8/26/2015 G.R. No.

190582

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
BaguioCity

ENBANC

ANGLADLADLGBTPARTY G.R.No.190582
representedhereinbyitsChair,
DANTONREMOTO,
Petitioner, Present:

PUNO,C.J.,
CARPIO,
CORONA,
CARPIOMORALES,
VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
versus BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DELCASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA,JR.,
PEREZ,and
MENDOZA,JJ.

COMMISSIONONELECTIONS, Promulgated:
Respondent. April8,2010
xx

DECISION

DELCASTILLO,J.:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 1/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

... [F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere
shadowoffreedom.Thetestofitssubstanceistherighttodifferastothingsthattouchtheheartof
theexistingorder.

JusticeRobertA.Jackson
[1]
WestVirginiaStateBoardofEducationv.Barnette

Oneunavoidableconsequenceofeveryonehavingthefreedomtochooseisthatothersmaymake
differentchoiceschoiceswewouldnotmakeforourselves,choiceswemaydisapproveof,even
choicesthatmayshockoroffendorangerus.However,choicesarenottobelegallyprohibited
merelybecausetheyaredifferent,andtherighttodisagreeanddebateaboutimportantquestions
ofpublicpolicyisacorevalueprotectedbyourBillofRights.Indeed,ourdemocracyisbuilton
genuinerecognitionof,andrespectfor,diversityanddifferenceinopinion.
Sinceancienttimes,societyhasgrappledwithdeepdisagreementsaboutthedefinitions
and demands of morality. In many cases, where moral convictions are concerned, harmony
among those theoretically opposed is an insurmountable goal. Yet herein lies the paradox
philosophical justifications about what is moral are indispensable and yet at the same time
powerless to create agreement. This Court recognizes, however, that practical solutions are
preferable to ideological stalemates accommodation is better than intransigence reason more
worthy than rhetoric. This will allow persons of diverse viewpoints to live together, if not
harmoniously,then,atleast,civilly.

FactualBackground

ThisisaPetitionforCertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt,withanapplication
forawritofpreliminarymandatoryinjunction,filedbyAngLadladLGBTParty(AngLadlad)
against the Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated November 11,
[2] [3]
2009 (the First Assailed Resolution) and December 16, 2009 (the Second Assailed
Resolution) in SPP No. 09228 (PL) (collectively, the Assailed Resolutions). The case has its
roots in the COMELECs refusal to accredit Ang Ladlad as a partylist organization under
[4]
RepublicAct(RA)No.7941,otherwiseknownasthePartyListSystemAct.

AngLadladisanorganizationcomposedofmenandwomenwhoidentifythemselvesas
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 2/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or transgendered individuals (LGBTs). Incorporated in 2003, Ang

Ladlad first applied for registration with the COMELEC in 2006. The application for
accreditationwasdeniedonthegroundthattheorganizationhadnosubstantialmembershipbase.
[5]
OnAugust17,2009,AngLadladagainfiledaPetition forregistrationwiththeCOMELEC.

BeforetheCOMELEC,petitionerarguedthattheLGBTcommunityisamarginalizedand
underrepresentedsectorthatisparticularlydisadvantagedbecauseoftheirsexualorientationand
genderidentitythatLGBTsarevictimsofexclusion,discrimination,andviolencethatbecause
ofnegativesocietalattitudes,LGBTsareconstrainedtohidetheirsexualorientationandthatAng
Ladladcompliedwiththe8pointguidelinesenunciatedbythisCourtinAngBagongBayani
[6]
OFWLaborPartyv.CommissiononElections. AngLadladlaidoutitsnationalmembership
baseconsistingofindividualmembersandorganizationalsupporters,andoutlineditsplatformof
[7]
governance.

OnNovember11,2009,afteradmittingthepetitionersevidence,theCOMELEC(Second
Division)dismissedthePetitiononmoralgrounds,statingthat:
xxxThisPetitionisdismissibleonmoralgrounds.PetitionerdefinestheFilipinoLesbian,
Gay,BisexualandTransgender(LGBT)Community,thus:

x x x a marginalized and underrepresented sector that is particularly
disadvantagedbecauseoftheirsexualorientationandgenderidentity.
andproceededtodefinesexualorientationasthatwhich:

xxxreferstoapersonscapacityforprofoundemotional,affectionalandsexual
attraction to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different
gender,ofthesamegender,ormorethanonegender.

ThisdefinitionoftheLGBTsectormakesitcrystalclearthatpetitionertoleratesimmoralitywhich
offendsreligiousbeliefs.InRomans1:26,27,Paulwrote:

ForthiscauseGodgavethemupintovileaffections,foreventheirwomendid
changethenaturaluseintothatwhichisagainstnature:Andlikewisealsothemen,
leavingthenaturaluseofthewoman,burnedintheirlustonetowardanothermen
with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
recompenseoftheirerrorwhichwasmeet.

IntheKoran,thehereunderversesarepertinent:

Foryepracticeyourlustsonmeninpreferencetowomenyeareindeedapeople

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 3/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

transgressingbeyondbounds.(7.81)Andweraineddownonthemashower(of
brimstone):Thenseewhatwastheendofthosewhoindulgedinsinandcrime!
(7:84) He said: O my Lord! Help Thou me against people who do mischief
(29:30).

AscorrectlypointedoutbytheLawDepartmentinitsCommentdatedOctober2,2008:

TheANGLADLADapparentlyadvocatessexualimmoralityasindicatedinthe
Petitionspar.6F:Consensualpartnershipsorrelationshipsbygaysandlesbians
who are already of age. It is further indicated in par. 24 of the Petition which
waves for the record: In 2007, Men Having Sex with Men or MSMs in the
Philippineswereestimatedas670,000(Genesis19isthehistoryofSodomand
Gomorrah).

Lawsaredeemedincorporatedineverycontract,permit,license,relationship,or
accreditation.Hence,pertinentprovisionsoftheCivilCodeandtheRevisedPenal
Codearedeemedpartoftherequirementtobecompliedwithforaccreditation.

