Ladlad Vs Comelec - Digest

G.R. No.
190582
April 8, 2010
ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein by

its Chair, DANTON REMOTO, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Respondent.
Ang Ladlad, an organization composed of men and
women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays,
bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs), was
denied by COMELEC the application for accreditation
on the ground that the organization had no substantial
membership base. Petitioner again filed a petition for
registration with the COMELEC and was then dismissed
on moral grounds.
Petitioner defines the Filipino Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual
and Transgender (LGBT) Community, thus:
x x x a marginalized and under-represented sector that
is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual
orientation and gender identity.
and proceeded to define sexual orientation as that
which:
x x x refers to a persons capacity for profound
emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and
intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a
different gender, of the same gender, or more than one
gender."
This definition of the LGBT sector makes it crystal clear
that petitioner tolerates immorality which offends
religious beliefs.
Present petition prayed that the Court annul the
Assailed Resolutions and direct the COMELEC to
grant Ang Ladlads application for accreditation. OSG
later filed a Comment in support of petitioners
application. COMELEC, in the meantime, was ordered
to cease and desist from implementing the Assailed
Resolutions.
The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) filed a Motion
to Intervene or to Appear as Amicus Curiae, attaching
thereto its Comment-in-Intervention.17 The CHR opined
that the denial of Ang Ladlads petition on moral
grounds violated the standards and principles of the
Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR), and the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Philippines international obligations against

discrimination based on sexual orientation?
HELD: YES
The Parties Arguments

Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of accreditation,
insofar as it justified the exclusion by using religious
dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees
against the establishment of religion. Petitioner
also claimed that 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
Philippines
international obligations against discrimination
based on sexual orientation.
The OSG concurred with Ang Ladlads petition and
argued that the COMELEC erred in denying 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 should have been
recognized by the COMELEC as a separate
classification. However, insofar as the purported
violations
of
petitioners
freedom of
speech,
expression, and assembly were concerned, the OSG
maintained that there had been no restrictions
on these rights.
In its Comment, the COMELEC reiterated that
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. It
also argued for the first time that the LGBT sector is
not among the sectors enumerated by the Constitution
and RA 7941, and that petitioner made untruthful
statements in its petition when it alleged its national
existence contrary to actual verification reports by
COMELECs field personnel.
Non-Discrimination and International

Law
International laws had concern to protect and promote
human rights. In particular, we explicitly recognize the
principle of non-discrimination as it relates to the right
to electoral participation, enunciated in the UDHR
and the ICCPR.
The principle of non-discrimination is laid out in Article
26 of the ICCPR, as follows:
ISSUE:
Article 26
WoN denial of Ang Ladlads petition for accreditation as

a party list organization constitute a violation of the
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled
without any discrimination to the equal protection of
the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any
Page 1 of 2
discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and

effective protection against discrimination on any
ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status.
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. Although sexual
orientation is not specifically enumerated as a status or
ratio for discrimination in Article 26 of the ICCPR, the
ICCPR Human Rights Committee has opined that the
reference to "sex" in Article 26 should be
construed
to
include
"sexual
orientation."48Additionally, a variety of United Nations
bodies have declared discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation to be prohibited under various
international agreements.49
The UDHR provides:
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the
government of his country, directly or through freely
chosen representatives.
Likewise, the ICCPR states:
Article 25
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.
As stated by the CHR in its Comment-inIntervention, the scope of the right to electoral
participation is elaborated by the Human Rights
Committee in its General Comment No. 25
(Participation in Public Affairs and the Right to Vote) as
follows:
Page 2 of 2
1. Article 25 of the Covenant recognizes and protects

the right of every citizen to take part in the
conduct of public affairs, the right to vote and to
be elected and the right to have access to public
service. Whatever form of constitution or government
is in force, the Covenant requires States to adopt such
legislative and other measures as may be necessary to
ensure that citizens have an effective opportunity to
enjoy the rights it protects. Article 25 lies at the core of
democratic government based on the consent of the
people and in conformity with the principles of the
Covenant.
- petitioner also invoked the Yogyakarta Principles (the
Application of International Human Rights Law In
Relation
to
Sexual
Orientation
and
Gender
Identity),51 which petitioner declares to reflect binding
principles of international law.
There are declarations and obligations outlined in said
Principles which are not reflective of the current state
of international law, and do not find basis in any of the
sources of international law enumerated under Article
38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of
Justice.52 Petitioner has not undertaken any objective
and rigorous analysis of these alleged principles of
international law to ascertain their true status.
We also hasten to add that not everything that society
or a certain segment of society wants or demands is
automatically a human right. This is not an arbitrary
human intervention that may be added to or
subtracted from at will. It is unfortunate that much of
what passes for human rights today is a much broader
context of needs that identifies many social desires as
rights in order to further claims that international law
obliges states to sanction these innovations. This has
the effect of diluting real human rights, and is a result
of the notion that if "wants" are couched in "rights"
language, then they are no longer controversial.
Using even the most liberal of lenses, these Yogyakarta
Principles, consisting of a declaration formulated by
various international law professors, are at best de
lege ferenda and do not constitute binding
obligations on the Philippines. Indeed, so much of
contemporary international law is characterized by the
"soft law" nomenclature, i.e., international law is full
of principles that promote international cooperation,
harmony, and respect for human rights, most of which
amount to no more than well-meaning desires, without
the support of either State practice or opinio juris.

Ladlad Vs Comelec - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ladlad Vs Comelec - Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ladlad Vs Comelec - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein by

Philippines international obligations against

The Parties Arguments

Non-Discrimination and International

WoN denial of Ang Ladlads petition for accreditation as

discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and

1. Article 25 of the Covenant recognizes and protects

You might also like