ALVARO, MICHELLE VALDEZ

2130236 Human Rights Law

LLB – 2C 5:30 – 6:30 TW

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v

Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
GR. No. 190582
April 8, 2010

Overview of the Case:

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party is a national organization which represents the

lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans-genders. It filed a petition for accreditation as a
party-list organization to the COMELEC. However, due to moral grounds, the
COMELEC denied the said petition. To buttress their denial, COMELEC cited
certain biblical and Quir’an passages in their decision. It also stated that since their
ways are immoral and contrary to public policy, they are considered as nuissance.
In fact, their acts are even punishable under the Article 201 of the Revised Penal
Code. A motion for reconsideration being denied, Ang Ladlad LGBT Party filed
this instant Petition on Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of accreditation, insofar as it justified the
exclusion by using religious dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees against
the establishment of religion. They also claimed that the COMELEC Resolutions
contravened its constitutional rights 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. 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 the LGBT sector is not among
the sectors enumerated by the Constitution and Republic Act 7941 which are
qualified to be represented in the Congress.

Salient Parts of the Decision Underlining the Rights of LGBT

1. No law exists to criminalize behavior or expressions or parties about

homosexual behavior. Moral disapproval of an unpopular minority is not a
legitimate state interest that is sufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the
equal protection clause.
 Comment: The State has the authority to prosecute acts which are illegal
and punishable under the Revised Penal Code and other special penal laws
through institutions of criminal justice system in the country. State is vested
with authority to regulate matters regarding morality, sexuality, sexual
relations and empowered to restrict behaviors which are considered
detrimental to the general welfare of the society. Within the ambit of law-
making powers of the Congress in the determination of punishable acts
which the government ought to suppress, it would be unreasonable for
Congress to invoke pre-established and religion-based set of public morals
and later replace the institution of civil and criminal proceedings in the
country. The generally accepted morals and public perception towards the
homosexual conducts do not justify the imposition of any penalty to same-
sex conducts in the Philippines. Moreover, to criminalize same-sex
conducts based on religious justifications and religion-based perception
towards homosexuals would result to grave violation of non-establishment
clause and inconsistent with the policy of benevolent neutrality. The
reliance of Congress upon religion-based set of morality and beliefs on the
crafting of penal legislations would require conformity and possibly favor
the religious programs or agendas of some religious sects in the
Philippines.

2. In the standpoint of the political process, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender have the same interest in participating in the party-list system on the
same basis as other political parties similarly situated. Hence, 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.

Comment: Under the equal protection clause, it requires that all persons
similarly situated should be treated alike, both as the rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed.1 The difference on the imposition of rights and
privileges among set of individuals must be based on valid classification.
Heterosexuals and homosexuals are similarly situated and therefore, they
must be the same on the rights conferred and obligations imposed as a
citizen of the Philippines. The established idea of morality and public
disapproval on homosexual conducts do not serve as substantial basis of a
valid classification in order to single out homosexuals as a separate class
meriting special or differentiated treatment. To exclude homosexuals in
1
Ichong v Hernandez, GR No. L-7995, May 31, 1957
 political activities such as party-list representations and election process
which are commonly afforded to all citizens of the country and under-
represented sectors would be tantamount to an impermissible and
unwarranted classification. Hence, laws and policies which distinguish
heterosexuals and homosexuals under different circumstances would result
to violation of their constitutionally protected rights.

3. The principle of non-discrimination requires that laws of general application

relating to election laws be applied equally to all persons, regardless of sexual
orientation.

Comment: The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth under the
1987 Philippine Constitution shall be secured without any discrimination
on any grounds such as sexual preference of an individual. It cannot be
denied that common public perception of homosexual conduct is offensive
and defiant, however, this view does not preclude the imposition of equal
political rights to homosexuals, like any other citizens of the country, to
take part in the conduct of public affairs, the right to vote and to be elected
and the right to have access to public service.