ANG LADLAD collides with Article 695 of the Civil Code which defines
nuisanceasAnyact,omission,establishment,business,conditionofproperty,or
anythingelsewhichxxx(3)shocks,defiesordisregardsdecencyormoralityxx
x

ItalsocollideswithArticle1306oftheCivilCode:Thecontractingpartiesmay
establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem
convenient,providedtheyarenotcontrarytolaw,morals,goodcustoms,public
orderorpublicpolicy.Art1409oftheCivilCodeprovidesthatContractswhose
cause,objectorpurposeiscontrarytolaw,morals,goodcustoms,publicorderor
publicpolicyareinexistentandvoidfromthebeginning.

FinallytosafeguardthemoralityoftheFilipinocommunity,theRevisedPenalCode,asamended,
penalizesImmoraldoctrines,obscenepublicationsandexhibitionsandindecentshowsasfollows:

Art.201.Immoraldoctrines,obscenepublicationsandexhibitions,andindecent
shows.Thepenaltyofprisionmayororafinerangingfromsixthousandtotwelve
thousandpesos,orbothsuchimprisonmentandfine,shallbeimposedupon:

1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contraryto
publicmorals

2.(a)Theauthorsofobsceneliterature,publishedwiththeirknowledgeinany
form the editors publishing such literature and the owners/operators of the
establishmentsellingthesame

(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit
indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, it being understood that the
obscene literature or indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether
liveorinfilm,whichareprescribedbyvirtuehereof,shallincludethosewhich:(1)
glorifycriminalsorcondonecrimes(2)servenootherpurposebuttosatisfythe
marketforviolence,lustorpornography(3)offendanyraceorreligion(4)tend
toabettrafficinanduseofprohibiteddrugsand(5)arecontrarytolaw,public
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 4/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

order, morals, good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and
edicts.

3.Thosewhoshallsell,giveawayorexhibitfilms,prints,engravings,sculptureor
literaturewhichareoffensivetomorals.

Petitionershouldlikewisebedeniedaccreditationnotonlyforadvocatingimmoraldoctrinesbut
likewisefornotbeingtruthfulwhenitsaidthatitoranyofitsnominees/partylistrepresentatives
havenotviolatedorfailedtocomplywithlaws,rules,orregulationsrelatingtotheelections.

Furthermore,shouldthisCommissiongrantthepetition,wewillbeexposingouryouthtoanenvironment
thatdoesnotconformtotheteachingsofourfaith.LehmanStrauss,afamousbibleteacherand
writerintheU.S.A.saidinonearticlethatolderpracticinghomosexualsareathreattotheyouth.
Asanagencyofthegovernment,ourstooistheStatesavoweddutyunderSection13,ArticleIIof
[8]
theConstitutiontoprotectouryouthfrommoralandspiritualdegradation.


[9]
WhenAngLadladsoughtreconsideration, threecommissionersvotedtooverturnthe
First Assailed Resolution (Commissioners Gregorio Y. Larrazabal, Rene V. Sarmiento, and
Armando Velasco), while three commissioners voted to deny Ang Ladlads Motion for
Reconsideration(CommissionersNicodemoT.Ferrer,LucenitoN.Tagle,andEliasR.Yusoph).
The COMELEC Chairman, breaking the tie and speaking for the majority in his Separate
Opinion,upheldtheFirstAssailedResolution,statingthat:

I.TheSpiritofRepublicActNo.7941

Ladladisapplyingforaccreditationasasectoralpartyinthepartylistsystem.Evenassumingthat
ithasproperlyprovenitsunderrepresentationandmarginalization,itcannotbesaidthatLadlads
expressedsexualorientationspersewouldbenefitthenationasawhole.

Section 2 of the partylist law unequivocally states that the purpose of the partylist system of
electingcongressionalrepresentativesistoenableFilipinocitizensbelongingtomarginalizedand
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack welldefined political
constituenciesbutwhocouldcontributetotheformulationandenactmentofappropriatelegislation
thatwillbenefitthenationasawhole,tobecomemembersoftheHouseofRepresentatives.

Ifentryintothepartylistsystemwoulddependonlyontheabilityofanorganizationtorepresent
its constituencies, then all representative organizations would have found themselves into the
partylistrace.Butthatisnottheintentionoftheframersofthelaw.Thepartylistsystemisnota
tooltoadvocatetoleranceandacceptanceofmisunderstoodpersonsorgroupsofpersons.Rather,
thepartylistsystemisatoolfortherealizationofaspirationsofmarginalizedindividuals
whose interests are also the nations only that their interests have not been brought to the
attentionofthenationbecauseoftheirunderrepresentation.UntilthetimecomeswhenLadladis
abletojustifythathavingmixedsexualorientationsandtransgenderidentitiesisbeneficial
tothenation,itsapplicationforaccreditationunderthepartylistsystemwillremainjust
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 5/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

that.

II.Nosubstantialdifferentiation

IntheUnitedStates,whoseequalprotectiondoctrinepervadesPhilippinejurisprudence,courtsdo
notrecognizelesbians,gays,homosexuals,andbisexuals(LGBT)asaspecialclassofindividuals.
xxxSignificantly, it has also been held that homosexuality is not a constitutionally protected
fundamental right, and that nothing in the U.S. Constitution discloses a comparable intent to
protectorpromotethesocialorlegalequalityofhomosexualrelations,asinthecaseofraceor
religionorbelief.

xxxx

Thus,evenifsocietysunderstanding,tolerance,andacceptanceofLGBTsiselevated,therecanbe
nodenyingthatLadladconstituenciesarestillmalesandfemales,andtheywillremaineither
maleorfemaleprotectedbythesameBillofRightsthatappliestoallcitizensalike.

xxxx

IV.PublicMorals

xxxThereisnoquestionaboutnotimposingonLadladChristianorMuslimreligiouspractices.
NeitheristhereanyattempttoanyparticularreligiousgroupsmoralrulesonLadlad.Rather,what
arebeingadoptedasmoralparametersandpreceptsaregenerallyacceptedpublicmorals.Theyare
possibly religiousbased, but as a society, the Philippines cannot ignore its more than 500
yearsofMuslimandChristianupbringing,suchthatsomemoralpreceptsespousedbysaid
religionshavesipped[sic]intosocietyandthesearenotpubliclyacceptedmoralnorms.

