ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY VS.

COMELEC
GR No. 190582 || [Apr 8, 2010]

FACTS:

Petitioner Ang Ladlad represented itself as a national lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender (LGBT) umbrella organization with affiliates around the Philippines
composed of several LGBT network. The petitioner’s application for registration with
the COMELEC was denied in 2006 and 2009 for the reason that the organization has no
substantial membership base and that it tolerates immorality which offends religious
beliefs and would be to expose our youth to an environment that does not conform to
the teachings of our faith. The latter argued that they are a marginalized and under-
represented sector that is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation
and gender identity and had complied with the 8-point guidelines enunciated in Ang
Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections. Ang Ladlad collides with
Arts 695, 1306 and 1409 of the Civ Code, and Art 201 of the RPC. The LGBT sector is not
enumerated in the Constitution and RA 7941.

ISSUES:
WON Ang Ladlad’s application for accreditation be denied.

RULING:
No, Ang Ladlad’s application for accreditation should not be. Ang Ladlad complied with
the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941. As the SC explicitly ruled in Ang
Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, "the enumeration of
marginalized and under-represented sectors is not exclusive". The crucial element is not
whether a sector is specifically enumerated, but whether a particular organization
complies with the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941. Against this backdrop,
Ang Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with the legal requirements for
accreditation. 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." 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. Thus,
 TOBIAS VS. ABALOS
GR L-114783, 239 SCRA 106 || [Dec 8, 1994]
FACTS:
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7675, otherwise known as "An
Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be
known as the City of Mandaluyong" which they contend that it is contrary to Art. VI,
Secs. 5(1) and 5(4). The municipalities of Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to only
one legislative district prior to the enactment of RA No. 7675.

ISSUES:
1. WON RA NO. 7675 violates Art VI, Sec. 5(1) of the Constitution.
2. WON RA NO. 7675 violates Art VI, Sec. 5(4) of the Constitution.

RULING:
1. No, it does not violates Art VI, Sec. 5(1) of the Constitution. The creation of a
separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and
distinct from the subject of its conversion into a highly urbanized city but is a
natural and logical consequence of its conversion into a highly urbanized city. To
the argument that the RA NO. 7675 resulted in an increase in the composition of
the House of Representative beyond that provided in Art VI, Sec 5(1) is thus
contrary to the same, the court found no merit. The Constitution clearly provides
that the present composition of the House of Representative may be increased, if
Congress itself so mandates through legislative enactment.
2. No, it does not violates Art VI, Sec. 5(4) of the Constitution. To the argument that
the RA in effect preempts the right of Congress to reapportion legislative districts
pursuant to Art VI, Sec 5(4), it was held bordering on the absurd. It was the
Congress itself which drafted, deliberated upon and enacted the assailed law.
Congress cannot possibly preempt itself on a right which pertains to itself.
 ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS VS. MONTEJO
FACTS:
Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position
of Representative of the First District of Leyte. Respondent Montejo filed a Petition for
Cancellation and Disqualification contending that Mrs. Marcos lacked the Constitution's
one year residency requirement mandated by Article VI, Sec. 6 of the 1987 Constitution
where the petitioner stated her residence in the First Legislative District of Leyte as
seven (7) months. The latter filed an Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy,
changing the entry "seven" months to "since childhood" claiming that the entry of the
word "seven" in her original Certificate of Candidacy was the result of an "honest
misinterpretation" and that "she has always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or
residence. However, COMELEC resolved in favor of Montejo and contended that
Imelda’s domicile ought to be any place where she lived in the last few decades except
Tacloban.

ISSUES:
WON the petitioner was a resident of the First District of Leyte for a period of one year
at the time of the election as requirement mandated by Art VI, Sec 6 of the Constitution.

