10/9/2017 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.:

...[F]reedomtodifferisnotlimitedtothingsthatdonotmattermuch.Thatwouldbeamereshadowof
freedom.Thetestofitssubstanceistherighttodifferastothingsthattouchtheheartoftheexistingorder.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 1/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

JusticeRobertA.Jackson
[1]
WestVirginiaStateBoardofEducationv.Barnette

One unavoidable consequence of everyone having the freedom to choose is that others may make
differentchoiceschoiceswewouldnotmakeforourselves,choiceswemaydisapproveof,evenchoices
thatmayshockoroffendorangerus.However,choicesarenottobelegallyprohibitedmerelybecause
theyaredifferent,andtherighttodisagreeanddebateaboutimportantquestionsofpublicpolicyisa
corevalueprotectedbyourBillofRights.Indeed,ourdemocracyisbuiltongenuinerecognitionof,and
respectfor,diversityanddifferenceinopinion.
Since ancient times, society has grappled with deep disagreements about the definitions and
demandsofmorality.In many cases, where moral convictions are concerned, harmony among those
theoreticallyopposedisaninsurmountablegoal.Yethereinliestheparadoxphilosophicaljustifications
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
accommodationisbetterthanintransigencereasonmoreworthythanrhetoric.Thiswillallowpersons
ofdiverseviewpointstolivetogether,ifnotharmoniously,then,atleast,civilly.

FactualBackground

ThisisaPetitionforCertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt,withanapplicationfora
writofpreliminarymandatoryinjunction,filedbyAngLadladLGBTParty(AngLadlad)againstthe
[2]
Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated November 11, 2009 (the First
[3]
AssailedResolution)andDecember16,2009 (theSecondAssailedResolution)inSPPNo.09228
(PL) (collectively, the Assailed Resolutions). The case has its roots in the COMELECs refusal to
accreditAngLadladasapartylistorganizationunderRepublicAct(RA)No.7941,otherwiseknownas
[4]
thePartyListSystemAct.

Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves as
lesbians,gays,bisexuals,ortransgenderedindividuals(LGBTs).Incorporatedin2003,AngLadladfirst
appliedforregistrationwiththeCOMELECin2006.Theapplicationforaccreditationwasdeniedon
thegroundthattheorganizationhadnosubstantialmembershipbase.OnAugust17,2009,AngLadlad
[5]
againfiledaPetition forregistrationwiththeCOMELEC.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 2/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

Before the COMELEC, petitioner argued that the LGBT community is a marginalized and
underrepresented sector that is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and
gender identity that LGBTs are victims of exclusion, discrimination, and violence that because of
negativesocietalattitudes,LGBTsareconstrainedtohidetheirsexualorientationandthatAngLadlad
complied with the 8point guidelines enunciated by this Court in Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor
[6]
Partyv.CommissiononElections. AngLadladlaidoutitsnationalmembershipbaseconsistingof
[7]
individualmembersandorganizationalsupporters,andoutlineditsplatformofgovernance.

On November 11, 2009, after admitting the petitioners evidence, the COMELEC (Second
Division)dismissedthePetitiononmoralgrounds,statingthat:
xxxThisPetitionisdismissibleonmoralgrounds.PetitionerdefinestheFilipinoLesbian,Gay,
BisexualandTransgender(LGBT)Community,thus:

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

xxxreferstoapersonscapacityforprofoundemotional,affectionalandsexualattraction
to,andintimateandsexualrelationswith,individualsofadifferentgender,ofthesame
gender,ormorethanonegender.

ThisdefinitionoftheLGBTsectormakesitcrystalclearthatpetitionertoleratesimmoralitywhichoffends
religiousbeliefs.InRomans1:26,27,Paulwrote:

ForthiscauseGodgavethemupintovileaffections,foreventheirwomendidchangethe
naturaluseintothatwhichisagainstnature:Andlikewisealsothemen,leavingthenatural
useofthewoman,burnedintheirlustonetowardanothermenwithmenworkingthat
whichisunseemly,andreceivinginthemselvesthatrecompenseoftheirerrorwhichwas
meet.

IntheKoran,thehereunderversesarepertinent:

For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women ye are indeed a people
transgressing beyond bounds. (7.81) And we rained down on them a shower (of
brimstone):Thenseewhatwastheendofthosewhoindulgedinsinandcrime!(7:84)He
said:OmyLord!HelpThoumeagainstpeoplewhodomischief(29:30).

AscorrectlypointedoutbytheLawDepartmentinitsCommentdatedOctober2,2008:

TheANGLADLADapparentlyadvocatessexualimmoralityasindicatedinthePetitions
par.6F:Consensualpartnershipsorrelationshipsbygaysandlesbianswhoarealreadyof
age.Itisfurtherindicatedinpar.24ofthePetitionwhichwavesfortherecord:In2007,
Men Having Sex with Men or MSMs in the Philippines were estimated as 670,000
(Genesis19isthehistoryofSodomandGomorrah).

Laws are deemed incorporated in every contract, permit, license, relationship, or
accreditation.Hence,pertinentprovisionsoftheCivilCodeandtheRevisedPenalCode
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 3/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

aredeemedpartoftherequirementtobecompliedwithforaccreditation.