V.LegalProvisions

Butabovemoralityandsocialnorms,theyhavebecomepartofthelawoftheland.Article201of
the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of prisionmayorupon Those who shall publicly
expoundorproclaimdoctrinesopenlycontrarytopublicmorals.Itpenalizesimmoraldoctrines,
obscenepublicationsandexhibitionandindecentshows.AngLadladapparentlyfallsunderthese
legal provisions. This is clear from its Petitions paragraph 6F: Consensual partnerships or
relationshipsbygaysandlesbianswhoarealreadyofageItisfurtherindicatedinpar.24ofthe
Petition which waves for the record: In 2007, Men Having Sex with Men or MSMs in the
Philippineswereestimatedas670,000.Moreoever,Article694oftheCivilCodedefinesnuisance
asanyact,omissionxxxoranythingelsexxxwhichshocks,defiesordisregardsdecencyor
[10]
moralityxxx.Theseareallunlawful.


On January 4, 2010, Ang Ladlad filed this Petition, praying that the Court annul the
Assailed Resolutions and direct the COMELEC to grant Ang Ladlads application for
accreditation. Ang Ladlad also sought the issuance ex parte of a preliminary mandatory
injunctionagainsttheCOMELEC,whichhadpreviouslyannouncedthatitwouldbeginprinting
thefinalballotsfortheMay2010electionsbyJanuary25,2010.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 6/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

On January 6, 2010, we ordered the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to file its
[11]
CommentonbehalfofCOMELECnotlaterthan12:00noonofJanuary11,2010. Insteadof
filingaComment,however,theOSGfiledaMotionforExtension,requestingthatitbegiven
[12]
untilJanuary16,2010toComment. Somewhatsurprisingly,theOSGlaterfiledaComment
[13]
insupportofpetitionersapplication. Thus,inordertogiveCOMELECtheopportunityto
[14]
fullyventilateitsposition,werequiredittofileitsowncomment. TheCOMELEC,through
[15]
itsLawDepartment,fileditsCommentonFebruary2,2010.

In the meantime, due to the urgency of the petition, we issued a temporary restraining
orderonJanuary12,2010,effectiveimmediatelyandcontinuinguntilfurtherordersfromthis
Court,directingtheCOMELECtoceaseanddesistfromimplementingtheAssailedResolutions.
[16]

Also,onJanuary13,2010,theCommissiononHumanRights(CHR)filedaMotionto
[17]
InterveneortoAppearasAmicusCuriae,attachingtheretoitsCommentinIntervention. The
CHRopinedthatthedenialofAngLadladspetitiononmoralgroundsviolatedthestandardsand
principles of the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and the
InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR).OnJanuary19,2010,wegranted
theCHRsmotiontointervene.

[18]
OnJanuary 26, 2010, Epifanio D. Salonga, Jr. filed his Motion to Intervene which
[19]
motionwasgrantedonFebruary2,2010.

ThePartiesArguments

AngLadladarguedthatthedenialofaccreditation,insofarasitjustifiedtheexclusionby
usingreligiousdogma,violatedtheconstitutionalguaranteesagainsttheestablishmentofreligion.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 7/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

Petitioner also claimed that the Assailed Resolutions contravened its constitutional rights to
privacy,freedomofspeechandassembly,andequalprotectionoflaws,aswellasconstituted
violations of the Philippines international obligations against discrimination based on sexual
orientation.

TheOSGconcurredwithAngLadladspetitionandarguedthattheCOMELECerredindenying
petitioners application for registration since there was no basis for COMELECs allegations of
immorality. It also opined that LGBTs have their own special interests and concerns which
shouldhavebeenrecognizedbytheCOMELECasaseparateclassification.However,insofaras
the purported violations of petitioners freedom of speech, expression, and assembly were
concerned,theOSGmaintainedthattherehadbeennorestrictionsontheserights.

InitsComment,theCOMELECreiteratedthatpetitionerdoesnothaveaconcreteand
genuinenationalpoliticalagendatobenefitthenationandthatthepetitionwasvalidlydismissed
onmoralgrounds.ItalsoarguedforthefirsttimethattheLGBTsectorisnotamongthesectors
enumeratedbytheConstitutionandRA7941,andthatpetitionermadeuntruthfulstatementsin
its petition when it alleged its national existence contrary to actual verification reports by
COMELECsfieldpersonnel.

OurRuling

Wegrantthepetition.

CompliancewiththeRequirementsoftheConstitution
andRepublicActNo.7941


TheCOMELECdeniedAngLadladsapplicationforregistrationonthegroundthatthe
LGBTsectorisneitherenumeratedintheConstitutionandRA7941,norisitassociatedwithor
relatedtoanyofthesectorsintheenumeration.

Respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani stands for the
propositionthatonlythosesectorsspecificallyenumeratedinthelaworrelatedtosaidsectors

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 8/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

(labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped,
women,youth,veterans,overseasworkers,andprofessionals)mayberegisteredundertheparty
listsystem.AsweexplicitlyruledinAngBagongBayaniOFWLaborPartyv.Commissionon
[20]
Elections, the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not exclusive.
Thecrucialelementisnotwhetherasectorisspecificallyenumerated,butwhetheraparticular
organizationcomplieswiththerequirementsoftheConstitutionandRA7941.
RespondentalsoarguesthatAngLadladmadeuntruthfulstatementsinitspetitionwhenit
alleged that it had nationwide existence through its members and affiliate organizations. The
COMELECclaimsthatuponverificationbyitsfieldpersonnel,itwasshownthatsaveforafew
[21]
isolatedplacesinthecountry,petitionerdoesnotexistinalmostallprovincesinthecountry.
Thisargumentthatpetitionermadeuntruthfulstatementsinitspetitionwhenitallegedits
nationalexistenceisanewonepreviously,theCOMELECclaimedthatpetitionerwasnotbeing
truthfulwhenitsaidthatitoranyofitsnominees/partylistrepresentativeshavenotviolatedor
failed to comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating to the elections. Nowhere was this
ground for denial of petitioners accreditation mentioned or even alluded to in the Assailed
Resolutions.This,initself,isquitecurious,consideringthatthereportsofpetitionersallegednon
existence were already available to the COMELEC prior to the issuance of the First Assailed
Resolution. At best, this is irregular procedure at worst, a belated afterthought, a change in
respondentstheory,andaseriousviolationofpetitionersrighttoproceduraldueprocess.

