Scribd
Upload
6 views1 page

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party V Comelec

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, granting their application for accreditation as a party-list organization after previous denials by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) based on moral and religious grounds. The Court found that Ang Ladlad met the legal requirements and emphasized that the exclusion based on religious texts violated the non-establishment clause and constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and association. The decision underscored the necessity for government neutrality in religious matters and the use of secular justifications in public policy.

Uploaded by

24-0000
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
6 views1 page

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party V Comelec

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, granting their application for accreditation as a party-list organization after previous denials by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) based on moral and religious grounds. The Court found that Ang Ladlad met the legal requirements and emphasized that the exclusion based on religious texts violated the non-establishment clause and constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and association. The decision underscored the necessity for government neutrality in religious matters and the use of secular justifications in public policy.

Uploaded by

24-0000
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 V.

COMELEC
GR 190582 Apr 8, 2010

FACTS
This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, with an application for a writ
of preliminary mandatory injunction, filed by Ang Ladlad LGBT Party (Ang Ladlad) against the
Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated November 11, 2009 (the First
Assailed Resolution) and December 16, 2009 (the Second Assailed Resolution) in SPP No. 09-
228 (PL) (collectively, the Assailed Resolutions).
Petitioner Ang Ladlad is a national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) umbrella
organization with affiliates around the Philippines composed of numerous LGBT networks
throughout the country. Incorporated in 2003, it applied for accreditation as a party-list
organization with respondent COMELEC in 2006 but was denied on the grounds that the
organization had no substantial membership base.
In 2009, Ang Ladlad again applied for accreditation as a partly-list organization with respondent
COMELEC and again was denied. COMELEC denied accreditation, citing moral grounds and
religious text from the Bible and the Koran. It argued that the LGBT community’s values were
contrary to public morals, citing conflict with Art 695, 1306,1409 of the Civil Code and Art 201 of
the Revised Penal Code. It also argued that the LGBT sector is not one of the enumerated
marginalized sectors in the Constitution and RA 7941.
Furthermore, the COMELEC claimed that granting the petition would “expose our youth to an
environment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith,” quoting Lehman Strauss, a
bible teacher and writer in the USA who said in one article that "older practicing homosexuals
are a threat to the youth."
Ang Ladlad claims compliance with the 8-point guidelines enunciated in Ang Bagong Bayani-
OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC. Ang Ladlad argues that the LGBT community is a marginalized
and underrepresented sector that is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual
orientation and gender identity.

ISSUE
Should Ang Ladlad’s application for accreditation be denied?

RULING
No. Ang Ladlad complied with the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941. The
enumeration of marginalized and under-represented sectors [in the Constitution and RA 7941] is
not exclusive. Taking note of the size of the LGBT sector and the extensive affiliation of Ang
Ladlad, the Court ruled that Ang Ladlad sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with the legal
requirements for accreditation.
Utilizing the Bible and the Koran to justify exclusion of And Ladlad is a grave violation of the
non-establishment clause. Morality referred to in the law is public and necessarily secular, not
religious.
In ruling for the accreditation of Ang Ladlad, the Court further cited the equal protection clause,
the guarantees of freedom of expression and association, and our international obligation to
protect and promote human rights.
The Court found that COMELEC’s decision violated the constitutional guarantees of freedom of
expression, association, and equal protection, and ordered COMELEC to grant Ang Ladlad’s
application for accreditation.

KEY PRINCIPLES
The decision emphasized government neutrality in religious matters and the importance of
secular justifications for public policies.

You might also like