ANGLADLADcollideswithArticle695oftheCivilCodewhichdefinesnuisanceas
Anyact,omission,establishment,business,conditionofproperty,oranythingelsewhichx
xx(3)shocks,defiesordisregardsdecencyormoralityxxx

ItalsocollideswithArticle1306oftheCivilCode:Thecontractingpartiesmayestablish
suchstipulations,clauses,termsandconditionsastheymaydeemconvenient,provided
theyarenotcontrarytolaw,morals,goodcustoms,publicorderorpublicpolicy.Art1409
oftheCivilCodeprovidesthatContractswhosecause,objectorpurposeiscontraryto
law,morals,goodcustoms,publicorderorpublicpolicyareinexistentandvoidfromthe
beginning.

Finally to safeguard the morality of the Filipino community, the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
penalizesImmoraldoctrines,obscenepublicationsandexhibitionsandindecentshowsasfollows:

Art.201.Immoraldoctrines,obscenepublicationsandexhibitions,andindecentshows.
The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand
pesos,orbothsuchimprisonmentandfine,shallbeimposedupon:

1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public
morals

2.(a)Theauthorsofobsceneliterature,publishedwiththeirknowledgeinanyformthe
editorspublishingsuchliteratureandtheowners/operatorsoftheestablishmentsellingthe
same

(b)Thosewho,intheaters,fairs,cinematographsoranyotherplace,exhibitindecentor
immoralplays,scenes,actsorshows,itbeingunderstoodthattheobsceneliteratureor
indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are
prescribedbyvirtuehereof,shallincludethosewhich:(1)glorifycriminalsorcondone
crimes (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or
pornography (3) offend any race or religion (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of
prohibited drugs and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs,
establishedpolicies,lawfulorders,decreesandedicts.

3. Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or
literaturewhichareoffensivetomorals.

Petitionershouldlikewisebedeniedaccreditationnotonlyforadvocatingimmoraldoctrinesbutlikewise
fornotbeingtruthfulwhenitsaidthatitoranyofitsnominees/partylistrepresentativeshavenotviolated
orfailedtocomplywithlaws,rules,orregulationsrelatingtotheelections.

Furthermore,shouldthisCommissiongrantthepetition,wewillbeexposingouryouthtoanenvironmentthat
doesnotconformtotheteachingsofourfaith.LehmanStrauss,afamousbibleteacherandwriterinthe
U.S.A.saidinonearticlethatolderpracticinghomosexualsareathreattotheyouth.Asanagencyofthe
government,ourstooistheStatesavoweddutyunderSection13,ArticleIIoftheConstitutiontoprotect
[8]
ouryouthfrommoralandspiritualdegradation.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 4/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

[9]
WhenAngLadlad sought reconsideration, three commissioners voted to overturn the First
Assailed Resolution (Commissioners Gregorio Y. Larrazabal, Rene V. Sarmiento, and Armando
Velasco), while three commissioners voted to deny Ang Ladlads Motion for Reconsideration
(Commissioners Nicodemo T. Ferrer, Lucenito N. Tagle, and Elias R. Yusoph). The COMELEC
Chairman, breaking the tie and speaking for the majority in his Separate Opinion, upheld the First
AssailedResolution,statingthat:

I.TheSpiritofRepublicActNo.7941

Ladladisapplyingforaccreditationasasectoralpartyinthepartylistsystem.Evenassumingthatithas
properly proven its underrepresentation and marginalization, it cannot be said that Ladlads expressed
sexualorientationspersewouldbenefitthenationasawhole.

Section2ofthepartylistlawunequivocallystatesthatthepurposeofthepartylistsystemofelecting
congressional representatives is to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and under
representedsectors,organizationsandparties,andwholackwelldefinedpoliticalconstituenciesbutwho
couldcontributetotheformulationandenactmentofappropriatelegislationthatwillbenefitthenationasa
whole,tobecomemembersoftheHouseofRepresentatives.

If entry into the partylist system would depend only on the ability of an organization to represent its
constituencies,thenallrepresentativeorganizationswouldhavefoundthemselvesintothepartylistrace.
But that is not the intention of the framers of the law. The partylist system is not a tool to advocate
toleranceandacceptanceofmisunderstoodpersonsorgroupsofpersons.Rather,thepartylistsystemis
a tool for the realization of aspirations of marginalized individuals whose interests are also the
nationsonlythattheirinterestshavenotbeenbroughttotheattentionofthenationbecauseoftheirunder
representation. Until the time comes when Ladlad is able to justify that having mixed sexual
orientationsandtransgenderidentitiesisbeneficialtothenation,itsapplicationforaccreditation
underthepartylistsystemwillremainjustthat.

II.Nosubstantialdifferentiation

IntheUnitedStates, whose equal protection doctrine pervades Philippine jurisprudence, courts do not
recognize lesbians, gays, homosexuals, and bisexuals (LGBT) as a special class of individuals.x x x
Significantly,ithasalsobeenheldthathomosexualityisnotaconstitutionallyprotectedfundamentalright,
andthatnothingintheU.S.Constitutiondisclosesacomparableintenttoprotectorpromotethesocialor
legalequalityofhomosexualrelations,asinthecaseofraceorreligionorbelief.

xxxx

Thus,evenifsocietysunderstanding,tolerance,andacceptanceofLGBTsiselevated,therecanbeno
denying that Ladlad constituencies are still males and females, and they will remain either male or
femaleprotectedbythesameBillofRightsthatappliestoallcitizensalike.

xxxx

IV.PublicMorals

xxxThereisnoquestionaboutnotimposingonLadladChristianorMuslimreligiouspractices.Neither
is there any attempt to any particular religious groups moral rules on Ladlad. Rather, what are being

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 5/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

adopted as moral parameters and precepts are generally accepted public morals. They are possibly
religiousbased,butasasociety,thePhilippinescannotignoreitsmorethan500yearsofMuslimand
Christianupbringing,suchthatsomemoralpreceptsespousedbysaidreligionshavesipped[sic]
intosocietyandthesearenotpubliclyacceptedmoralnorms.

