not difficult to imagine the reasons
behind this censure – religious beliefs, convictions about the preservation of marriage, family
and procreation, even dislike or distrust of homosexuals themselves and their perceived
lifestyle. Nonetheless, we recall that Philippines has not seen fit to criminalize homosexual

16
Lib.ohchr.org. (2018). Available at:
http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session13/PH/JS1_UPR_PHL_S13_2012_JointSubmission1_E.pdf [Accessed 9 Feb. 2018].
7
conduct. Evidently, therefore, these “generally accepted public morals” have not been
convincingly transplanted into the realm of law.

We should believe in real marriage instead. Homosexual men in so-called same-sex

marriages generally engage in sexual relations outside their so-called marriages. Homosexual
couples have higher rates of domestic violence. Pathologists have indicated that homosexual
homicides are quite common and leading pathologists have noted that homosexual homicides
frequently display brutality/overkill.

The COMELEC posits that the majority of the Philippine population considers
homosexual conduct as immoral and unacceptable, and this constitutes sufficient reason to
disqualify the petitioner. Unfortunately for the respondent, the Philippine electorate has
expressed no such belief. No law exists to criminalize homosexual behavior or expressions or
parties has expressed no belief. Indeed, even if we were to assume that public opinion is as the
COMELEC describes it, the asserted state interest here – that is, moral disapproval of an
unpopular minority – is not legitimate state interest that is sufficient to satisfy rational basis
review under the equal protection clause.

3. There is no violation of the international treaties of UDHR and ICCPR.

We adhere to international laws. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948)

Under Article 2 of UDHR, it is stated that:

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on
the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country
or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-
self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”17

In the United States, whose equal protection doctrine pervades Philippine jurisprudence,
courts do not recognize lesbians, gays, homosexuals, and bisexuals (LGBT) as a "special class" of
individuals. . . . Significantly, it has also been held that homosexuality is not a constitutionally
protected fundamental right, and that "nothing in the U.S. Constitution discloses a comparable
intent to protect or promote the social or legal equality of homosexual relations," as in the case of
race or religion or belief.18

Thus, even if society's understanding, tolerance, and acceptance of LGBT's is elevated,

there can be no denying that Ladlad constituencies are still males and females. They will remain
either male or female protected by the same Bill of Rights that applies to all citizens alike,
therefore Ang Ladlad is still protected by the same Bill of Rights.

A party-list system can help create a healthy democracy, providing a citizens' voice in
Congress and in local government. The Philippine party-list system aims to increase the
representation, particularly of "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors and enhance
transparency and accountability, leading to more efficient government.19

Since the petitioner is not underrepresented in any way and has been long accepted by the
community as of the modern days, there is no need for a creation of a party list that represents
LGBT.

17
Article 2 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
18
Human Rights Watch. (2018). Important International Jurisprudence Concerning LGBT Rights. Available at:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/05/25/important-international-jurisprudence-concerning-lgbt-rights [Accessed 7 Feb. 2018].
19
Law.georgetown.edu. (2018). Available at:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesproject/Library/Papers/Feldblum_BLawReview_MoralConflict.pdf [Accessed 7 Feb. 2018].
8
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, in Article 7 thereof,
provides:

“The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to
the enjoyment of just and [favorable] conditions of work, which ensure, in
particular: a. Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:
i. Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without
distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of
work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;”20

“The Magna Carta for Public Social Workers addresses concerns regarding the
discrimination of public social workers because of their sexual orientation”

Section 17. Rights of a Public Social Worker. - Public social workers shall have the following
rights:21

1.) Protection from discrimination on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, age, political or
religious beliefs, civil status, physical characteristics/disability or ethnicity;
2.) Protection from any form of interference, intimidation, harassment, or punishment, to
include, but not limited to, arbitrary reassignment or termination of service, in the performance
of his/her duties and responsibilities"

The Magna Carta for Women also provides an insight regarding the state's duties towards
maintaining the rights of women, regardless of their sexual orientations:

"The State affirms women's rights as human rights and shall

intensify its efforts to fulfill its duties under international and
domestic law to recognize, respect, protect, fulfill, and promote all
human rights and fundamental freedoms of women, especially
marginalized women, in the economic, social, political, cultural, and
other fields without distinction or discrimination on account of class,
age, sex, gender, language, ethnicity, religion, ideology, disability,
education, and status.”22

Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) also provides that:
“Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely
chosen representatives.”23

Likewise, Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
states that: “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the
distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the
conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be
elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be
held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c) To have
access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.”24

The effective implementation of the right and the opportunity to stand for elective office
ensures that persons entitled to vote have a free choice of candidates.
We stress, however, that although this Court stands willing to assume the responsibility
of giving effect to the Philippines' international law obligations, the blanket invocation of
international law is not the panacea for all social ills. We refer now to the petitioner's invocation
of the Yogyakarta Principles (the Application of International Human Rights Law In Relation to
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity), which petitioner declares to reflect binding principles
of international law.

20
Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
21
R.A. 9432, Section 17, "Magna Carta for Public Social Workers."
22
R.A. 9432, "Magna Carta for Public Social Workers."
23
Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
24
Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
9
 At this time, we are not prepared to declare that these Yogyakarta Principles contain
norms that are obligatory on the Philippines. There are declarations and obligations outlined in
said principles which are not reflective of the current state of international law, and do not find
basis in any of the sources of international law enumerated under Article 38 (1) of the Statute of
the International Court of Justice. Petitioner has not undertaken any objective and rigorous
analysis of these alleged principles of international law to ascertain their true status.25

We also hasten to add that not everything that society — or a certain segment of society —
wants or demands is automatically a human right. This is not an arbitrary human intervention
that may be added to or subtracted from at will. It is unfortunate that much of what passes for
human rights today is a much broader context of needs that identifies many social desires as
rights in order to further claims that international law obliges states to sanction these
innovations. This has the effect of diluting real human rights, and is a result of the notion that if
"wants" are couched in "rights" language, then they are no longer controversial.26

We stress, however, that although this Court stands willing to assume the responsibility
of giving effect the Philippines’ international law obligations, the blanket invocation of
international law is not the panacea of international law.

5. Public Morals as a ground to Deny Ang Ladlad’s Petition for Registration.

Although the moral condemnation of homosexuality and homosexual conduct may be

religion-based, it has long been transplanted into generally accepted public morals. The
COMELEC argues that: Petitioner’s accreditation was denied not necessarily because their group
consists of LGBT but because of the danger it poses to the people especially the youth. Once it is
recognized by the government, a sector which believes that there is nothing wrong in having
sexual relations with individuals of the same gender is a bad example. It will bring down the
standard of morals we cherish in our civilized society. Any society without a set of moral
precepts is in danger of losing its own existence.

As correctly pointed out by the Law Department in its Comment dated October 2, 2008:
ANG LADLAD apparently advocated sexual immorality as indicated in the Petition’s paragraph
6F: “Consensual partnerships or relationships by gays and lesbians who are already of age.” and
further indicated in paragraph 24 of the Petition which waves for the record: “in 2007, Men
Having Sex with Men or MSMs in the Philippines were estimated 670,000”

Ang Ladlad collides with Article 695 of the Civil Code which defines nuisance as “any act,
omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or any else which… (3) shocks, defies;
or disregards decency or morality…27

It also collides with Article 1306 of the Civil Code28: “The 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, public order or public policy” and
Article 1409 of the Civil Code29 which provides that “Contracts whose cause, object and
purpose is contrary to law, morals good customs, public order or public policy’ are inexistent
and void from the beginning.”

The Revised Penal Code, on the other hand, penalizes immoral doctrines, obscene
publications and exhibitions and indecent shows’ under Article 201, to wit:

25
Lib.ohchr.org. (2018). Available at:
http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session13/PH/JS1_UPR_PHL_S13_2012_JointSubmission1_E.pdf [Accessed 7 Feb. 2018].
26
Ibid.
27
Article 695 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
28
Article 1306 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
29
Article 1409 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
10
Article 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows 30 -
the penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or
both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:

a) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals.
b) The authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form; the editors
of such literature; and the owners/ operators of the establishment selling the same;

c) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinemagraphs or any other place, exhibit indecent or
immoral plays, scenes, or acts or shows, it belong understood that the obscene literature
or indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are
prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which:

i) glorify criminals or condone crimes;

ii) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography;
iii) offend any race or religion; tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and
iv) are contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established policies, lawful
orders, decrees and edicts.

d) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints and engravings, sculpture or
literature which are offensive to morals.