Nonetheless,wefindthattherehasbeennomisrepresentation.AcursoryperusalofAng
LadladsinitialpetitionshowsthatitneverclaimedtoexistineachprovinceofthePhilippines.
Rather, petitioner alleged that the LGBT community in the Philippines was estimated to
constituteatleast670,000personsthatithad16,100affiliatesandmembersaroundthecountry,
[22]
and4,044membersinitselectronicdiscussiongroup. AngLadladalsorepresenteditselfto
beanationalLGBTumbrellaorganizationwithaffiliatesaroundthePhilippinescomposedofthe
followingLGBTnetworks:

AbraGayAssociation
AklanButterflyBrigade(ABB)Aklan
AlbayGayAssociation
ArtsCenterofCabanatuanCityNuevaEcija
BoysLegionMetroManila

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 9/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

CagayandeOroPeopleLikeUs(CDOPLUS)
CantLiveintheCloset,Inc.(CLIC)MetroManila
CebuPrideCebuCity
CircleofFriends
DipologGayAssociationZamboangadelNorte
Gay,Bisexual,&TransgenderYouthAssociation(GABAY)
GayandLesbianActivistsNetworkforGenderEquality(GALANG)MetroManila
GayMensSupportGroup(GMSG)MetroManila
GayUnitedforPeaceandSolidarity(GUPS)LanaodelNorte
IloiloCityGayAssociationIloiloCity
KabuligWritersGroupCamarinesSur
LesbianAdvocatesPhilippines,Inc.(LEAP)
LUMINABaguioCity
MarikinaGayAssociationMetroManila
MetropolitanCommunityChurch(MCC)MetroManila
NagaCityGayAssociationNagaCity
ONEBACARDI
OrderofSt.Aelred(OSAe)MetroManila
PUPLAKAN
RADARPRIDEWEAR
RainbowRightsProject(RRights),Inc.MetroManila
SanJosedelMonteGayAssociationBulacan
SiningKayumanggiRoyalFamilyRizal
SocietyofTransexualWomenofthePhilippines(STRAP)MetroManila
SoulJiveAntipolo,Rizal
TheLinkDavaoCity
TayabasGayAssociationQuezon
WomensBisexualNetworkMetroManila
[23]
ZamboangaGayAssociationZamboangaCity

SincetheCOMELEConlysearchedforthenamesANGLADLADLGBTorLADLAD
LGBT,itisnosurprisethattheyfoundthatpetitionerhadnopresenceinanyoftheseregions.In
fact,ifCOMELECsfindingsaretobebelieved,petitionerdoesnotevenexistinQuezonCity,
whichisregisteredasAngLadladsprincipalplaceofbusiness.

Against this backdrop, we find that Ang Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated its
compliancewiththelegalrequirementsforaccreditation.Indeed,asidefromCOMELECsmoral
objectionandthebelatedallegationofnonexistence,nowhereintherecordshastherespondent
everfound/ruledthatAngLadladisnotqualifiedtoregisterasapartylistorganizationunderany
of the requisites under RA 7941 or the guidelines in Ang Bagong Bayani. The difference,
COMELECclaims,liesinAngLadladsmorality,orlackthereof.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 10/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

Religion as the Basis for Refusal to Accept Ang

LadladsPetitionforRegistration


OurConstitutionprovidesinArticleIII,Section5that[n]olawshallbemaderespecting
anestablishmentofreligion,orprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof.Atbottom,whatournon
[24]
establishment clause calls for is government neutrality in religious matters. Clearly,
[25]
governmentalrelianceonreligiousjustificationisinconsistentwiththispolicyofneutrality.
WethusfindthatitwasgraveviolationofthenonestablishmentclausefortheCOMELECto
utilizetheBibleandtheKorantojustifytheexclusionofAngLadlad.

Ratherthanrelyingonreligiousbelief,thelegitimacyoftheAssailedResolutionsshould
depend,instead,onwhethertheCOMELECisabletoadvancesomejustificationforitsrulings
beyondmereconformitytoreligiousdoctrine.Otherwisestated,governmentmustactforsecular
[26]
purposesandinwaysthathaveprimarilyseculareffects.AsweheldinEstradav.Escritor:

xxxThe morality referred to in the law is public and necessarily secular, not religious as the
dissent of Mr. Justice Carpio holds. "Religious teachings as expressed in public debate may
influence the civil public order but public moral disputes may be resolved only on grounds
articulableinsecularterms."Otherwise,ifgovernmentreliesuponreligiousbeliefsinformulating
public policies and morals, the resulting policies and morals would require conformity to what
some might regard as religious programs or agenda. The nonbelievers would therefore be
compelledtoconformtoastandardofconductbuttressedbyareligiousbelief,i.e.,toa"compelled
religion,"anathematoreligiousfreedom.Likewise,ifgovernmentbaseditsactionsuponreligious
beliefs,itwouldtacitlyapproveorendorsethatbeliefandtherebyalsotacitlydisapprovecontrary
religiousornonreligiousviewsthatwouldnotsupportthepolicy.Asaresult,governmentwillnot
providefullreligiousfreedomforallitscitizens,orevenmakeitappearthatthosewhosebeliefs
aredisapprovedaresecondclasscitizens.
In other words, government action, including its proscription of immorality as expressed in
criminallawlikeconcubinage,musthaveasecularpurpose.Thatis,thegovernmentproscribes
thisconductbecauseitis"detrimental(ordangerous)tothoseconditionsuponwhichdependthe
existenceandprogressofhumansociety"andnotbecausetheconductisproscribedbythebeliefs
ofonereligionortheother.Althoughadmittedly,moraljudgmentsbasedonreligionmighthavea
compelling influence on those engaged in public deliberations over what actions would be
consideredamoraldisapprobationpunishablebylaw.Afterall,theymightalsobeadherentsofa
religionandthushavereligiousopinionsandmoralcodeswithacompellinginfluenceonthem
the human mind endeavors to regulate the temporal and spiritual institutions of society in a
uniform manner, harmonizing earth with heaven. Succinctly put, a law could be religious or
Kantian or Aquinian or utilitarian in its deepest roots, but it must have an articulable and
discernible secular purpose and justification to pass scrutiny of the religion clauses. x x x
RecognizingthereligiousnatureoftheFilipinosandtheelevatinginfluenceofreligioninsociety,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 11/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

however, the Philippine constitution's religion clauses prescribe not a strict but a benevolent
neutrality. Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and
interestsbutatthesametimestrivetoupholdreligiouslibertytothegreatestextentpossiblewithin
flexible constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality contemplated by laws is secular,
benevolentneutralitycouldallowforaccommodationofmoralitybasedonreligion,providedit
[27]
doesnotoffendcompellingstateinterests.