V.LegalProvisions

Butabovemoralityandsocialnorms,theyhavebecomepartofthelawoftheland.Article201ofthe
RevisedPenalCodeimposesthepenaltyofprisionmayoruponThosewhoshallpubliclyexpoundor
proclaimdoctrinesopenlycontrarytopublicmorals.Itpenalizesimmoraldoctrines,obscenepublications
andexhibitionandindecentshows.AngLadladapparentlyfallsundertheselegalprovisions.Thisisclear
fromitsPetitionsparagraph6F:Consensualpartnershipsorrelationshipsbygaysandlesbianswhoare
alreadyofageItisfurtherindicatedinpar.24ofthePetitionwhichwavesfortherecord:In2007,Men
HavingSexwithMenorMSMsinthePhilippineswereestimatedas670,000.Moreoever,Article694of
theCivilCodedefinesnuisanceasanyact,omissionxxxoranythingelsexxxwhichshocks,defiesor
[10]
disregardsdecencyormoralityxxx.Theseareallunlawful.


OnJanuary4,2010,AngLadlad filed this Petition, praying that the Court annul theAssailed
ResolutionsanddirecttheCOMELECtograntAngLadladsapplicationforaccreditation.AngLadlad
alsosoughttheissuanceexparteofapreliminarymandatoryinjunctionagainsttheCOMELEC,which
hadpreviouslyannouncedthatitwouldbeginprintingthefinalballotsfortheMay2010electionsby
January25,2010.

OnJanuary6,2010,weorderedtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)tofileitsCommenton
[11]
behalfofCOMELECnotlaterthan12:00noonofJanuary11,2010. InsteadoffilingaComment,
however,theOSGfiledaMotionforExtension,requestingthatitbegivenuntilJanuary16,2010to
[12]
Comment. Somewhat surprisingly, the OSG later filed a Comment in support of petitioners
[13]
application. Thus, in order to give COMELEC the opportunity to fully ventilate its position, we
[14]
required it to file its own comment. The COMELEC, through its Law Department, filed its
[15]
CommentonFebruary2,2010.

Inthemeantime,duetotheurgencyofthepetition,weissuedatemporaryrestrainingorderon
January12,2010,effectiveimmediatelyandcontinuinguntilfurtherordersfromthisCourt,directing
[16]
theCOMELECtoceaseanddesistfromimplementingtheAssailedResolutions.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 6/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

Also,onJanuary13,2010,theCommissiononHumanRights(CHR)filedaMotiontoIntervene
[17]
ortoAppearasAmicusCuriae,attachingtheretoitsCommentinIntervention. TheCHRopined
thatthedenialofAngLadladspetitiononmoralgroundsviolatedthestandardsandprinciplesofthe
Constitution,theUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(UDHR),andtheInternationalCovenanton
CivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR).OnJanuary19,2010,wegrantedtheCHRsmotiontointervene.

[18]
OnJanuary26,2010,EpifanioD.Salonga,Jr.filedhisMotiontoIntervene whichmotion
[19]
wasgrantedonFebruary2,2010.

ThePartiesArguments

AngLadladarguedthatthedenialofaccreditation,insofarasitjustifiedtheexclusionbyusing
religiousdogma,violatedtheconstitutionalguaranteesagainsttheestablishmentofreligion.Petitioner
alsoclaimedthattheAssailedResolutionscontraveneditsconstitutionalrightstoprivacy,freedomof
speechandassembly,andequalprotectionoflaws,aswellasconstitutedviolationsofthePhilippines
internationalobligationsagainstdiscriminationbasedonsexualorientation.

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.ItalsoopinedthatLGBTshavetheirownspecialinterestsandconcernswhichshouldhave
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
maintainedthattherehadbeennorestrictionsontheserights.

InitsComment,theCOMELECreiteratedthatpetitionerdoesnothaveaconcreteandgenuine
national political agenda to benefit the nation and that the petition was validly dismissed on moral
grounds.ItalsoarguedforthefirsttimethattheLGBTsectorisnotamongthesectorsenumeratedby
the Constitution and RA 7941, and that petitioner made untruthful statements in its petition when it
allegeditsnationalexistencecontrarytoactualverificationreportsbyCOMELECsfieldpersonnel.

OurRuling

Wegrantthepetition.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 7/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

CompliancewiththeRequirementsoftheConstitutionand
RepublicActNo.7941


TheCOMELECdeniedAngLadladsapplicationforregistrationonthegroundthattheLGBT
sectorisneitherenumeratedintheConstitutionandRA7941,norisitassociatedwithorrelatedtoany
ofthesectorsintheenumeration.

