Ang Ladlad vs Comelec

G.R. No. 190582 April 8, 2010 ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein b its !h"ir, DANT#N R$%#T#, Pe&&oner, 's. !#%%())(#N #N $L$!T(#N) Respondent. Respondent.

D#!TR(N$* While accreditaon accreditaon of a party list is the prerogave prerogave of COMELEC, the Court when called upon in proper cases, may scrunize the basis why a party was not accredited

+A!T)*

e eon on for Cer Ceror orar arii unde underr !ule !ule "# of the the !ule !uless of Cour Court, t, with with an appl applic ica aon on for a writ writ of  preliminarymandatory in$uncon, %led by &ngLadlad L'() arty *&ngLadlad+ against the !esoluons of  the Commission on Elecons *COMELEC+ )he case has its roots in the COMELEC-s refusal to accredit &ngLadlad as a party.list party.list organizaon under !epublic &ct *!&+ /o 0123,otherwise 4nown as the arty.List 5ystem &ct &ngLadlad is an organizaon composed of men and women who idenfy themselves as lesbians, gays, bise6uals bise6uals,or ,or trans.g trans.gender endered ed individua individuals ls *L'() *L'()s+ s+ 7ncorpor 7ncorporated ated in 899:, 899:, &ngLadlad &ngLadlad %rst %rst applied applied for registraon with theCOMELEC in 899" )he applicaon for accreditaon was denied on the ground that the organizaon had nosubstanal membership base On &ugust 30, 8991, &ngLadlad again %led a eon for registraon with theCOMELECCOMELEC *5econd ;ivision+ dismissed theeon on moral grounds 5tang that< 6 66 )his eon is dismissible on moral grounds eoner eoner de%nes the =ilipino Lesbian, 'ay, 'ay, (ise6ual and)ransgender *L'()+ Community, thus< 666 a marginal marginalize ized d and under.rep under.represe resented nted sector sector that is parcula parcularly rly disadvan disadvantag taged ed because because of their their se6ualorientaon and gender identyand proceeded to de%ne se6ual orientaon as that which< 666 refers to a person-s capacity for profound emoonal, a>econal and se6ual a?racon to, and inmate andse6ual relaons with, individuals of a di>erent gender, of the same gender, or more than one gender@ )his de%nion of the L'() sector ma4es it crystal crystal clear that peoner tolerates immorality immorality which o>ends religiousbeliefs eoner eoner should li4ewise be denied accreditaon accreditaon not only for advocang immoral immoral doctrines but li4ewise for notbeing truthful when it said that it @or any of its nomineesAparty.list representaves have not violated or failed tocomply with laws, rules, or regulaons relang to the elecons@ When &ngLadlad &ngLadlad sought sought reconsid reconsidera eraon, on, three three commiss commissioner ionerss voted voted to overtur overturn n the =irst =irst &ssailed &ssailed !esoluon*Commissioner !esoluon*Commissionerss 'regorio B B Larrazabal, Larrazabal, !ene  5armiento, 5armiento, and &rmando elasco+, elasco+, while three commissionersvoted to deny &ngLadlad-s Moon for !econsideraon *Commissioners /icodemo ) =errer, Lucenito / )agle, and Elias ! Busoph+ )he COMELEC Chairman, brea4ing the e and spea4ing for the ma$ority in his 5eparate Opinion,upheld the =irst &ssailed !esoluon !esoluon

COMELEC<

7 )he 5pirit of !epublic &ct /o 0123 )he party.list system is not a tool to advocate tolerance and acceptance ofmisunderstood persons or groups of persons !ather, the party.list system is a tool for the realizaon of aspiraonsof marginalized individuals whose interests are also the naon-s D only that their interests have not been brought tothe a?enon of the naon because of their under representaon nl the me comes when Ladlad is able to  $usfythat  $usfythat having mi6ed se6ual orientaons orientaons and transgender transgender idenes is bene%cial to the naon, its applicaon foraccreditaon under the party.list system will remain $ust that

77 /o substanal di>erenaon )hus, even if society-s understanding, tolerance, and acceptance of L'()-s is elevated, there can be no denyingthat denyingthat Ladlad constuencies constuencies are sll males and females, and they will remain either male or female protected by thesame (ill of !ights that applies to all cizens ali4e

