ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY vs.
COMMISSION ON "detrimental to those conditions upon which depend the
ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010
FACTS:
Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of men and
women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays,
bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals. Ang Ladlad first
applied for registration with the COMELEC in 2006 but
was denied on the ground that the organization had no
substantial membership base. In 2009, Ang Ladlad again
filed a Petition for registration but was again dismissed on
moral grounds and teachings of faith.
Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration but the COMELEC still
upheld the assailed resolution stating, among others, that
the party-list system is a tool for the realization of
aspirations of marginalized individuals whose interests are
also the nation’s – only that their interests have not been
brought to the attention of the nation because of their under
representation. Ang Ladlad’s expressed sexual orientations,
it maintained, does not benefit the nation as a whole.
However, it is also worth noting that when requested, the
OSG filed a Comment in support of petitioner’s
application. The CHR also filed a Motion to Intervene or to
Appear as Amicus Curiae, stating that the denial of Ang
Ladlad’s 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.
Thus this Petition, praying that the Court annul the Assailed
Resolutions and direct the COMELEC to grant Ang
Ladlad’s application for accreditation.  non-discrimination as it relates to the right to electoral
ISSUE:
Whether or not the application should be granted;
HELD:
The application should be granted. Ang Ladlad
satisfactorily complied with all the legal requirements and
its approval is justified by the non-establishment clause and
the absence of any law criminalizing homosexual conduct.
Further,
Religion
Principles and State Policies declare that the separation of
the Church and State shall be inviolable. What our non-
establishment clause calls for is "government neutrality in
religious matters." In other words, government action,
including its proscription of immorality as expressed in
criminal law must have a secular purpose. That is, the
government proscribes this conduct because it is
existence and progress of human society" and not because
the conduct is proscribed by the beliefs of one religion or
the other. Succinctly put, a law could be religious or
Kantian or Aquinian or utilitarian in its deepest roots, but it
must have an articulable and discernible secular purpose
and justification to pass scrutiny of the religion clauses.
In this case, we find that it was grave violation of the non-
establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible
and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad.
Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of the
Assailed Resolutions should depend, instead, on whether
the COMELEC is able to advance some justification for its
rulings beyond mere conformity to religious doctrine.
Public Morals
Respondent suggests that homosexuality and homosexual
conduct has long been transplanted into generally accepted
public morals.
We are not blind to the fact that, through the years,
homosexual conduct, and perhaps homosexuals themselves,
have borne the brunt of societal disapproval. Nonetheless,
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.
Non-Discrimination and International Law
Lastly, our Decision today is fully in accord with our
international obligations to protect and promote human
rights. In particular, we explicitly recognize the principle of
participation, enunciated in the UDHR and the ICCPR.
The ICCPR and UDHR expresses that the principle of non-
discrimination requires that laws of general application
relating to elections be applied equally to all persons,
regardless of sexual orientation. It also states that every
citizen shall have the right and the opportunity without
unreasonable restrictions to take part in the conduct of
public affairs, directly or through freely chosen
representatives; to vote and to be elected at genuine
periodic elections, and to have access, on general terms of
equality, to public service in his country.
However, we are not prepared to declare that
the Yogyakarta Principles, which petitioner invokes
as binding principles of international law, contain norms
that are obligatory on the Philippines. Some parts of said
Principles 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 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.
Case No. 21; Separation and Delegation of Powers
(Galita)
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION (BOCEA) vs. HON. TEVES
G.R. No. 181704, December 6, 2011
FACTS:
In January 2005, former President Arroyo signed into law
R.A. No. 9335, optimizing the revenue-generation
capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). The law intends
to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to
exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of
rewards and sanctions through the creation of a Rewards
and Incentives Fund and a Revenue Performance
Evaluation Board.
Each Board has the duty to (1) prescribe the rules and
guidelines for the allocation, distribution and release of the
Fund; (2) set criteria and procedures for removing from the
service officials and employees whose revenue collection
falls short of the target; (3) terminate personnel in
accordance with the criteria adopted by the Board; (4)
prescribe a system for performance evaluation; (5) perform
other functions, including the issuance of rules and
regulations and (6) submit an annual report to Congress.
BOCEA assails the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9335 and
its IRR as it allegedly violate the 1987 Constitution because
Congress granted to Board the unbridled discretion of
formulating the criteria for termination, the manner of
allocating targets, the distribution of rewards and the
determination of relevant factors affecting the targets of
collection, which is tantamount to undue delegation of
legislative power.
Respondents, through the OSG, maintains that R.A. No.
9335 complies with the "completeness" and "sufficient
standard" tests for the permissive delegation of legislative
power to the Board; that the Board exercises its delegated
power consistent with the policy laid down in the law, that
is, to optimize the revenue generation capability and
collection of the BIR and the BOC; that parameters were
set in order that the Board may identify the officials and
employees subject to attrition, and the proper procedure for
their removal in case they fail to meet the targets set in the
Performance Contract were provided.
ISSUE:
Whether there is undue delegation of legislative power to
the Board;
HELD:
No, there is none.
The principle of separation of powers ordains that each of
the three great branches of government has exclusive
cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its
own constitutionally allocated sphere. Necessarily
imbedded in this doctrine is the principle of non-delegation
of powers, as expressed in the Latin maxim potestas
delegata non delegari potest, which means "what has been
delegated, cannot be delegated." However, this principle of
non-delegation of powers admits of numerous
exceptions, one of which is the delegation of legislative
power to various specialized administrative agencies like
the Board in this case.
The rationale for the aforementioned exception was clearly
explained in the case of Gerochi where it was stated that
given the volume and variety of interactions in today’s
society, it is doubtful if the legislature can promulgate laws
that will deal adequately with and respond promptly to the
minutiae of everyday life. Hence, the need to delegate.
The two tests determine the validity of delegation of
legislative power are (1) the completeness test and (2) the
sufficient standard test. A law is complete when it sets forth
therein the policy to be executed, carried out or
implemented by the delegate. It lays down a sufficient
standard when it provides adequate guidelines or
limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the
delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from
running riot. To be sufficient, the standard must specify the
limits of the delegate’s authority, announce the legislative
policy and identify the conditions under which it is to be
implemented.