RespondentmistakenlyopinesthatourrulinginAngBagongBayanistandsfortheproposition
that only those sectors specifically enumerated in the law or related to said sectors (labor, peasant,
fisherfolk,urbanpoor,indigenousculturalcommunities,elderly,handicapped,women,youth,veterans,
overseas workers, and professionals) may be registered under the partylist system.As we explicitly
[20]
ruledinAngBagongBayaniOFWLaborPartyv.CommissiononElections, theenumerationof
marginalizedandunderrepresentedsectorsisnotexclusive.Thecrucialelementisnotwhetherasector
isspecificallyenumerated,butwhetheraparticularorganizationcomplieswiththerequirementsofthe
ConstitutionandRA7941.
Respondent also argues that Ang Ladlad made untruthful statements in its petition when it
alleged that it had nationwide existence through its members and affiliate organizations. The
COMELEC claims that upon verification by its field personnel, it was shown that save for a few
[21]
isolatedplacesinthecountry,petitionerdoesnotexistinalmostallprovincesinthecountry.
This argument that petitioner made untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged its
national existence is a new one previously, the COMELEC claimed that petitioner was not being
truthfulwhenitsaidthatitoranyofitsnominees/partylistrepresentativeshavenotviolatedorfailedto
complywithlaws,rules,orregulationsrelatingtotheelections.Nowherewasthisgroundfordenialof
petitionersaccreditationmentionedorevenalludedtointheAssailedResolutions.This,initself,isquite
curious,consideringthatthereportsofpetitionersallegednonexistencewerealreadyavailabletothe
COMELECpriortotheissuanceoftheFirstAssailedResolution.Atbest,thisisirregularprocedureat
worst,abelatedafterthought,achangeinrespondentstheory,andaseriousviolationofpetitionersright
toproceduraldueprocess.

Nonetheless,wefindthattherehasbeennomisrepresentation.AcursoryperusalofAngLadlads
initialpetitionshowsthatitneverclaimedtoexistineachprovinceofthePhilippines.Rather,petitioner
alleged that the LGBT community in the Philippines was estimated to constitute at least 670,000

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 8/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

persons that it had 16,100 affiliates and members around the country, and 4,044 members in its
[22]
electronic discussion group. AngLadlad also represented itself to be a national LGBT umbrella
organizationwithaffiliatesaroundthePhilippinescomposedofthefollowingLGBTnetworks:

AbraGayAssociation
AklanButterflyBrigade(ABB)Aklan
AlbayGayAssociation
ArtsCenterofCabanatuanCityNuevaEcija
BoysLegionMetroManila
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

SincetheCOMELEConlysearchedforthenamesANGLADLADLGBTorLADLADLGBT,it
is no surprise that they found that petitioner had no presence in any of these regions. In fact, if
COMELECs findings are to be believed, petitioner does not even exist in Quezon City, which is
registeredasAngLadladsprincipalplaceofbusiness.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 9/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

Against this backdrop, we find that Ang Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated its compliance
withthelegalrequirementsforaccreditation.Indeed,asidefromCOMELECsmoralobjectionandthe
belatedallegationofnonexistence,nowhereintherecordshastherespondenteverfound/ruledthatAng
LadladisnotqualifiedtoregisterasapartylistorganizationunderanyoftherequisitesunderRA7941
or the guidelines in Ang Bagong Bayani. The difference, COMELEC claims, lies in Ang Ladlads
morality,orlackthereof.

Religion as the Basis for Refusal to Accept Ang Ladlads
PetitionforRegistration


Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that [n]o law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. At bottom, what our non
[24]
establishmentclausecallsforisgovernmentneutralityinreligiousmatters. Clearly,governmental
[25]
relianceonreligiousjustificationisinconsistentwiththispolicyofneutrality. Wethusfindthatit
was grave violation of the nonestablishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the
KorantojustifytheexclusionofAngLadlad.

Ratherthanrelyingonreligiousbelief,thelegitimacyoftheAssailedResolutionsshoulddepend,
instead,onwhethertheCOMELECisabletoadvancesomejustificationforitsrulingsbeyondmere
conformity to religious doctrine. Otherwise stated, government must act for secular purposes and in
[26]
waysthathaveprimarilyseculareffects.AsweheldinEstradav.Escritor:

xxxThemoralityreferredtointhelawispublicandnecessarilysecular,notreligiousasthedissentofMr.
JusticeCarpioholds."Religiousteachingsasexpressedinpublicdebatemayinfluencethecivilpublic
orderbutpublicmoraldisputesmayberesolvedonlyongroundsarticulableinsecularterms."Otherwise,
ifgovernmentreliesuponreligiousbeliefsinformulatingpublicpoliciesandmorals,theresultingpolicies
andmoralswouldrequireconformitytowhatsomemightregardasreligiousprogramsoragenda.The
nonbelieverswouldthereforebecompelledtoconformtoastandardofconductbuttressedbyareligious
belief,i.e.,toa"compelledreligion,"anathematoreligiousfreedom.Likewise,ifgovernmentbasedits
actions upon religious beliefs, it would tacitly approve or endorse that belief and thereby also tacitly
disapprove contrary religious or nonreligious views that would not support the policy. As a result,
governmentwillnotprovidefullreligiousfreedomforallitscitizens,orevenmakeitappearthatthose
whosebeliefsaredisapprovedaresecondclasscitizens.
Inotherwords,governmentaction,includingitsproscriptionofimmoralityasexpressedincriminallaw
likeconcubinage,musthaveasecularpurpose.Thatis,thegovernmentproscribesthisconductbecauseit
is"detrimental(ordangerous)tothoseconditionsuponwhichdependtheexistenceandprogressofhuman
society"andnotbecausetheconductisproscribedbythebeliefsofonereligionortheother.Although
admittedly,moraljudgmentsbasedonreligionmighthaveacompellinginfluenceonthoseengagedin
public deliberations over what actions would be considered a moral disapprobation punishable by law.
Afterall,theymightalsobeadherentsofareligionandthushavereligiousopinionsandmoralcodeswith
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 10/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