7 ublic Morals !ather, what are being adopted as moralparameters and precepts are generally accepted public morals )hey are possibly religious.based, but as a society,the society,the hilippines cannot ignore its more than #99 years of  Muslim and Chrisan upbringing, such that some moralprecepts espoused by said religions have sipped FsicG into society and these are not publicly accepted moral norms

 Legal rovisions &rcle 893 of the !evised enalCode penalizes @immoral doctrines, obscene publicaons and e6hibion and indecentshows@ @&ngLadlad@ apparently falls under these legal provisions )his is clear from its eon-s paragraph "=< @Consensual partnerships or relaonships by gays and lesbians who are already of age- 7t is further indicated in par82 of the eon which waves for the record< H7n 8990, Men Iaving 5e6 with Men or M5Ms in the hilippines wereesmated as "09,999 Moreoever, &rcle "12 of the Civil Code de%nes @nuisance@ as any act, omission 6 66 oranything else 6 66 which shoc4s, de%es or disregards decency or morality 666@ )hese are all unlawful

&ngLadlad %led this eon, praying that the Court annul the &ssailed !esoluons and direc?he COMELEC to grant grant &ngLadlad&ngLadlad-ss applica applicaon on for accredi accredita taon on &ngLadlad &ngLadlad also sought the issuance issuance e6 parte parte ofa preliminary mandatory in$uncon against the COMELEC

5C ordered the O5' to %le its Comment )heO5' later %led a Comment in support of peoner-s applicaon applicaon )hus, in order to give COMELEC the opportunityto fully venlate venlate its posion, we reJuired it to %le its own comment )he COMELEC, through its Law ;epartment,%led its Comment

)he Commission on Iuman !ights *CI!+ %led a Moon to 7ntervene or to &ppear as&micus Curiae, a?aching thereto its Comment.in.7ntervenon Comment.in.7ntervenon )he CI! opined that the denial of &ngLadlad-speon &ngLadlad-speon on

moral moral grounds grounds violated violated the standar standards ds and principle principless of the Constu Constuon, on, the niversa niversall ;eclar ;eclaraon aon ofIuman !ights *;I!+, and the 7nternaonal Covenant on Civil and olical !ights *7CC!+ On Kanuary 31, 8939,we granted the CI!-s moon to intervene

&/' L&;L&;< )he denial of accreditaon, insofar as it $us%ed the e6clusion by using religious dogma,violated the cons constu tuona onall guara guarant ntees ees again against st the esta establi blishm shmen entt of relig religion ion eo eoner ner also also claim claimed ed that that the &ssailed!esoluons contravened its constuonal rights to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and eJual proteconof laws, as well as constuted violaons of the hilippines- internaonal obligaons against discriminaon based onse6ual orientaon O5'< Conc Concur urre red d with with &ngL &ngLad adla ladd-ss pe peon on and and argu argued ed tha that the the COM OMEL ELEC EC err erred in deny denyin ing g peoner-sapplicaon for registraon since there was no basis for COMELEC-s allegaons of immorality 7t also opined thatL'()s have their own special interests and concerns which should have been recognized by the COMELEC as aseparate classi%caon Iowever, insofar as the purported violaons of peoner-s freedom of speech, e6pression,and assembly were concerned, the O5' maintained that there had been no restricons on these rights

COMELEC< COMELEC reiterated that peoner does not have a concrete and genuine naonal policalagenda to bene%t the naon and that the peon was validly dismissed on moral grounds 7t also argued for the %rsme %rsme that the L'() L'() sector is not among the sectors enumerated enumerated by the Constuon Constuon and !& 0123, and that peonermade untruthful statements statements in its peon when it alleged its naonal e6istence contrary contrary to actual veri%caon reportsby COMELEC-s %eld personnel

())$*

Can the Court scrunize the basis of denials in party list accreditaons D BE5, while accreditaon of a party list is the prerogave of COMELEC, the Court when called upon in proper cases, may scrunize the basis why a party was not accredited