In this case, RA No. 9335 adequately states the policy and

standards to guide the President in fixing revenue targets
and the implementing agencies in carrying out the
provisions of the law.

Revenue targets are based on the original estimated revenue

collection expected respectively of the BIR and the BOC
for a given fiscal year as approved by the DBCC and stated
in the BESF submitted by the President to Congress. Thus,
the determination of revenue targets does not rest solely on
the President as it also undergoes the scrutiny of the DBCC.
On the other hand, Section 7 specifies the limits of the
Board’s authority and identifies the conditions under which
officials and employees whose revenue collection falls
short of the target by at least 7.5% may be removed from
the service

Moreover, Section 5 of the law also provides for the

incentives due to District Collection Offices. While it is
apparent that the last paragraph of Section 5 provides that
"the allocation, distribution and release of the district
reward shall likewise be prescribed by the rules and
regulations of the Revenue Performance and Evaluation
Board," Section 7 (a) clearly mandates and sets the
parameters for the Board by providing that such rules and
guidelines for the allocation, distribution and release of the
fund shall be in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 of R.A.
No. 9335.

At any rate, this Court has recognized the following as

sufficient standards: "public interest", "justice and equity",
"public convenience and welfare" and "simplicity, economy
and welfare". In this case, the declared policy of
optimization of the revenue-generation capability and
collection of the BIR and the BOC is infused with public
interest.

We could not but deduce that the completeness test and the
sufficient standard test were fully satisfied by R.A. No.
9335, as evident from its sections. In sum, the Court finds
that R.A. No. 9335, read and appreciated in its entirety, is
complete in all its essential terms and conditions, and that it
contains sufficient standards as to negate BOCEA’s
supposition of undue delegation of legislative power to the
Board.