Case Digest (G.R. No. 190582)
Facts:
On January 4, 2010, Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, represented by its chair Danton Remoto, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, with an application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Ang Ladlad had first sought accreditation under Republic Act No. 7941 (the Party-List System Act) in 2006 and was denied for lack of a substantial membership base. On August 17, 2009, it submitted a renewed petition, presenting evidence of nationwide affiliate networks and compliance with the Court’s guidelines in *Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections*. On November 11, 2009, the COMELEC Second Division issued the First Assailed Resolution dismissing the petition on *moral grounds*, invoking Biblical and Qur’anic passages and provisions of the Civil and Penal Codes. After a tie vote on reconsideration, the COMELEC en banc, through its chairman’s deciding opinion in the Second Assailed ResolutioCase Digest (G.R. No. 190582)
Facts:
- Petition and Subject Matter
- Ang Ladlad LGBT Party (Ang Ladlad), composed of individuals identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT), seeks accreditation as a party-list organization under Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act).
- Ang Ladlad first applied for COMELEC registration in 2006 but was denied for lack of substantial membership; it refiled on August 17, 2009 with evidence of over 16,000 members, 4,044 online members, and a nationwide umbrella of affiliate organizations.
- Ang Ladlad’s platform included anti-discrimination legislation, economic support for poor and disabled LGBT Filipinos, care centers for elderly LGBTs, and repeal of laws used to harass the LGBT community.
- COMELEC Resolutions and Grounds for Denial
- First Assailed Resolution (Nov. 11, 2009): COMELEC Second Division admitted evidence but dismissed accreditation “on moral grounds,” citing religious texts (Bible Romans 1:26–27; Koran 7:81, 7:84, 29:30), civil code nuisances, and penal code provisions penalizing “immoral doctrines.”
- Motion for Reconsideration: Split COMELEC vote (3–3), with Chairman Larrazabal breaking the tie to uphold dismissal. His separate opinion held:
- Purpose of party-list is to promote sectoral interests that “benefit the nation as a whole,” not tolerance of “misunderstood groups.”
- LGBT is not a “special class” under U.S. equal protection analogues; homosexuality is not a “fundamental right.”
- Moral parameters reflect “public morals” rooted in Christian and Muslim upbringing, enshrined in law (Revised Penal Code, Civil Code).
- Second Assailed Resolution (Dec. 16, 2009): Final dismissal reaffirmed on the same moral basis and alleged lack of a genuine national presence.
- Supreme Court Proceedings
- Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 and application for preliminary mandatory injunction filed January 4, 2010, seeking annulment of both COMELEC resolutions and accreditation order.
- Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment in support of petitioner; COMELEC filed its Comment defending dismissal.
- Commission on Human Rights and Epifanio D. Salonga, Jr. granted motions to intervene as amici curiae.
- A Temporary Restraining Order (Jan. 12, 2010) enjoined COMELEC from printing ballots that exclude Ang Ladlad.
Issues:
- Validity of COMELEC’s denial on “moral grounds” relying on religious texts—violation of the non-establishment clause?
- Whether moral disapproval alone suffices to exclude a sector from accreditation—compatibility with secular public morals and due process?
- Status of LGBT as a “marginalized and underrepresented sector” under the Constitution and R.A. 7941—enumeration non-exclusive but bounded?
- Equal protection implications of classifying LGBT as ineligible—rational basis review vs. heightened scrutiny?
- Freedom of speech and association—does denial infringe petitioner’s rights to campaign, assemble, and participate in political expression?
- International and human rights obligations—non-discrimination on sexual orientation under UDHR, ICCPR, and related treaties.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)