Scribd
Upload
67 views

CD - 66. Ang Ladlad v. Comelec

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Ang Ladlad LGBT Party and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Ang Ladlad, an LGBT organization, applied twice to register as a party-list group but was denied by COMELEC, first for lack of membership and then on moral grounds. The Supreme Court granted Ang Ladlad's petition, finding that COMELEC improperly denied registration based on the group's advocacy for LGBT rights. The Court ruled that the enumeration of marginalized sectors is not exclusive, and that Ang Ladlad met all legal requirements for registration as a party-list organization. Denying registration based solely on advocacy for LGBT rights would violate the constitutional principles of non-establishment of

Uploaded by

Czarina Cid
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
67 views

CD - 66. Ang Ladlad v. Comelec

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Ang Ladlad LGBT Party and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Ang Ladlad, an LGBT organization, applied twice to register as a party-list group but was denied by COMELEC, first for lack of membership and then on moral grounds. The Supreme Court granted Ang Ladlad's petition, finding that COMELEC improperly denied registration based on the group's advocacy for LGBT rights. The Court ruled that the enumeration of marginalized sectors is not exclusive, and that Ang Ladlad met all legal requirements for registration as a party-list organization. Denying registration based solely on advocacy for LGBT rights would violate the constitutional principles of non-establishment of

Uploaded by

Czarina Cid
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. COMELECG.R. No.

190582April 8, 2010

FACTS:

Petitioner is an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays,
bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBT’s). Incorporated in 2003, Ang Ladlad first applied for registration
with the COMELEC in 2006 as a party-list organization under Republic Act 7941, otherwise known as the Party-
List System Act. The application for accreditation was denied on the ground that the organization had no substantial
membership base. In 2009, Ang Ladlad again filed a petition for registration with the COMELEC upon which it was
dismissed on moral grounds.

Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration but the COMELEC upheld its First Resolution, stating that “the party-list
system is a tool for the realization of aspirations of marginalized individuals whose interests are also the nation’s.
Until the time comes when Ladlad is able to justify that having mixed sexual orientations and transgender identities
is beneficial to the nation, its application for accreditation under the party-list system will remain just that.” That
“the Philippines cannot ignore its more than 500 years of Muslim and Christian upbringing, such that some moral
precepts espoused by said religions have sipped into society and these are not publicly accepted moral norms.”
COMELEC reiterated that petitioner does not have a concrete and genuine national poltical agenda to benefit the
nation and that the petition was validly dismissed on moral grounds. It also argued for the first time that the LGBT
sector is not among the sectors enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941. Thus Ladlad filed this petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Petitioner should be accredited as a party-list organization under RA 7941.

HELD:

The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the resolutions of the COMELEC. It also directed the
COMELEC to grant petitioner’s application for party-list accreditation.
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. Ang Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with the legal requirements
for accreditation. Nowhere in the records has the respondent ever found/ruled that Ang Ladlad is not qualified to
register as a party-list organization under any of the requisites under RA 7941.
Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At bottom, what our non-establishment clause calls for is
“government neutrality in religious matters. Clearly, “governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent
with this policy of neutrality.”
Laws of general application should apply with equal force to LGBTs and they deserve to participate in the
party-list system on the same basis as other marginalized and under-represented sectors.
The principle of non-discrimination requires the laws of general application relating to elections be applied
to all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.

You might also like