Public Morals as a Ground to Deny Ang Ladlads
PetitionforRegistration


Respondent suggests that although the moral condemnation of homosexuality and
homosexualconductmaybereligionbased,ithaslongbeentransplantedintogenerallyaccepted
publicmorals.TheCOMELECargues:

Petitioners accreditation was denied not necessarily because their group consists of LGBTs but
because of the danger it poses to the people especially the youth. Once it is recognized by the
government,asectorwhichbelievesthatthereisnothingwronginhavingsexualrelationswith
individualsofthesamegenderisabadexample.Itwillbringdownthestandardofmoralswe
cherishinourcivilizedsociety.Anysocietywithoutasetofmoralpreceptsisindangeroflosing
[28]
itsownexistence.


We are not blind to the fact that, through the years, homosexual conduct, and perhaps
homosexuals themselves, have borne the brunt of societal disapproval. It is not difficult to
imaginethereasonsbehindthiscensurereligiousbeliefs,convictionsaboutthepreservationof
marriage,family,andprocreation,evendislikeordistrustofhomosexualsthemselvesandtheir
perceived lifestyle. Nonetheless, we recall that the Philippines has not seen fit to criminalize
homosexualconduct.Evidently,therefore,thesegenerallyacceptedpublicmoralshavenotbeen
[29]
convincinglytransplantedintotherealmoflaw.

TheAssailedResolutionshavenotidentifiedanyspecificovertimmoralactperformedbyAng
Ladlad.EventheOSGagreesthatthereshouldhavebeenafindingbytheCOMELECthatthe
[30]
groupsmembershavecommittedorarecommittingimmoralacts. TheOSGargues:

xxxApersonmaybesexuallyattractedtoapersonofthesamegender,ofadifferentgender,or
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 12/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

more than one gender, but mere attraction does not translate to immoral acts. There is a great
divide between thought and action. Reduction ad absurdum. If immoral thoughts could be
penalized,COMELECwouldhaveitshandsfullofdisqualificationcasesagainstboththestraights
[31]
andthegays.Certainlythisisnottheintendmentofthelaw.


Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are sought to be prevented, or why
specialprotectionisrequiredfortheyouth.NeitherhastheCOMELECcondescendedtojustify
its position that petitioners admission into the partylist system would be so harmful as to
irreparablydamagethemoralfabricofsociety.We,ofcourse,donotsuggestthatthestateis
whollywithoutauthoritytoregulatemattersconcerningmorality,sexuality,andsexualrelations,
andwerecognizethatthegovernmentwillandshouldcontinuetorestrictbehaviorconsidered
detrimentaltosociety.Nonetheless,wecannotcountenanceadvocateswho,undoubtedlywiththe
loftiestofintentions,situatemoralityononeendofanargumentoranother,withoutbotheringto
gothroughtherigorsoflegalreasoningandexplanation.Inthis,thenotionofmoralityisrobbed
of all value.Clearly then, the bare invocation of morality will not remove an issue from our
scrutiny.

WealsofindtheCOMELECsreferencetopurportedviolationsofourpenalandcivillaws
flimsy,atbestdisingenuous,atworst.Article694oftheCivilCodedefinesanuisanceasany
act, omission, establishment, condition of property, or anything else which shocks, defies, or
disregardsdecencyormorality,theremediesforwhichareaprosecutionundertheRevisedPenal
[32]
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
reasonabledoubttosupportacriminalconviction.Ithardlyneedstobeemphasizedthatmere
allegationofviolationoflawsisnotproof,andamereblanketinvocationofpublicmoralscannot
replacetheinstitutionofcivilorcriminalproceedingsandajudicialdeterminationofliabilityor
culpability.
Assuch,weholdthatmoraldisapproval,withoutmore,isnotasufficientgovernmental
interesttojustifyexclusionofhomosexualsfromparticipationinthepartylistsystem.Thedenial
ofAngLadladsregistrationonpurelymoralgroundsamountsmoretoastatementofdislikeand
disapproval of homosexuals, rather than a tool to further any substantial public interest.
Respondents blanket justifications give rise to the inevitable conclusion that the COMELEC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 13/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

targetshomosexualsthemselvesasaclass,notbecauseofanyparticularmorallyreprehensible
act.Itisthisselectivetargetingthatimplicatesourequalprotectionclause.

EqualProtection

DespitetheabsolutismofArticleIII,Section1ofourConstitution,whichprovidesnor
shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws, courts have never interpreted the
provisionasanabsoluteprohibitiononclassification.Equality,saidAristotle,consistsinthesame
[33]
treatmentofsimilarpersons. Theequalprotectionclauseguaranteesthatnopersonorclassof
personsshallbedeprivedofthesameprotectionoflawswhichisenjoyedbyotherpersonsor
[34]
otherclassesinthesameplaceandinlikecircumstances.

Recentjurisprudencehasaffirmedthatifalawneitherburdensafundamentalrightnortargetsa
suspectclass,wewillupholdtheclassificationaslongasitbearsarationalrelationshiptosome
[35]
legitimategovernmentend. InCentralBankEmployeesAssociation,Inc.v.BankoSentralng
[36]
Pilipinas, wedeclaredthat[i]nourjurisdiction,thestandardofanalysisofequalprotection
challenges x x x have followed the rational basis test, coupled with a deferential attitude to
legislativeclassificationsandareluctancetoinvalidatealawunlessthereisashowingofaclear
[37]
andunequivocalbreachoftheConstitution.