a compelling influence on them the human mind endeavors to regulate the temporal and spiritual
institutionsofsocietyinauniformmanner,harmonizingearthwithheaven.Succinctlyput,alawcouldbe
religious or Kantian or Aquinian or utilitarian in its deepest roots, but it must have an articulable and
discerniblesecularpurposeandjustificationtopassscrutinyofthereligionclauses.xxxRecognizingthe
religiousnatureoftheFilipinosandtheelevatinginfluenceofreligioninsociety,however,thePhilippine
constitution's religion clauses prescribe not a strict but a benevolent neutrality. Benevolent neutrality
recognizesthatgovernmentmustpursueitsseculargoalsandinterestsbutatthesametimestrivetouphold
religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits. Thus, although the
morality contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of
[27]
moralitybasedonreligion,provideditdoesnotoffendcompellingstateinterests.


PublicMoralsasaGroundtoDenyAngLadladsPetitionfor
Registration


Respondentsuggeststhatalthoughthemoralcondemnationofhomosexualityandhomosexual
conductmaybereligionbased,ithaslongbeentransplantedintogenerallyacceptedpublicmorals.The
COMELECargues:

PetitionersaccreditationwasdeniednotnecessarilybecausetheirgroupconsistsofLGBTsbutbecauseof
thedangeritposestothepeopleespeciallytheyouth.Onceitisrecognizedbythegovernment,asector
whichbelievesthatthereisnothingwronginhavingsexualrelationswithindividualsofthesamegenderis
abadexample.Itwillbringdownthestandardofmoralswecherishinourcivilizedsociety.Anysociety
[28]
withoutasetofmoralpreceptsisindangeroflosingitsownexistence.


We are not blind to the fact that, through the years, homosexual conduct, and perhaps
homosexualsthemselves,havebornethebruntofsocietaldisapproval.Itisnotdifficulttoimaginethe
reasonsbehindthiscensurereligiousbeliefs,convictionsaboutthepreservationofmarriage,family,and
procreation, even dislike or distrust of homosexuals themselves and their perceived lifestyle.
Nonetheless, we recall that the Philippines has not seen fit to criminalize homosexual conduct.
Evidently,therefore,thesegenerallyacceptedpublicmoralshavenotbeenconvincinglytransplanted
[29]
intotherealmoflaw.

TheAssailedResolutionshavenotidentifiedanyspecificovertimmoralactperformedbyAngLadlad.
EventheOSGagreesthatthereshouldhavebeenafindingbytheCOMELECthatthegroupsmembers
[30]
havecommittedorarecommittingimmoralacts. TheOSGargues:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 11/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

xxxApersonmaybesexuallyattractedtoapersonofthesamegender,ofadifferentgender,ormore
thanonegender,butmereattractiondoesnottranslatetoimmoralacts.Thereisagreatdividebetween
thoughtandaction.Reductionadabsurdum.Ifimmoralthoughtscouldbepenalized,COMELECwould
haveitshandsfullofdisqualificationcasesagainstboththestraightsandthegays.Certainlythisisnotthe
[31]
intendmentofthelaw.


Respondenthasfailedtoexplainwhatsocietalillsaresoughttobeprevented,orwhyspecial
protectionisrequiredfortheyouth.NeitherhastheCOMELECcondescendedtojustifyitspositionthat
petitionersadmissionintothepartylistsystemwouldbesoharmfulastoirreparablydamagethemoral
fabricofsociety.We, of course, do not suggest that the state is wholly without authority to regulate
mattersconcerningmorality,sexuality,andsexualrelations,andwerecognizethatthegovernmentwill
and should continue to restrict behavior considered detrimental to society. Nonetheless, we cannot
countenanceadvocateswho,undoubtedlywiththeloftiestofintentions,situatemoralityononeendof
anargumentoranother,withoutbotheringtogothroughtherigorsoflegalreasoningandexplanation.
Inthis,thenotionofmoralityisrobbedofallvalue.Clearlythen,thebareinvocationofmoralitywill
notremoveanissuefromourscrutiny.

We also find the COMELECs reference to purported violations of our penal and civil laws
flimsy, at best disingenuous, at worst. Article 694 of the Civil Code defines a nuisance as any act,
omission, establishment, condition of property, or anything else which shocks, defies, or disregards
decencyormorality,theremediesforwhichareaprosecutionundertheRevisedPenalCodeorany
[32]
localordinance,acivilaction,orabatementwithoutjudicialproceedings. AviolationofArticle201
of the Revised Penal Code, on the other hand, requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to support a
criminalconviction.Ithardlyneedstobeemphasizedthatmereallegationofviolationoflawsisnot
proof,andamereblanketinvocationofpublicmoralscannotreplacetheinstitutionofcivilorcriminal
proceedingsandajudicialdeterminationofliabilityorculpability.
Assuch,weholdthatmoraldisapproval,withoutmore,isnotasufficientgovernmentalinterest
to justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation in the partylist system. The denial of Ang
Ladladsregistrationonpurelymoralgroundsamountsmoretoastatementofdislikeanddisapprovalof
homosexuals, rather than a tool to further any substantial public interest. Respondents blanket
justificationsgiverisetotheinevitableconclusionthattheCOMELECtargetshomosexualsthemselves
as a class, not because of any particular morally reprehensible act. It is this selective targeting that
implicatesourequalprotectionclause.

