Case Summary (G.R. No. 19982)
Eligibility Requirements Under RA 7941 and the Constitution
The party-list system admits “marginalized and under-represented sectors” as defined by Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 5 of R.A. 7941. COMELEC may deny registration only for enumerated grounds, including religious sect status or advocacy of violence, but not for moral disapproval.
COMELEC’s Denial on Moral and Religious Grounds
On November 11, 2009, COMELEC’s Second Division dismissed Ang Ladlad’s petition, deeming its LGBT advocacy “immoral” and citing biblical and Qur’anic passages. It relied on provisions in the Civil and Penal Codes that penalize “immoral doctrines” and “nuisance” defined by public decency. A reconsideration motion tied at three votes each was resolved by the Chairman to uphold the denial.
Procedural and Intervention History
Ang Ladlad filed a certiorari petition and preliminary injunction in this Court on January 4, 2010. The Solicitor General initially supported the petition; COMELEC later filed its own comment. A temporary restraining order halted ballot printing. The Commission on Human Rights and Epifanio Salonga, Jr. were granted leave to intervene.
Petitioner’s Constitutional Claims
Ang Ladlad contended that COMELEC’s reliance on religious texts violated the Establishment Clause. It argued infringements of privacy, free speech, assembly, and equal protection under the Constitution, as well as violations of international anti-discrimination obligations based on sexual orientation.
Office of the Solicitor General’s Position
The OSG concurred with petitioner that COMELEC erred in equating LGBT identity with immorality. It posited that LGBTs can constitute a distinct group with special concerns meriting party-list representation, but acknowledged no free-speech or assembly rights were directly curtailed.
COMELEC’s Arguments
COMELEC maintained that LGBT identity is outside the enumerated sectors of R.A. 7941, alleged false statements on Ang Ladlad’s nationwide existence, and reiterated moral objections, asserting LGBT advocacy threatens public morals and youth.
Court’s Analysis: Enumerated Sectors Not Exclusive
The Court reaffirmed that the list of marginalized sectors in R.A. 7941 is illustrative, not exhaustive. What matters is compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements — genuine representation, nationwide presence, and a platform benefitting the nation. Ang Ladlad provided credible evidence of its membership, platforms, and affiliates, and COMELEC’s non-existence reports were irregular and inconsistent with petitioner’s verified proof.
Court’s Analysis: Establishment Clause Violation
Government neutrality in religion forbids reliance on religious doctrine to deny political participation. COMELEC’s moral objections based on biblical and Qur’anic passages violated Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution. Public policy and morality must be articulated in secular terms; governmental actions must have a secular purpose.
Court’s Analysis: Public Morals
Invoking “public morals” requires specific legal findings of immoral acts, not mere disapproval of identity. No evidence showed Ang Ladlad’s members committed overt acts warranting exclusion. Blanket moral condemnation cannot substitute for judicial determinations of wrongdoing.
Court’s Analysis: Equal Protection
Selective targeting of homosexuals as a class fails rational-basis review. Moral disapproval of an unpopular minority is not a legitimate state interest. COMELEC’s differentiation furthers no interest beyond dislike for LGBT persons. All qualified sectors deserve equal application of party-list rules.
Court’s Analysis: Freedom of Expression and As
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 19982)
Factual Background
- Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with application for preliminary mandatory injunction filed by Ang Ladlad LGBT Party against COMELEC Resolutions dated November 11, 2009 and December 16, 2009 (SPP No. 09-228 (PL)).
- Ang Ladlad first applied for party-list accreditation in 2006; denied for lack of substantial membership.
- Incorporated in 2003, Ang Ladlad is an umbrella organization of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender individuals (LGBTs).
- August 17, 2009: renewed petition for accreditation, citing the LGBT community as a marginalized, under-represented sector disadvantaged by sexual orientation and gender identity.
- Submitted evidence of national membership base, affiliate organizations, and a governance platform (anti-discrimination, livelihood projects, care centers, repeal of extortion laws).
COMELEC Resolutions Challenged
- First Assailed Resolution (Nov. 11, 2009): dismissed Ang Ladlad’s petition on moral grounds, labeling LGBT community as tolerating “immorality which offends religious beliefs.”
- COMELEC cited biblical (Romans 1:26-27) and Quranic verses (7.81, 7.84, 29:30) to justify exclusion.
- Invoked Civil Code Article 695 (nuisance) and Article 1306 (contracts against morals) and Revised Penal Code Article 201 (immoral doctrines, obscene publications, indecent shows).
- Motion for Reconsideration split 3–3; COMELEC Chairman broke tie upholding refusal on morality and arguing sector not beneficial to nation.
Procedural History
- January 4, 2010: Ang Ladlad filed petition to annul COMELEC resolutions and to direct accreditation; sought ex parte preliminary mandatory injunction.
- January 12, 2010: Supreme Court issued Temporary Restraining Order against COMELEC’s implementation of Assailed Resolutions.
- January 13, 2010: Commission on Human Rights (CHR) filed Motion to Intervene/Appear as Amicus Curiae; granted January 19, 2010.
- January 26, 2010 and February 2, 2010: interventions granted to Epifanio D. Salonga, Jr. and others.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Reliance on religious dogma violated the constitutional prohibition on establishment of religion (Art. III, Sec. 5).
- COMELEC’s moral disapproval denied rights to privacy, freedom of speech, assembly, and equal protection.
- Discrimination based on sexual orientation contravened international obligations under the UDHR and ICCPR.
Office of the Solicitor General’s (OSG) Position
- Initially sought extension, later filed Comment in support of petitioner.
- Contended no evidence of immoral acts by Ang Ladlad; attraction alone is not an unlawful act.
- Argued LGBTs constitute a special class with interests separate from gene