RULING:
Yes, the petitioner was a resident of the First District of Leyte for a period of one year at
the time of the election. Residence is synonymous with domicile. The honest mistake of
the petitioner in her residency does not negate the fact of residence if such fact were
established by means more convincing than a mere entry on a piece of paper. An
individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained residences in
different places. Residence, it bears repeating, implies a factual relationship to a given
place for various purposes. The absence from legal residence or domicile to pursue a
profession, to study or to do other things of a temporary or semi-permanent nature does
not constitute loss of residence. Even at the height of the Marcos Regime's powers,
petitioner kept her close ties to her domicile of origin by establishing residences in
Tacloban, celebrating her birthdays and other important personal milestones in her
home province, instituting well-publicized projects for the benefit of her province and
hometown, and establishing a political power base where her siblings and close relatives
held positions of power.
To successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate: 1. An actual removal
or an actual change of domicile; 2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place
of residence and establishing a new one; and 3. Acts which correspond with the purpose.
In the absence of clear and positive proof based on these criteria, the residence of origin
should be deemed to continue.
 DIMAPORO VS. MITRA AND SABIO
GR 96859, 202 SCRA 779 || [OCT 15, 1991]
FACTS:
Petitioner who is the incumbent Representative of Lanao del Sur filed with the
COMELEC a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Regional Governor of the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Respondents Speaker and Secretary of the
House of Reps excluded petitioner’s name from the Roll of Members of the House of
Representative pursuant to Section 67, Article IX of the Omnibus Election Code, which
states: Any elective official whether national or local running for any office other than
the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity except for President and Vice-
President shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his
certificate of candidacy. Having lost in the autonomous region elections, petitioner
expressed his intention "to resume performing my duties and functions as elected
Member of Congress." The record does not indicate what action was taken on this
communication, but it is apparent that petitioner failed in his bid to regain his seat in
Congress since this petition. He asserts that under the rule expressio unius est exclusio
alterius, Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 is repugnant to these constitutional
provisions in that it provides for the shortening of a congressman's term of office on a
ground not provided for in the Constitution.

ISSUES:
WON Sec 67, Art IX of BP 881 shorten a term of a congressman by means other than
that provided in the Constitution.

RULING:
No, Sec 67, Art IX of BP 881 could not shorten a term of a congressman by means other
than that provided in the Constitution. Dimaporo seems to confuse “term” with “tenure”
of office. The term of office prescribed by the Constitution may not be extended or
shortened by the legislature, but the period during which an officer actually holds the
office (tenure), may be affected by circumstances xxx. Under the questioned provision,
when an elective official covered thereby files a certificate of candidacy for another
office, he is deemed to have voluntarily cut short his tenure not his term. The term
remains xxx. Forfeiture is automatic and permanently effective upon the filing of the
certificate of candidacy for another office xxx. It is not necessary that the other position
be actually held. The ground for forfeiture in Sec 13, Art VI of the Constitution is
different from the forfeiture decreed in Sec 67, Art. IX of BP, Blg. 881, which is actually a
mode of voluntary renunciation of office under Sec 7(2) of Art VI of the Constitution.
Petition dismissed.
Mariano, Jr. v. COMELEC
GR 118577, 242 SCRA 211 [Mar 7, 1995]
Facts. RA 7854 is “An Act Converting the Municipality of Makati in Into a Highly
Urbanized City xxx”. Sec 52 thereof provides that Makati, upon conversion
into a Highly Urbanized City, shall have at least 2 legislative districts xxx.
The petitioners contend, among others, that the reapportionment cannot
be made by a special law (it can only be made by a general
reapportionment law), and that Makati’s population xxx stands at only
450k hence it allegedly violates Art VI, Sec 5(3) of the Constitution.
Issues.
(1) May Sec 52 of RA 7854, a special law, make reapportionment of the
legislative districts?
(2) Does Sec 53 of RA 7854 violate Art VI, Sec 5(3) of the Constitution?
Held.
(1) Yes. As thus worded [in Art VI, Sec 5(1)], the Constitution did not
preclude Congress from increasing its membership by passing a law,
other than a general reapportionment law. This is exactly what was
done by Congress in enacting RA 7854 and providing an increase in
Makati’s legislative district.
(2) No. Art VI, Sec 5(3) provides that a city with a population of at least
250k shall have at least one representative. Even granting that the
population of Makati xxx stood at 450k, its legislative district may still
be increased since it has met the minimum population requirement of
250k.
Only Congress may make major adjustments of the reapportionment of
Legislative Districts.59