Furthermore, as an agency of the government, ours too is the State’s avowed duty under
Article II, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution to protect our youth from moral and spiritual
degradation states that:

“The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation building
and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual,
intellectual, and social well being. It shall inculcate in the youth
patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in
public and civic affairs.”

Should the Commission grant the petition, we will be exposing our youth to an environment
that does not conform to the teachings of our faith.

6. It is infringing on more important freedoms, like freedom of religion and speech.

There is no prior restraint nor subsequent punishment imposed on Ang Ladlad. Its
members were also not deprived of their right to voluntarily associate as argued by the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG):

“There was no utterance restricted, no publication censored, or

any assembly denied. [COMELEC] simply exercised its authority to
review and verify the qualifications of petitioner as a sectoral party
applying to participate in the party-list system. This lawful exercise of
duty cannot be said to be a transgression of Section 4, Article III of the
Constitution. xxx xxx xxx A denial of the petition for registration . . .
does not deprive the members of the petitioner to freely take part in
the conduct of elections. Their right to vote will not be hampered by
said denial. In fact, the right to vote is a constitutionally guaranteed
right which cannot be limited. As to its right to be elected in a genuine
periodic election, petitioner contends that the denial of Ang Ladlad's
petition has the clear and immediate effect of limiting, if not outrightly
nullifying the capacity of its members to fully and equally participate
in public life through engagement in the party list elections. This
argument is puerile. The holding of a public office is not a right but a
privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. . . .31”

30
Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
31
Rollo, pp. 197-199
11
12
V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be

rendered declaring Ang Ladlad’s petition to be qualified as marginalized under the party-list
system be dismissed.

In this position paper, we have provided the grounds why the petitioner’s contention is
without merit. Primarily, petitioner is excluded in the sectors mentioned in Section 5 (2), Article
VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Section 5 of RA 7941. The community of lesbians,
gays, bisexuals and transsexuals (LGBT) failed to show any link to the sectors mentioned in
Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution. Instead, the petitioner represents itself as an entirely
different sector with its own specific interests and agenda. Petitioner’s primary interest is the
legal recognition of its members’ sexual orientation as a right. However, petitioner failed to
show how this can be traditionally and historically considered vital to the national interest.

Furthermore, petitioner lacks the common constitutional bond or provision in the

fundamental law that specifically recognizes the LGBT sector as specially significant to the
national interest. As implied in BANAT, this standard is indispensable to create the necessary
link of a particular sector to those sectors expressly mentioned in Section 5 (2), Article VI of the
Constitution and Section 5 of RA 7941. Indeed, it is questionable to consider that the promotion
of the LGBT agenda and "gay rights" as a national policy is beneficial to the nation as a whole.
This runs contrary to the importance of the interests of the sectors in Section 5 of RA 7941 which
are indisputable.

We believe that this Honorable Court will set aside the personal beliefs and biases of its
individual members. Rather, it will apply and interpret the Constitution and the laws. In the
case at hand, Congress, in accordance with its mandate under Section 5 (2), Article VI of the
Constitution, enacted RA 7941. Sections 2, 3 (d) and (5) of the said law instituted a policy where
it enumerated certain sectors as qualified marginalized and underrepresented sectors under the
party-list system. Thus, only sectors expressly mentioned or closely related to those sectors
mentioned in Section 5 of RA 7941 are qualified to participate in the party-list system. That is the
tenor of the Court's rulings in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party and BANAT. There being
no compelling reason for the Court to rule otherwise, stare decisis compels a similar conclusion
in this case. We strongly believe that the Court will not amend and expand Sections 2, 3 (d) and
5 of RA 7941 in the guise of interpretation.

While it is true that there are discriminatory and oppressive acts against petitioner’s
members, this does not entitle them to use the party-list system as a vehicle for advancing its
social and political agenda. The primary purpose of the party-list system is to be a platform for
the the realization of the aspirations of marginalized sectors whose interests are aligned with the
national interest but failed to be sufficiently brought to public attention because of these sectors'
underrepresentation. Since the petitioner is not part of the marginalized sector, then it cannot be
part of the party-list system.

13