EqualProtection
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 12/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

DespitetheabsolutismofArticleIII,Section1ofourConstitution,whichprovidesnorshallany
personbedeniedequalprotectionofthelaws,courtshaveneverinterpretedtheprovisionasanabsolute
prohibitiononclassification.Equality,saidAristotle,consistsinthesametreatmentofsimilarpersons.
[33]
Theequalprotectionclauseguaranteesthatnopersonorclassofpersonsshallbedeprivedofthe
sameprotectionoflawswhichisenjoyedbyotherpersonsorotherclassesinthesameplaceandinlike
[34]
circumstances.

Recentjurisprudencehasaffirmedthatifalawneitherburdensafundamentalrightnortargetsasuspect
class, we will uphold the classification as long as it bears a rational relationship to some legitimate
[35] [36]
governmentend. InCentralBankEmployeesAssociation,Inc.v.BankoSentralngPilipinas,
wedeclaredthat[i]nourjurisdiction,thestandardofanalysisofequalprotectionchallengesxxxhave
followed the rational basis test, coupled with a deferential attitude to legislative classifications and a
reluctance to invalidate a law unless there is a showing of a clear and unequivocal breach of the
[37]
Constitution.

The COMELEC posits that the majority of the Philippine population considers homosexual
conductasimmoralandunacceptable,andthisconstitutessufficientreasontodisqualifythepetitioner.
Unfortunatelyfortherespondent,thePhilippineelectoratehasexpressednosuchbelief.Nolawexists
tocriminalizehomosexualbehaviororexpressionsorpartiesabouthomosexualbehavior.Indeed,even
ifweweretoassumethatpublicopinionisastheCOMELECdescribesit,theassertedstateinterest
herethatis,moraldisapprovalofanunpopularminorityisnotalegitimatestateinterestthatissufficient
tosatisfyrationalbasisreviewundertheequalprotectionclause.TheCOMELECsdifferentiation,and
itsunsubstantiatedclaimthatAngLadladcannotcontributetotheformulationoflegislationthatwould
benefit the nation, furthers no legitimate state interest other than disapproval of or dislike for a
disfavoredgroup.

Fromthestandpointofthepoliticalprocess,thelesbian,gay,bisexual,andtransgenderhavethe
sameinterestinparticipatinginthepartylistsystemonthesamebasisasotherpoliticalpartiessimilarly
situated.Stateintrusioninthiscaseisequallyburdensome.Hence,lawsofgeneralapplicationshould
applywithequalforcetoLGBTs,andtheydeservetoparticipateinthepartylistsystemonthesame
basisasothermarginalizedandunderrepresentedsectors.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 13/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

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
distinguishingbetweenheterosexualsandhomosexualsunderdifferentcircumstanceswouldsimilarly
fail.WedisagreewiththeOSGspositionthathomosexualsareaclassinthemselvesforthepurposesof
[38]
the equal protection clause. We are not prepared to single out homosexuals as a separate class
meritingspecialordifferentiatedtreatment.Wehavenotreceivedsufficientevidencetothiseffect,and
itissimplyunnecessarytomakesucharulingtoday.Petitioneritselfhasmerelydemandedthatitbe
recognizedunderthesamebasisasallothergroupssimilarlysituated,andthattheCOMELECmadean
unwarrantedandimpermissibleclassificationnotjustifiedbythecircumstancesofthecase.

FreedomofExpressionandAssociation

Under our system of laws, every group has the right to promote its agenda and attempt to
[39]
persuadesocietyofthevalidityofitspositionthroughnormaldemocraticmeans. Itisinthepublic
squarethatdeeplyheldconvictionsanddifferingopinionsshouldbedistilledanddeliberatedupon.As
[40]
weheldinEstradav.Escritor:

In a democracy, this common agreement on political and moral ideas is distilled in the public square.
Wherecitizensarefree,everyopinion,everyprejudice,everyaspiration,andeverymoraldiscernmenthas
accesstothepublicsquarewherepeopledeliberatetheorderoftheirlifetogether.Citizensarethebearers
ofopinion,includingopinionshapedby,orespousingreligiousbelief,andthesecitizenshaveequalaccess
to the public square. In this representative democracy, the state is prohibited from determining which
convictions and moral judgments may be proposed for public deliberation. Through a constitutionally
designedprocess,thepeopledeliberateanddecide.Majorityruleisanecessaryprincipleinthisdemocratic
governance.Thus,whenpublicdeliberationonmoraljudgmentsisfinallycrystallizedintolaw,thelaws
will largely reflect the beliefs and preferences of the majority, i.e., the mainstream or median groups.
Nevertheless,intheveryactofadoptingandacceptingaconstitutionandthelimitsitspecifiesincluding
protectionofreligiousfreedom"notonlyforaminority,howeversmallnotonlyforamajority,however
largebutforeachofus"themajorityimposesuponitselfaselfdenyingordinance.Itpromisesnottodo
whatitotherwisecoulddo:torideroughshodoverthedissentingminorities.