The COMELEC posits that the majority of the Philippine population considers
homosexual conduct as immoral and unacceptable, and this constitutes sufficient reason to
disqualifythepetitioner.Unfortunatelyfortherespondent,thePhilippineelectoratehasexpressed
nosuchbelief.Nolawexiststocriminalizehomosexualbehaviororexpressionsorpartiesabout
homosexual behavior. Indeed, even if we were to assume that public opinion is as the
COMELECdescribesit,theassertedstateinterestherethatis,moraldisapprovalofanunpopular
minorityisnotalegitimatestateinterestthatissufficienttosatisfyrationalbasisreviewunderthe
equalprotectionclause.TheCOMELECsdifferentiation,anditsunsubstantiatedclaimthatAng
Ladladcannotcontributetotheformulationoflegislationthatwouldbenefitthenation,furthers
nolegitimatestateinterestotherthandisapprovalofordislikeforadisfavoredgroup.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 14/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

From the standpoint of the political process, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
havethesameinterestinparticipatinginthepartylistsystemonthesamebasisasotherpolitical
parties similarly situated. State intrusion in this case is equally burdensome. Hence, laws of
generalapplicationshouldapplywithequalforcetoLGBTs,andtheydeservetoparticipatein
thepartylistsystemonthesamebasisasothermarginalizedandunderrepresentedsectors.

It bears stressing that our finding that COMELECs act of differentiating LGBTs from
heterosexuals insofar as the partylist system is concerned does not imply that any other law
distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals under different circumstances would
similarlyfail.WedisagreewiththeOSGspositionthathomosexualsareaclassinthemselvesfor
[38]
thepurposesoftheequalprotectionclause. Wearenotpreparedtosingleouthomosexualsas
a separate class meriting special or differentiated treatment. We have not received sufficient
evidencetothiseffect,anditissimplyunnecessarytomakesucharulingtoday.Petitioneritself
has merely demanded that it be recognized under the same basis as all other groups similarly
situated, and that the COMELEC made an unwarranted and impermissible classification not
justifiedbythecircumstancesofthecase.

FreedomofExpressionandAssociation

Underoursystemoflaws,everygrouphastherighttopromoteitsagendaandattemptto
[39]
persuadesocietyofthevalidityofitspositionthroughnormaldemocraticmeans. Itisinthe
public square that deeply held convictions and differing opinions should be distilled and
[40]
deliberatedupon.AsweheldinEstradav.Escritor:

In a democracy, this common agreement on political and moral ideas is distilled in the public
square.Wherecitizensarefree,everyopinion,everyprejudice,everyaspiration,andeverymoral
discernmenthasaccesstothepublicsquarewherepeopledeliberatetheorderoftheirlifetogether.
Citizensarethebearersofopinion,includingopinionshapedby,orespousingreligiousbelief,and
thesecitizenshaveequalaccesstothepublicsquare.Inthisrepresentativedemocracy,thestateis
prohibitedfromdeterminingwhichconvictionsandmoraljudgmentsmaybeproposedforpublic
deliberation. Through a constitutionally designed process, the people deliberate and decide.
Majority rule is a necessary principle in this democratic governance. Thus, when public
deliberationonmoraljudgmentsisfinallycrystallizedintolaw,thelawswilllargelyreflectthe
beliefsandpreferencesofthemajority,i.e.,themainstreamormediangroups.Nevertheless,inthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 15/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

veryactofadoptingandacceptingaconstitutionandthelimitsitspecifiesincludingprotectionof
religiousfreedom"notonlyforaminority,howeversmallnotonlyforamajority,howeverlarge
butforeachofus"themajorityimposesuponitselfaselfdenyingordinance.Itpromisesnottodo
whatitotherwisecoulddo:torideroughshodoverthedissentingminorities.


Freedomofexpressionconstitutesoneoftheessentialfoundationsofademocraticsociety,
andthisfreedomappliesnotonlytothosethatarefavorablyreceivedbutalsotothosethatoffend,
shock,ordisturb.Anyrestrictionimposedinthisspheremustbeproportionatetothelegitimate
aimpursued.Absentanycompellingstateinterest,itisnotfortheCOMELECorthisCourtto
impose its views on the populace. Otherwise stated, the COMELEC is certainly not free to
interferewithspeechfornobetterreasonthanpromotinganapprovedmessageordiscouraginga
disfavoredone.

Thispositiongainsevenmoreforceifoneconsidersthathomosexualconductisnotillegal
inthiscountry.Itfollowsthatbothexpressionsconcerningoneshomosexualityandtheactivityof
formingapoliticalassociationthatsupportsLGBTindividualsareprotectedaswell.
Otherjurisdictionshavegonesofarastocategoricallyrulethatevenoverwhelmingpublic
perceptionthathomosexualconductviolatespublicmoralitydoesnotjustifycriminalizingsame
[41]
sexconduct. EuropeanandUnitedNationsjudicialdecisionshaveruledinfavorofgayrights
claimants on both privacy and equality grounds, citing general privacy and equal protection
[42]
provisionsinforeignandinternationaltexts. Totheextentthatthereismuchtolearnfrom
otherjurisdictionsthathavereflectedontheissueswefacehere,suchjurisprudenceiscertainly
illuminating. These foreign authorities, while not formally binding on Philippine courts, may
neverthelesshavepersuasiveinfluenceontheCourtsanalysis.

In the area of freedom of expression, for instance, UnitedStates courts have ruled that
existingfreespeechdoctrinesprotectgayandlesbianrightstoexpressiveconduct.Inorderto
justify the prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, public institutions must show that
their actions were caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and
[43]
unpleasantnessthatalwaysaccompanyanunpopularviewpoint.

With respect to freedom of association for the advancement of ideas and beliefs, in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 16/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

Europe,withitsvibranthumanrightstradition,theEuropeanCourtofHumanRights(ECHR)
has repeatedly stated that a political party may campaign for a change in the law or the
constitutional structures of a state if it uses legal and democratic means and the changes it
proposes are consistent with democratic principles. The ECHR has emphasized that political
ideasthatchallengetheexistingorderandwhoserealizationisadvocatedbypeacefulmeansmust
beaffordedaproperopportunityofexpressionthroughtheexerciseoftherightofassociation,
evenifsuchideasmayseemshockingorunacceptabletotheauthoritiesorthemajorityofthe
[44]
population. A political group should not be hindered solely because it seeks to publicly
debate controversial political issues in order to find solutions capable of satisfying everyone
[45]
concerned. Only if a political party incites violence or puts forward policies that are
incompatible with democracy does it fall outside the protection of the freedom of association
[46]
guarantee.