RAT(#NAL$*

We grant the peon Compliance with the !eJuirements of the Constuon and !epublic &ct /o 0123 )he COMELEC denied &ngLadlad-s applicaon for registraon on the ground that the L'() sector is neitherenumerated in the Constuon and !& 0123, nor is it associated with or related to any of the sectors in theenumeraon !espondent mista4enly opines that our ruling in &ng(agong(ayani stands for the proposion that only thosesectors speci%cally enumerated in the law or related to said sectors *labor, peasant, %sherfol4, urban

poor,indigenous cultural communies, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas wor4ers, andprofessionals+ may be registered under the party.list system &s we e6plicitly ruled in &ng(agong(ayani.O=W Labor arty v Commission on Elecons, @the enumeraon of marginalized marginalized and under.represented under.represented sectors is note6clusive@ )he )he cruc crucia iall elem elemen entt is not not whet whethe herr a sect sector or is spec speci% i%ccally ally enum enumer era ated, ted, but but whet whethe herr a parcularorganizaon complies with the reJuirements of the Constuon and !& 0123 )his argument that @peoner made untruthful statements in its peon when it alleged its naonal e6istence@ is anew oneN previously, the COMELEC claimed that peoner was @not being truthful when it said that it or any of itsnomineesAparty.list representaves have not violated or failed to comply with laws, rules, rules, or regula regulaons ons relang relang tothe elecons elecons@@ /owhere /owhere was this ground ground for denial of peonerpeoner-ss accreditaon menoned or even alluded to in the&ssailed !esoluons )his, in itself, is Juite curious, considering that the reports of peoner-s alleged none6istencewere already available to the COMELEC prior to the issuance of the =irst &ssailed !esoluon &t best,this is irregular procedureN at worst, a belated aerthought, a change in respondent-s theory, and a serious violaonof peoner-s right to procedural due process /onetheless, we %nd that there has been no misrepresentaon & cursory perusal of &ngLadlad-s inial peonshows that it never claimed to e6ist in each province of the hilippines !ather, !ather, peoner alleged that the L'() in the hilippines was esmated to constute at least "09,999 personsN that it had 3",399 aPliates andmembers around the country, and 2,922 members in its electronic discussion group &ngLadlad also representeditself to be @a naonal L'() umbrella organizaon with aPliates around the hilippines composed of the followingL'() networ4se )hedi>erenc rence, e, COMELE COMELEC C claims, claims, lies in &ngLadlad&ngLadlad-ss morality morality,, or lac4 thereof !eligion as the (asis for !efusal to &ccept &ngLadlad-s eon for !egistraon Our Constuon provides in &rcle 777, 5econ # that @FnGo law shall be made respecng an establishment establishment of religion,or prohibing the free e6ercise thereof@ &t bo?om, what our non.establishment clause calls for is @governmentneutra @governmentneutrality lity in religious ma?ers@ ma?ers@ Clearly, @governmental @governmental reliance on religious $us%caon $us%caon is incons inconsis isten tentt with with thiscp thiscpoli olicy cy of neutr neutrali alityty- We thus thus %nd %nd that that it was was grav grave e viola violao on n of the non. non. establish establishmen mentt clause clause for the COMELEC COMELEC touliz toulize e the (ible and the Roran Roran to $usfy the e6clusi e6clusion on of  &ngLadlad )he &ssailed !esoluons have not iden%ed any speci%c overt immoral immoral act performed by &ngLadlad Even the O5' agreesthat @there should have been a %nding by the COMELEC that the group-s members have commi?ed or are comming immoral acts@ )he O5' argues<

666 & person may be se6ually a?racted to a person of the same gender, of a di>erent gender, or more than onegender, but mere a?racon does not translate to immoral acts )here is a great divide between thought and acon!educon ad absurdum 7f immoral thoughts could be penalized, COMELEC would have its hands full ofdisJuali%caon cases against both the @straights@ and the gays@ Certainly this is not the intendment of the law !espondent has failed to e6plain what societal ills are sought to be prevented, prevented, or why special protecon is reJuiredfor the youth /either has the COMELEC condescended to $usfy its posion that peoner-s admission into theparty.list system would be so harmful as to irreparably damage the moral fabric of  society

