Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.

190582, [April 8,
2010], 632 PHIL 32-142
Principles/Articles

Facts

 Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves as
lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs). Incorporated in 2003,
Ang Ladlad first applied for registration with the COMELEC in 2006. The application for
accreditation was denied on the ground that the organization had no substantial
membership base. On August 17, 2009, Ang Ladlad again filed a Petition for registration
with the COMELEC.
 Before the COMELEC, petitioner argued that the LGBT community is a marginalized and
under-represented 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 that Ang Ladlad complied with the 8-point guidelines enunciated
by this Court in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections. Ang
Ladlad laid out its national membership base consisting of individual members and
organizational supporters, and outlined its platform of governance.
 On November 11, 2009, after admitting the petitioners evidence, the COMELEC (Second
Division) dismissed the Petition on moral grounds, stating that: This Petition is
dismissible on moral grounds. Petitioner defines the Filipino Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender (LGBT) Community, thus a marginalized and under-represented sector that
is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.
and proceeded to define sexual orientation as that which refers to a persons capacity
for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual
relations with, individuals of a different gender, of the same gender, or more than one
gender.
 ANG LADLAD collides with Article 695 of the Civil Code which defines nuisance as Any
act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which (3)
shocks, defies; or disregards decency or morality.
 It also collides with Article 1306 of the Civil Code: 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. Art
1409 of the Civil Code provides that Contracts whose cause, object or purpose is
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy are inexistent and
void from the beginning.
  Finally to safeguard the morality of the Filipino community, the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, penalizes Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and
indecent shows as follows: Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and
exhibitions, and indecent shows.
 Ladlad is applying for accreditation as a sectoral party in the party-list system. Even
assuming that it has properly proven its under-representation and marginalization, it
cannot be said that Ladlads expressed sexual orientations per se would benefit the
nation as a whole. Thus, even if societys understanding, tolerance, and acceptance of
LGBTs is elevated, there can be no denying that Ladlad constituencies are still males and
females, and they will remain either male or female protected by the same Bill of Rights
that applies to all citizens alike.
 The Commission on Elections found that Ang Ladlad, as an LGBT organisation,
“tolerate[d] immorality which offends religious beliefs”. It cited the Bible and the
Koran as proof that homosexual activity violated standards of morality, and held that
it could only recognise law-abiding parties.
 The Commission believed that Ang Ladlad’s support of LGBT issues violated several
statutes (including Articles 201, 695 and 1306 of the Civil Code of the Republic of the
Philippines) that referred to concepts such as “morality,” “mores, good customs,”
“public morals,” and “morals”. Additionally, the Commission believed that approving
Ang Ladlad would violate the constitutional duty to “promote and protect [the
youth’s] physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being”.
Issues (W/N)
 Whether or not “Ang Ladlad” party-list application should be denied by COMELEC.

Ruling
1. NO. The Court held that Ang Ladlad must be recognised by the Commission on Elections
as a political party in the Philippines.

The Supreme Court rejected all the reasons given by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
Philippine case law clearly interpreted Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution as a call for
“government neutrality in religious matters”. The Commission on Elections’ use of the Bible
and the Koran was thus a significant constitutional violation.

The Commission on Elections had provided no evidence to show that the government had a
secular, as opposed to religious or moral, interest in prohibiting the formation of an LGBT
political party.

The Commission on Elections’ selective targeting of Ang Ladlad provided grounds for a claim
under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
While the Court refused to identify homosexuals as a separate class in need of special or
differentiated treatment, it nonetheless held that the Commission on Elections’ decision
violated the Equal Protection Clause. Philippine jurisprudence affirmed that any government
intervention, even one that did not burden a suspect class or breach a fundamental right, must
reflect a rational interest of government. The Court stated that the asserted interest in this
case, the “moral disapproval of an unpopular minority”, was “not a legitimate state interest
that is sufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the equal protection clause”. The only
interest favoured by the Commission on Elections’ differentiation was “disapproval of or dislike
for a disfavoured group”.

The Court also found that the Commission on Elections ruling violated the Philippine doctrine
of freedom of expression. While the Constitution placed power in the hands of the majority, it
also limited the power of that majority to “ride roughshod over the dissenting minorities”.
According to the Court, freedom of expression could be limited only by restrictions that were
“proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued”

The Court recognised that many Philippine citIzens disapproved of homosexuality and Ang
Ladlad’s agenda. Nonetheless, the Court held, Philippine democracy “precludes using the
religious or moral views of part of the community to exclude from consideration the values of
other members of the community”.

Finally, the Court ruled that international law required the Commission on Elections to
recognise Ang Ladlad. According to the Human Rights Committee’s decision in Toonen v.
Australia, Article 26 of the ICCPR prohibited discrimination based on sex, including sexual
orientation. Reading the right to participate in government under Article 21 of the UDHR in
light of Toonen, the Court held that international law protected the right of LGBT
organisations to participate in the political process and that the Commission on Elections’
decision contravened that right.