Freedomofexpressionconstitutesoneoftheessentialfoundationsofademocraticsociety,and
thisfreedomappliesnotonlytothosethatarefavorablyreceivedbutalsotothosethatoffend,shock,or
disturb. Any restriction imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
Absentanycompellingstateinterest,itisnotfortheCOMELECorthisCourttoimposeitsviewson
thepopulace.Otherwisestated,theCOMELECiscertainlynotfreetointerferewithspeechfornobetter
reasonthanpromotinganapprovedmessageordiscouragingadisfavoredone.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 14/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

Thispositiongainsevenmoreforceifoneconsidersthathomosexualconductisnotillegalinthis
country.Itfollowsthatbothexpressionsconcerningoneshomosexualityandtheactivityofforminga
politicalassociationthatsupportsLGBTindividualsareprotectedaswell.
Other jurisdictions have gone so far as to categorically rule that even overwhelming public
perception that homosexual conduct violates public morality does not justify criminalizing samesex
[41]
conduct. EuropeanandUnitedNationsjudicialdecisionshaveruledinfavorofgayrightsclaimants
onbothprivacyandequalitygrounds,citinggeneralprivacyandequalprotectionprovisionsinforeign
[42]
andinternationaltexts. Totheextentthatthereismuchtolearnfromotherjurisdictionsthathave
reflected on the issues we face here, such jurisprudence is certainly illuminating. These foreign
authorities,whilenotformallybindingonPhilippinecourts,mayneverthelesshavepersuasiveinfluence
ontheCourtsanalysis.

Intheareaoffreedomofexpression,forinstance,UnitedStatescourtshaveruledthatexisting
free speech doctrines protect gay and lesbian rights to expressive conduct. In order to justify the
prohibitionofaparticularexpressionofopinion,publicinstitutionsmustshowthattheiractionswere
causedbysomethingmorethanameredesiretoavoidthediscomfortandunpleasantnessthatalways
[43]
accompanyanunpopularviewpoint.

Withrespecttofreedomofassociationfortheadvancementofideasandbeliefs,inEurope,with
itsvibranthumanrightstradition,theEuropeanCourtofHumanRights(ECHR)hasrepeatedlystated
thatapoliticalpartymaycampaignforachangeinthelawortheconstitutionalstructuresofastateifit
useslegalanddemocraticmeansandthechangesitproposesareconsistentwithdemocraticprinciples.
TheECHRhasemphasizedthatpoliticalideasthatchallengetheexistingorderandwhoserealizationis
advocatedbypeacefulmeansmustbeaffordedaproperopportunityofexpressionthroughtheexercise
oftherightofassociation,evenifsuchideasmayseemshockingorunacceptabletotheauthoritiesor
[44]
themajorityofthepopulation. Apoliticalgroupshouldnotbehinderedsolelybecauseitseeksto
publiclydebatecontroversialpoliticalissuesinordertofindsolutionscapableofsatisfyingeveryone
[45]
concerned. Onlyifapoliticalpartyincitesviolenceorputsforwardpoliciesthatareincompatible
[46]
withdemocracydoesitfalloutsidetheprotectionofthefreedomofassociationguarantee.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 15/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

We do not doubt that a number of our citizens may believe that homosexual conduct is
distasteful,offensive,orevendefiant.Theyareentitledtoholdandexpressthatview.Ontheotherhand,
LGBTs and their supporters, in all likelihood, believe with equal fervor that relationships between
individualsofthesamesexaremorallyequivalenttoheterosexualrelationships.They,too,areentitled
to hold and express that view.However, as far as this Court is concerned, our democracy precludes
using the religious or moral views of one part of the community to exclude from consideration the
valuesofothermembersofthecommunity.

Ofcourse,noneofthissuggeststheimpendingarrivalofagoldenageforgayrightslitigants.Itwell
maybethatthisDecisionwillonlyservetohighlightthediscrepancybetweentherigidconstitutional
analysis of this Court and the more complex moral sentiments of Filipinos. We do not suggest that
publicopinion,evenatitsmostliberal,reflectaclearcutstrongconsensusfavorabletogayrightsclaims
and we neither attempt nor expect to affect individual perceptions of homosexuality through this
Decision.

TheOSGarguesthatsincetherehasbeenneitherpriorrestraintnorsubsequentpunishmentimposedon
AngLadlad,anditsmembershavenotbeendeprivedoftheirrighttovoluntarilyassociate,thenthere
hasbeennorestrictionontheirfreedomofexpressionorassociation.TheOSGarguesthat:

Therewasnoutterancerestricted,nopublicationcensored,oranyassemblydenied.[COMELEC]simply
exerciseditsauthoritytoreviewandverifythequalificationsofpetitionerasasectoralpartyapplyingto
participateinthepartylistsystem.Thislawfulexerciseofdutycannotbesaidtobeatransgressionof
Section4,ArticleIIIoftheConstitution.

xxxx

Adenialofthepetitionforregistrationxxxdoesnotdeprivethemembersofthepetitionertofreelytake
partintheconductofelections.Theirrighttovotewillnotbehamperedbysaiddenial.Infact,therightto
voteisaconstitutionallyguaranteedrightwhichcannotbelimited.

