You are on page 1of 2

LADLAD VS.

COMELEC
FACTS: Ang Ladlad LGBT Partylist, herein petitioner is a national
organization which represents the lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders. 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 which are contrary to public morals 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. 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.
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.
ISSUE: Whether or not the application of the petitioner as a partylist should
be granted
HELD: YES. The SC ruled that Ang Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated its
compliance with the legal requirements for accreditation. Indeed, aside from
COMELECs moral objection and the belated allegation of non-existence,
nowhere in the records has the respondent ever found/ruled that Ang Ladlad
is not qualified to register as a party-list organization under any of the
requisites under RA 7941 or the guidelines in Ang Bagong Bayani. The
difference, COMELEC claims, lies in Ang Ladlads morality, or lack thereof.
The LGBT community is not exempted from the exercise of its
constitutionally vested rights on the basis of their sexual orientation. Laws of

general application should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve
to participate in the party-list system on the same basis as other
marginalized and under-represented sectors. Discrimination based on sexual
orientation is not tolerated ---not by our own laws nor by any international
laws to which we adhere.