)$PARAT$ #P(N(#N)* P-no !on/-r

)he assailed !esoluons of the Commission on Elecons *COMELEC+ run afoul of the non.establishment clause of the Constuon )here was cypher e>ort on the part of the COMELEC to couch its reasoning in legal Dmuch less constuonal D terms, as it denied &ngLadlad-s peon for registraon as a sectoral party principally onthe ground that it @tolerates immorality which o>ends religious *ie, Chrisan and Muslim+ beliefs@ ConseJuently, ConseJuently, the assailed resoluons of the COMELEC are violave of the constuonal constuonal direcve that no religioustest shall be reJuired for the e6ercise of civil or polical rights&ngLadlad-s right of polical parcipa parcipaon on wasundul wasunduly y infringe infringed d when the COMELE COMELEC, C, swayed swayed by the private private biases biases and personal personal pre$udices of its constuentmembers, arrogated unto itself the role of a religious court or worse, a morality police

7 li4ewis li4ewise e see no logical logical or factual factual obstacle obstacle to classifying classifying the members members of the L'() L'() communi community ty as marginal marginalize ized d andunderr andunderrepre epresent sented, ed, consideri considering ng their long history history *and indeed, indeed, ongoing ongoing narrav narrave+ e+ of  persecuon, discriminaon, andpathos 7n my humble view, marginalizaon for purposes of party.list representaon representaon encompasses socialmarginalizaon socialmarginalizaon as well )o hold otherwise is tantamount tantamount to trivializing socially marginalized groups as @mere passiverecipients of the 5tate-s benevolence@ and denying them the right to @parcipate directly Fin the mainstream ofrepresentave democracyG in the enactment of laws designed to bene%t them@ )he party.list system could nothave been conceptualized to perpetuate this in$usce

!#R#NA Dissent

)he intent of the Constuon is clear< to give genuine power to the people, not only by giving more law to those whohave less in life, but more so by enabling them to become veritable lawma4ers themselves Consistent with thisintent, the policy of the implemenng law, we repeat, is li4ewise clear< @to enable =ilipino cizens belonging tomarginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizaons and pares, 6 66, to become members of the Iouse of!epresentaves@ Where the language of the law is clear, it must be applied according to its e6press terms

)he margina marginaliz lized ed and underrep underreprese resented nted sectors sectors to be represent represented ed under under the party.l party.list ist system system are enumerated in

5econ # of !& 0123, which states< @5EC # !egistraon .. &ny organized group of persons may register as a party, organizaon or coalion forpurposes of the party.list system system by %ling with the COMELEC not later than ninety *19+ days before the elecon apeon veri%ed by its president or secretary stang its desire to parcipate in the party.list syst system em as a nao naonal nal,r ,regi egiona onall or sector sectoral al party party or orga organiz niza aon on or a coali coalion on of such such pares pares or organiz organizao aons, ns, a?a a?achin ching g thereto thereto itscons itsconstuon tuon,, by.law by.laws, s, plaSorm plaSorm or progra program m of governm government, ent, list of  oPcers, coalion agreement and other relevannformaon relevannformaon as the COMELEC may reJuire< rovided, that the sector shall include labor, peasant, %sherfol4, urbanpoor, indigenous cultural communies, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas wor4ers, andprofessionals@

While the enumeraon of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not e6clusive, it demonstrates the cleari clearint ntent ent of the law law that that not all sectors sectors can be repr represe esent nted ed under under the party party.li .list st syst system em 7t is a fundamen fundamental tal principle principle ofstatu ofstatutory tory construc construcon on that words words employed employed in a statute statute are interpr interpreted eted in connecon with, and their meaning isascertained by reference to, the words and the phrases with which they are associated or related )hus, themeaning of a term in a statute may be limited, Juali%ed or specialized by those in immediate associaon

