Case Digest (G.R. No. 190582)
Facts:
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party represented herein by its Chair, Danton Remoto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190582, April 08, 2010, the Supreme Court En Banc, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Ang Ladlad is a national umbrella organization of persons identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT). Incorporated in 2003, Ang Ladlad first sought COMELEC accreditation in 2006; after an initial denial for lack of substantial membership, it filed again on August 17, 2009 for party-list registration under Republic Act No. 7941 (the Party-List System Act), alleging nationwide membership, listing affiliates, and proffering a legislative platform (e.g., anti-discrimination, livelihood, care centers).
On November 11, 2009 the COMELEC Second Division dismissed Ang Ladlad’s petition on moral grounds, citing the party’s definition of sexual orientation and relying on passages from the Bible and the Koran and provisions of the Civil Code and Revised Penal Code (e.g., Articles 694/699/201) to conclude the group “tolerates immorality.” Ang Ladlad moved for reconsideration; three commissioners voted to overturn while three voted to deny, and the COMELEC Chairman broke the tie and issued a separate opinion upholding the dismissal (the First and Second Assailed Resolutions, dated November 11 and December 16, 2009, in SPP No. 09-228 (PL)). COMELEC also caused regional verifications, later producing reports asserting that ANG LADLAD or LADLAD LGBT did not exist in many provinces.
Ang Ladlad filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 on January 4, 2010 seeking annulment of the Assailed Resolutions and a preliminary mandatory injunction directing COMELEC to grant accreditation; given the imminent ballot printing, the Court issued an ex parte temporary restraining order on January 12, 2010 directing COMELEC to cease implementation of the Resolutions. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) at first sought an extension but ultimately filed a Comment supporting petitioner’s constitutional claims; the COMELEC filed its own Comment on February 2, 2010. The Commission on Human Rights was granted leave to intervene as amicus and filed a Comment-in-Intervention; Epifanio D. Salonga, Jr. was also permitted to intervene.
Before the Court, COMELEC defended its dismissal arguing that (a) the LGBT sector is not among the enumerated sectors in the Constitution and RA 7941 and (b) Ang Ladlad lacked genuine national presence (relying on the field reports). Petitioner argued that the denial was grounded on religious dogma and violated the Constitution’s religion clauses, freedom of speech and assembly, privacy, and equal protection; it also invoked international human-rights norms. The OSG concurred with petitione...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC violate petitioner’s procedural and constitutional rights by denying accreditation on the basis of religion and moral condemnation (non-establishment clause and procedural due process)?
- Did the COMELEC’s denial, grounded on moral disapproval of homosexuality, unlawfully restrict petitioner’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech, expression and association, privacy, and equal protection?
- Had petitioner satisfied the statutory and jurisprudential requirements for party-list accreditation under RA 794...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)