Wedonotdoubtthatanumberofourcitizensmaybelievethathomosexualconductis
distasteful,offensive,orevendefiant.They are entitled to hold and express that view.On the
other hand, LGBTs and their supporters, in all likelihood, believe with equal fervor that
relationships between individuals of the same sex are morally equivalent to heterosexual
relationships.They,too,areentitledtoholdandexpressthatview.However,asfarasthisCourt
is concerned, our democracy precludes using the religious or moral views of one part of the
communitytoexcludefromconsiderationthevaluesofothermembersofthecommunity.

Ofcourse,noneofthissuggeststheimpendingarrivalofagoldenageforgayrightslitigants.It
well may be that this Decision will only serve to highlight the discrepancy between the rigid
constitutionalanalysisofthisCourtandthemorecomplexmoralsentimentsofFilipinos.Wedo
not suggest that public opinion, even at its most liberal, reflect a clearcut strong consensus
favorabletogayrightsclaimsandweneitherattemptnorexpecttoaffectindividualperceptions
ofhomosexualitythroughthisDecision.

The OSG argues that since there has been neither prior restraint nor subsequent punishment
imposedonAngLadlad, and its members have not been deprived of their right to voluntarily
associate,thentherehasbeennorestrictionontheirfreedomofexpressionorassociation.The
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 17/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

OSGarguesthat:

Therewasnoutterancerestricted,nopublicationcensored,oranyassemblydenied.[COMELEC]
simplyexerciseditsauthoritytoreviewandverifythequalificationsofpetitionerasasectoralparty
applyingtoparticipateinthepartylistsystem.Thislawfulexerciseofdutycannotbesaidtobea
transgressionofSection4,ArticleIIIoftheConstitution.

xxxx

Adenialofthepetitionforregistrationxxxdoesnotdeprivethemembersofthepetitionerto
freelytakepartintheconductofelections.Theirrighttovotewillnotbehamperedbysaiddenial.
Infact,therighttovoteisaconstitutionallyguaranteedrightwhichcannotbelimited.

Astoitsrighttobeelectedinagenuineperiodicelection,petitionercontendsthatthedenialofAng
Ladlads petition has the clear and immediate effect of limiting, if not outrightly nullifying the
capacityofitsmemberstofullyandequallyparticipateinpubliclifethroughengagementinthe
partylistelections.

Thisargumentispuerile.Theholdingofapublicofficeisnotarightbutaprivilegesubject
[47]
tolimitationsimposedbylaw.xxx
The OSG fails to recall that petitioner has, in fact, established its qualifications to
participateinthepartylistsystem,andasadvancedbytheOSGitselfthemoralobjectionoffered
by the COMELEC was not a limitation imposed by law. To the extent, therefore, that the
petitionerhasbeenprecluded,becauseofCOMELECsaction,frompubliclyexpressingitsviews
asapoliticalpartyandparticipatingonanequalbasisinthepoliticalprocesswithotherequally
qualifiedpartylistcandidates,wefindthattherehas,indeed,beenatransgressionofpetitioners
fundamentalrights.

NonDiscriminationandInternationalLaw


In an age that has seen international law evolve geometrically in scope and promise,
internationalhumanrightslaw,inparticular,hasgrowndynamicallyinitsattempttobringabout
a more just and humane world order. For individuals and groups struggling with inadequate
structural and governmental support, international human rights norms are particularly
significant,andshouldbeeffectivelyenforcedindomesticlegalsystemssothatsuchnormsmay
becomeactual,ratherthanideal,standardsofconduct.

Our Decision today is fully in accord with our international obligations to protect and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 18/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

promotehumanrights.Inparticular,weexplicitlyrecognizetheprincipleofnondiscrimination
asitrelatestotherighttoelectoralparticipation,enunciatedintheUDHRandtheICCPR.

TheprincipleofnondiscriminationislaidoutinArticle26oftheICCPR,asfollows:

Article26

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal
protectionofthelaw.Inthisrespect,thelawshallprohibitanydiscriminationandguaranteetoall
personsequalandeffectiveprotectionagainstdiscriminationonanygroundsuchasrace,colour,
sex,language,religion,politicalorotheropinion,nationalorsocialorigin,property,birthorother
status.


Inthiscontext,theprincipleofnondiscriminationrequiresthatlawsofgeneralapplication
relatingtoelectionsbeappliedequallytoallpersons,regardlessofsexualorientation.Although
sexualorientationisnotspecificallyenumeratedasastatusorratiofordiscriminationinArticle
26oftheICCPR,theICCPRHumanRightsCommitteehasopinedthatthereferencetosexin
[48]
Article26shouldbeconstruedtoincludesexualorientation. Additionally,avarietyofUnited
Nationsbodieshavedeclareddiscriminationonthebasisofsexualorientationtobeprohibited
[49]
undervariousinternationalagreements.

TheUDHRprovides:

Article21.

(1)Everyonehastherighttotakepartinthegovernmentofhiscountry,directlyorthrough
freelychosenrepresentatives.
Likewise,theICCPRstates:

Article25
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions
mentionedinarticle2andwithoutunreasonablerestrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen
representatives

(b)Tovoteandtobeelectedatgenuineperiodicelectionswhichshallbebyuniversaland
equalsuffrageandshallbeheldbysecretballot,guaranteeingthefreeexpressionofthewillofthe
electors
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 19/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

(c)Tohaveaccess,ongeneraltermsofequality,topublicserviceinhiscountry.