)he crucia cruciall elemen elementt is not whethe whetherr a sector sector is speci% speci%ca cally lly enumer enumerat ated, ed, but whethe whetherr a parc parcula ularr organizaoncomplies with the reJuirements of the Constuon and !& 0123 )he resoluon of peons for accreditaon in the party.list system on a case.to.case basis not tethered to theenumeraon of the Constuon and of !& 0123 invites the e6ercise of unbridled discreon nless %rmly anchoredon the fundamental law and the implemenng statute, statute, the party.list party.list system will be a ship Toang aimlessly in theocean of uncertainty uncertainty,, easily tossed by sudden waves of Tu6 and pped by shiing winds of change in societalatudes towards certain groups 5urely, 5urely, the Constuon and !& 0123 did not envision such 4ind of a system

Even assuming that peoner was able to show that the community of lesbians, gays, bise6uals and transse6uals*L'()+ is underrepresented, it cannot be properly considered as marginalized under the party. list system =irst,peoner is not included in the sectors menoned in 5econ #*8+, &rcle 7 of the Constuon and 5econ # of !&0123 nless an overly strained interpretaon is resorted to, the L'() sector cannot establish a close connecon toany of the said sectors 7ndeed, peoner does not even try to show its lin4 to any of the said sectors !ather, itrepresents itself as an altogether disnct sector with its own peculiar interests interests and agenda

5econd, peoner-s interest as a sector, which is basically the legal recognion of its members- se6ual orientaon asa right, cannot be reasonably considered as an interest that is tradionally and historically consider considered ed as vital vital tonaona tonaonall interes interest t &t best, best, peone peonerr may cite an emergent emergent awareness awareness of the implicaons implicaons of se6ual orientaon orientaon on the naonal naonal human rights rights agenda agenda Iowever Iowever, an emergen emergentt awarene awareness ss is but a con%rma con%rmaon on of lac4 of  tradional and historical recognion Moreover, even the ma$ority admits that there is no @clear cut consensus favorable to gay rights claims@

)hird, peoner is cut o> from the common constuonal thread that runs through the marginalized andunderrepresented sectors under the party.list system 7t lac4s the vinculum, a constuonal bond, a provision in thefundamental law that speci%cally recognizes recognizes the L'() sector as specially signi%cant to the naonal interest )hisstandard, implied in (&/&), is reJuired to create the necessary lin4 of a parcular sector to those sectors e6presslymenoned in 5econ #*8+, &rcle 7 of the Constuon and 5econ # of  !& 0123

=inally, considering our history and tradion as a people, to consider the promoon of the L'() agenda and @gayrights@ as a naonal policy as bene%cial to the naon as a whole is debatable at best

ABAD !on/-r

Iere, Iere, 7 fully fully agree agree that the COMELE COMELEC C erred erred when it denied denied &ngLadlad&ngLadlad-ss peon peon for sectoral sectoral party accreditaon onreligious and moral grounds )he COMELEC has never applied these tests on regular candidates for Congress )here is no reason for it to apply them on &ngLadlad (ut the ponencia already amply and lucidly discussed thispoint What What 7 am more more conce concerne rned d about about is COME COMELEC LEC--s claim claim in its comm comment ent on the peon peon that that the &ngLadlads &ngLadladsector ectoralpar alparty ty was not marginal marginalize ized d and underrep underreprese resente nted d since since it is not among, among, or even even associated with, the sectorsspeci%ed in the Constuon and in !& 01238 &ngLadlad, it claims, did not Jualify as a marginalized andunderrepresented group of people li4e those represenng labor, peasant, %sherfol4, urban poor, indigenous culturalcommunies, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas overseas wor4ers wor4ers,, and professio professionals nals )his ise>ecv ise>ecvely ely the COMELECCOMELEC-ss frame frame of mind in ad$udica ad$udicang ng applicaons for accreditaon (ut, the COMELE COMELEC-s C-s proposion proposion imposes imposes an unwarra unwarrante nted d restric restricon on which which is inconsis inconsisten tentt with the purpose andspirit of the Constuon and the law law & reading of &ng(agong(ayani &ng(agong(ayani will show that, based on the Court-s reading,neither the Constuon nor !& 0123 intends the e6cessively limited coverage that the COMELEC now suggests 7n fact, the Court said in that case that the list in !& 0123 is not e6clusive )hus, while the party.list system is notmeant for all sectors of society, it was envisioned as a social $usce tool for the marginalized marginalized and underrepresented in general