c




c 

  c  
c  c     
 



The case has its roots in the COMELEC͛s refusal to accredit p
 as a party-list organization under Republic Act
(RA) No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System Act.

Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or
trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs). They were incorporated in 2003 and first applied for registration with the COMELEC in
2006. The application for accreditation was denied on the ground that the organization had no substantial membership base.
On August 17, 2009, Ang Ladlad filed a Petition for registration with the COMELEC.

Petitioner͛s Claim:
G| LGBT community is a marginalized and under-represented sector that is particularly disadvantaged because of their
sexual orientation and gender identity.
G| LGBTs are victims of exclusion, discrimination, and violence.
G| LGBTs are constrained to hide their sexual orientation because of negative societal attitudes.
G| p
 complied with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by this Court in p


 
  


  
 .

COMELEC (Second Division) dismissed the Petition on moral grounds. Petitioner should likewise be denied
accreditation not only for advocating immoral doctrines but likewise for not being truthful when it said that it ͞ 

 
 
 
 

 
 ! 
!
 



 .͟

On January 4, 2010, p
 filed this Petition, praying that the Court annul the Assailed Resolutions and
direct the COMELEC to grant p
" application for accreditation. p
 also sought the issuance #
of a preliminary mandatory injunction against the COMELEC, which had previously announced that it would begin
printing the final ballots for the May 2010 elections by January 25, 2010.

On January 13, 2010, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) filed a Motion to Intervene or to Appear as
Amicus Curiae.The CHR opined that the denial of Ang Ladlad͛s petition on moral grounds violated the standards and
principles of the Constitution, ï
!"
#

##ï$"$%&'#"c( ï!
c#")ï
"ï
"#ï$"#$
"#"ï
$"#")$ï#c( ïc* The motion was granted by the court.

Petitioner͛s Argument:
G| The denial of accreditation violated the constitutional guarantees against the establishment of religion.
G| The Assailed Resolutions contravened its constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly,
and equal protection of laws, as well as constituted violations of the Philippines͛ international obligations
against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

OSG͛s Argument:
G| Concurred with p
 " petition and argued that the COMELEC erred in denying petitioner͛s
application for registration since there was no basis for COMELEC͛s allegations of immorality.
G| LGBTs have their own special interests and concerns which should have been recognized by the COMELEC
as a separate classification.

COMELEC͛s Argument:
 G| Petitioner does not have a concrete and genuine national political agenda to benefit the nation and that the
petition was validly dismissed on moral grounds.
G| LGBT sector is not among the sectors enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941.
G| Petitioner made untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged its national existence contrary to
actual verification reports by COMELEC͛s field personnel.

! 

WON p
 should be accredited as party-list organization.



+c c
,

YES. p
 has sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with the legal requirements foR accreditation.

It was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify
the exclusion of p
. It was recalled that the Philippines has not seen fit to criminalize homosexual conduct. Moreover,
the Assailed Resolutions have not identified any specific overt immoral act performed by p
. 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 petitioner͛s admission into the party-list system would be so harmful as to
irreparably damage the moral fabric of society.

The equal protection clause guarantees that no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of
laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances. From the standpoint of the
political process, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender have the same interest in participating in the party-list system on
the same basis as other political parties similarly situated.

International human rights law, in particular, has grown dynamically in its attempt to bring about a more just and
humane world order. The Decision today is fully in accord with our international obligations to protect and promote human
rights. In particular, it explicitly recognizes the principle of non-discrimination as it relates to the right to electoral participation,
enunciated in the !
c#")ï
c*

The principle of non-discrimination is laid out in ï
-$%ï
c. In this context, the principle of non-
discrimination requires that laws of general application relating to elections be applied equally to all persons, regardless of
sexual orientation. Additionally, a variety of United Nations bodies have declared discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation to be prohibited under various international agreements

ï
 $%!
c states that ͞Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or
through freely chosen representatives͟.

ï
.$%ï
cstates every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the
distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

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

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal
suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.