As stated by the CHR in its CommentinIntervention, the scope of the right to electoral
participation is elaborated by the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 25
(ParticipationinPublicAffairsandtheRighttoVote)asfollows:

1.Article25oftheCovenantrecognizesandprotectstherightofeverycitizentotakepart
intheconductofpublicaffairs,therighttovoteandtobeelectedandtherighttohaveaccessto
public service. Whatever form of constitution or government is in force, the Covenant requires
Statestoadoptsuchlegislativeandothermeasuresasmaybenecessarytoensurethatcitizenshave
aneffectiveopportunitytoenjoytherightsitprotects.Article25liesatthecoreofdemocratic
government based on the consent of the people and in conformity with the principles of the
Covenant.

xxxx

15.The effective implementation of the right and the opportunity to stand for elective
officeensuresthatpersonsentitledtovotehaveafreechoiceofcandidates.Anyrestrictionsonthe
righttostandforelection,suchasminimumage,mustbejustifiableonobjectiveandreasonable
criteria. Persons who are otherwise eligible to stand for election should not be excluded by
unreasonableordiscriminatoryrequirementssuchaseducation,residenceordescent,orbyreason
ofpoliticalaffiliation.Nopersonshouldsufferdiscriminationordisadvantageofanykindbecause
of that person's candidacy. States parties should indicate and explain the legislative provisions
[50]
whichexcludeanygrouporcategoryofpersonsfromelectiveoffice.

Westress,however,thatalthoughthisCourtstandswillingtoassumetheresponsibilityof
giving effect to the Philippines international law obligations, the blanket invocation of
internationallawisnotthepanaceaforallsocialills.Werefernowtothepetitionersinvocationof
theYogyakartaPrinciples(the Application of International Human Rights Law In Relation to
[51]
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity), which petitioner declares to reflect binding
principlesofinternationallaw.

At this time, we are not prepared to declare that these Yogyakarta Principles contain
normsthatareobligatoryonthePhilippines.Therearedeclarationsandobligationsoutlinedin
saidPrincipleswhicharenotreflectiveofthecurrentstateofinternationallaw,anddonotfind
basisinanyofthesourcesofinternationallawenumeratedunderArticle38(1)oftheStatuteof
[52]
theInternationalCourtofJustice. Petitionerhasnotundertakenanyobjectiveandrigorous
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 20/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

analysisoftheseallegedprinciplesofinternationallawtoascertaintheirtruestatus.

Wealsohastentoaddthatnoteverythingthatsocietyoracertainsegmentofsocietywants
ordemandsisautomaticallyahumanright.Thisisnotanarbitraryhumaninterventionthatmay
beaddedtoorsubtractedfromatwill.Itisunfortunatethatmuchofwhatpassesforhumanrights
todayisamuchbroadercontextofneedsthatidentifiesmanysocialdesiresasrightsinorderto
further claims that international law obliges states to sanction these innovations. This has the
effectofdilutingrealhumanrights,andisaresultofthenotionthatifwantsarecouchedinrights
language,thentheyarenolongercontroversial.

Using even the most liberal of lenses, these Yogyakarta Principles, consisting of a
declarationformulatedbyvariousinternationallawprofessors,areatbestdelegeferendaanddo
not constitute binding obligations on the Philippines. Indeed, so much of contemporary
internationallawischaracterizedbythesoftlawnomenclature,i.e.,internationallawisfullof
principlesthatpromoteinternationalcooperation,harmony,andrespectforhumanrights,mostof
whichamounttonomorethanwellmeaningdesires,withoutthesupportofeitherStatepractice
[53]
oropiniojuris.

Asafinalnote,wecannothelpbutobservethatthesocialissuespresentedbythiscaseare
emotionallycharged,societalattitudesareinflux,eventhepsychiatricandreligiouscommunities
aredividedinopinion.ThisCourtsroleisnottoimposeitsownviewofacceptablebehavior.
Rather,itistoapplytheConstitutionandlawsasbestasitcan,uninfluencedbypublicopinion,
and confident in the knowledge that our democracy is resilient enough to withstand vigorous
debate.

WHEREFORE,the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Commission on
ElectionsdatedNovember11,2009andDecember16,2009inSPPNo.09228(PL)arehereby
SETASIDE.TheCommissiononElectionsisdirectedtoGRANTpetitionersapplicationfor
partylistaccreditation.
SOORDERED.



http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 21/24
 8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:


REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice





ANTONIOT.CARPIO RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice





CONCHITACARPIOMORALES PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice





ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice





ARTUROD.BRION DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice





LUCASP.BERSAMIN ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 22/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR. JOSEP.PEREZ
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice





JOSEC.MENDOZA
AssociateJustice





CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusions
intheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriter
oftheopinionoftheCourt.


REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
319U.S.624,64042(1943).
[2]
Rollo,pp.3340.
[3]
Id.at4174.
[4]
AnActProvidingForTheElectionOfPartyListRepresentativesThroughThePartyListSystem,AndAppropriatingFundsTherefor
(1995).
[5]
Rollo,pp.89101.
[6]
412Phil.308(2001).
[7]
AngLadladoutlineditsplatform,viz:
Asapartylistorganization,AngLadladiswillingtoresearch,introduce,andworkforthepassageintolawoflegislativemeasuresunderthe
followingplatformofgovernment:
a)introductionandsupportforanantidiscriminationbillthatwillensureequalrightsforLGBTsinemploymentandcivillife
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 23/24
8/26/2015 G.R. No. 190582
b)supportforLGBTrelatedandLGBTfriendlybusinessesthatwillcontributetothenationaleconomy
c)settingupofmicrofinanceandlivelihoodprojectsforpoorandphysicallychallengedLGBTFilipinos
d)settingupofcarecentersthatwilltakecareofthemedical,legal,pension,andotherneedsofoldandabandonedLGBTs.These
centerswillbesetupinitiallyinthekeycitiesofthecountryand
e) introduction and support for bills seeking the repeal of laws used to harass and legitimize extortion against the LGBT
community.Rollo,p.100.
[8]
Id.at3639.Citationsomitted.Italicsandunderscoringinoriginaltext.
[9]
Id.at7788.
[10]
Id.at5054.Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied.
[11]
Id.at121.
[12]
Id.at129132.
[13]
Id.at151283.
[14]
Id.at284.
[15]
Id.at301596.
[16]
Id.at126.
[17]
Id.at133160.
[18]
Id.at288291.
[19]
Id.at296.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 24/24