Same-Sex Marriage

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest
ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union,
two people become something greater than once they were.”
– Obergefell et al. v Hodges, et al., June 26, 2015

a. Negative Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage

Same-sex marriage undermines the institution of marriage that has

traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman. One of the main
purpose of marriage unions is procreation and establishment of a family, a basic
social institution as recognized in 1987 Philippine Constitution. The union of
homosexuals would not result to the creation of a child and subsequently,
establishing a family. More so, considering the early stage of child development,
sociologists argue that there are some minor variations in the perception of gender
and psychological aspects between the children of homosexual parents and
children of heterosexual parents.2

Same-sex marriages increase the chances of leading to other unaccepted

marriages and non-traditional marriages such as incest, polygamy, and bestiality.

Same-sex marriage is consistent with homosexuality, which reaps public

disapproval and considered as unnatural since it is incompatible with the pre-
established set morality and beliefs of many religions.

b. Positive Arguments in favor of Same-Sex Marriage

Marriage is an internationally recognized human right for all people.

Singling out and denying a group to marry based upon their sexual orientation is an
act of discrimination and subsequently, creates a second class of citizens. There is
no substantial basis of valid classification between heterosexual and homosexual
couples, thus homosexual couples should be afforded the same access to the same
benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

Marriage is a basic civil right. Thus, same-sex marriage is a civil right which
should be afforded to homosexual couples along with other rights provided to
citizens under the law such as freedom from employment discrimination, equal pay
for women, and fair sentencing for minority criminals. Also, prohibition on same
sex marriage can lead to detrimental effects on homosexuals’ self-worth since they
do not have ability to choose whether or not to marry, like heterosexual couples
did.

Same-Sex Marriage does not undermine the institution of marriage and does
not defeat the purpose of procreation. An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is
not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State. Being a same-
sex couple doesn’t make homosexuals any less qualified or able to be a good
parent. According to research, young adults raised by lesbian mothers were more
positive about non-conventional family identity and good psychosocial
adjustments than young adults raised by heterosexuals or single parents. 3 Absent

2
Sutfin, Erin L., Megan Fulcher, Ryan Bowles, and Charlotte J. Patterson. 2007.”How Lesbian and
Heterosexual Parents Convey Attitudes about Gender to their Children: The Role of Gendered
Environments”.
3
The Effects of Lesbian and Gay Parenting on Children’s Development by Shelby Chamberlin
marriage, same-sex couples can sometimes turn to adoption in order to gain the
rights of legal parents.

Government provides a lot of benefits to married couples including Social

Security benefits, health care benefits, and unpaid leave from your job to care for
family members. Such benefits should be provided not only to legally married
heterosexual couples but also to homosexual partners by legalization of same-sex
marriage.

Marriage generally creates a presumption of joint ownership of property

accrued during the marriage. The legalization of same sex marriage would give the
opportunity for same sex couples to manage their properties and enjoy their
property rights under the concept of joint ownership and utilize it for their sole
economic benefit as married couple.

Obergefell et al. v Hodges, et al.,

Case No.14–556
June 26, 2015

Salient Part of the Decision Underlining the Same-Sex Marriage

Right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person.

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of
the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage
offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow
lesser.

Comment: The exclusion of same-sex marriage affects not only the

homosexual couples but also bears significant impact on their children,
whether biological or adopted. There is a great possibility that children of
homosexual couples would suffer social stigma, confronted with endless
inquiry on the recognition of their parents’ relationship and rights,
instability of their family, and further affect their social and psychological
development.
The right to marry, a basic civil right, is accorded with equal
protection under the law and due process. To deny such right to
homosexuals and limit the exercise to heterosexual couples would lead to
unwarranted violation of homosexuals’ rights since there is no substantial
distinction on such classification imposed aside from mere religious and
philosophical grounds. Moreover, to deny them the right to marry would
tantamount to denial of benefits accorded by the State to legally married
couples such as inheritance and property rights, rules of intestate
succession, adoption rights, the rights and benefits of survivors, health
insurance and others. Lastly, the right to marry granted to same-sex
couples does not undermine the institution of marriage. Marriage does not
solely revolved around the concept of procreation but also on mutual love,
child rearing, education, and mutual support. To marry and raise children
are based on one’s personal, romantic, and practical considerations. Same-
sex couples, the fact that they are homosexuals, do not divest nor
incapacitate them to raise children, perform parental obligations and build
a harmonious family of their own.