ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 190582 April 8, 2010
FACTS:
Petitioner is a national organization which represents the lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans-genders. It filed a petition for
accreditation as a party-list organization to public respondent. However, due to moral grounds, the latter denied the said
petition. To buttress their denial, COMELEC cited certain biblical and quranic passages in their decision. It also stated that
since their ways are immoral and contrary to public policy, they are considered nuissance. In fact, their acts are even
punishable under the Revised Penal Code in its Article 201. A motion for reconsideration being denied, Petitioner filed this
instant Petition on Certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC.

ANG LADLAD COMELEC

argued that the denial of accreditation, insofar reiterated that petitioner does not have a concrete and genuine national
as it justified the exclusion by using religious political agenda to benefit the nation and that the petition was validly
dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees dismissed on moral grounds.
against the establishment of religion.
argued for the first time that the LGBT sector is not among the sectors
claimed that the Assailed Resolutions enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941, and that petitioner made
contravened its constitutional rights to untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged its national existence
privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and contrary to actual verification reports by COMELECs field personnel.
equal protection of laws, as well as
constituted violations of the Philippines
international obligations against discrimination
based on sexual orientation.
ISSUE HELD RATIO
Whether or not It was a grave violation of Respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani
Respondent the non-establishment stands for the proposition that only those sectors specifically enumerated
violated the Non- clause for the COMELEC in the law or related to said sectors (labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
establishment to utilize the Bible and indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth,
clause of the the Koran to justify the veterans, overseas workers, and professionals) may be registered under
Constitution; exclusion of Ang Ladlad. the party-list system. As we explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW
Be it noted that Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, the enumeration of marginalized
government action must and under-represented sectors is not exclusive. The crucial element is not
have a secular purpose. whether a sector is specifically enumerated, but whether a particular
organization complies with the requirements of the Constitution and RA
Whether or not Moral disapproval, 7941.
Respondent erred without more, is not a
in denying sufficient governmental Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that [n]o law shall be
Petitioners interest to justify made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
application on exclusion of homosexuals exercise thereof. At bottom, what our non-establishment clause calls for
moral and legal from participation in the is government neutrality in religious matters. Clearly, governmental
grounds. party-list system. reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of
neutrality. Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are sought
to be prevented, or why special protection is required for the youth.
Neither has the COMELEC condescended to justify its position that
petitioners admission into the party-list system would be so harmful as to
irreparably damage the moral fabric of society.

We also find the COMELECs reference to purported violations of our penal

and civil laws flimsy, at best; disingenuous, at worst. Article 694 of the
Civil Code defines a nuisance as any act, omission, establishment,
condition of property, or anything else which shocks, defies, or disregards
decency or morality, the remedies for which are a prosecution under the
Revised Penal Code or any local ordinance, a civil action, or abatement
without judicial proceedings. A violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal
Code, on the other hand, requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to
support a criminal conviction. It hardly needs to be emphasized that mere
allegation of violation of laws is not proof, and a mere blanket invocation
of public morals cannot replace the institution of civil or criminal
proceedings and a judicial determination of liability or culpability.