As to its right to be elected in a genuine periodic election, petitioner contends that the denial of Ang
Ladladspetitionhastheclearandimmediateeffectoflimiting,ifnotoutrightlynullifyingthecapacityof
itsmemberstofullyandequallyparticipateinpubliclifethroughengagementinthepartylistelections.

Thisargumentispuerile.Theholdingofapublicofficeisnotarightbutaprivilegesubjectto
[47]
limitationsimposedbylaw.xxx
TheOSGfailstorecallthatpetitionerhas,infact,establisheditsqualificationstoparticipatein
thepartylistsystem,andasadvancedbytheOSGitselfthemoralobjectionofferedbytheCOMELEC
wasnotalimitationimposedbylaw.Totheextent,therefore,thatthepetitionerhasbeenprecluded,
becauseofCOMELECsaction,frompubliclyexpressingitsviewsasapoliticalpartyandparticipating

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 16/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

onanequalbasisinthepoliticalprocesswithotherequallyqualifiedpartylistcandidates,wefindthat
therehas,indeed,beenatransgressionofpetitionersfundamentalrights.

NonDiscriminationandInternationalLaw


Inanagethathasseeninternationallawevolvegeometricallyinscopeandpromise,international
humanrightslaw,inparticular,hasgrowndynamicallyinitsattempttobringaboutamorejustand
humaneworldorder.Forindividualsandgroupsstrugglingwithinadequatestructuralandgovernmental
support,internationalhumanrightsnormsareparticularlysignificant,andshouldbeeffectivelyenforced
in domestic legal systems so that such norms may become actual, rather than ideal, standards of
conduct.

OurDecisiontodayisfullyinaccordwithourinternationalobligationstoprotectandpromote
humanrights.Inparticular,weexplicitlyrecognizetheprincipleofnondiscriminationasitrelatestothe
righttoelectoralparticipation,enunciatedintheUDHRandtheICCPR.

TheprincipleofnondiscriminationislaidoutinArticle26oftheICCPR,asfollows:

Article26

Allpersonsareequalbeforethelawandareentitledwithoutanydiscriminationtotheequalprotectionof
thelaw.Inthisrespect,thelawshallprohibitanydiscriminationandguaranteetoallpersonsequaland
effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
politicalorotheropinion,nationalorsocialorigin,property,birthorotherstatus.


In this context, the principle of nondiscrimination requires that laws of general application
relatingtoelectionsbeappliedequallytoallpersons,regardlessofsexualorientation.Althoughsexual
orientation is not specifically enumerated as a status or ratio for discrimination in Article 26 of the
ICCPR,theICCPRHumanRightsCommitteehasopinedthatthereferencetosexinArticle26should
[48]
beconstruedtoincludesexualorientation. Additionally,avarietyofUnitedNationsbodieshave
declareddiscriminationonthebasisofsexualorientationtobeprohibitedundervariousinternational
[49]
agreements.

TheUDHRprovides:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 17/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

Article21.

(1)Everyonehastherighttotakepartinthegovernmentofhiscountry,directlyorthroughfreely
chosenrepresentatives.
Likewise,theICCPRstates:

Article25
Everycitizenshallhavetherightandtheopportunity,withoutanyofthedistinctionsmentionedin
article2andwithoutunreasonablerestrictions:

(a)Totakepartintheconductofpublicaffairs,directlyorthroughfreelychosenrepresentatives

(b)Tovoteandtobeelectedatgenuineperiodicelectionswhichshallbebyuniversalandequal
suffrageandshallbeheldbysecretballot,guaranteeingthefreeexpressionofthewilloftheelectors

(c)Tohaveaccess,ongeneraltermsofequality,topublicserviceinhiscountry.


AsstatedbytheCHRinitsCommentinIntervention,thescopeoftherighttoelectoralparticipationis
elaboratedbytheHumanRightsCommitteeinitsGeneralCommentNo.25(ParticipationinPublic
AffairsandtheRighttoVote)asfollows:

1.Article25oftheCovenantrecognizesandprotectstherightofeverycitizentotakepartinthe
conductofpublicaffairs,therighttovoteandtobeelectedandtherighttohaveaccesstopublicservice.
Whatever form of constitution or government is in force, the Covenant requires States to adopt such
legislativeandothermeasuresasmaybenecessarytoensurethatcitizenshaveaneffectiveopportunityto
enjoytherightsitprotects.Article25liesatthecoreofdemocraticgovernmentbasedontheconsentofthe
peopleandinconformitywiththeprinciplesoftheCovenant.

xxxx

15. The effective implementation of the right and the opportunity to stand for elective office
ensuresthatpersonsentitledtovotehaveafreechoiceofcandidates.Anyrestrictionsontherighttostand
forelection,suchasminimumage,mustbejustifiableonobjectiveandreasonablecriteria.Personswho
are otherwise eligible to stand for election should not be excluded by unreasonable or discriminatory
requirementssuchaseducation,residenceordescent,orbyreasonofpoliticalaffiliation.Nopersonshould
sufferdiscriminationordisadvantageofanykindbecauseofthatperson'scandidacy.Statespartiesshould
indicate and explain the legislative provisions which exclude any group or category of persons from
[50]
electiveoffice.

Westress,however,thatalthoughthisCourtstandswillingtoassumetheresponsibilityofgiving
effecttothePhilippinesinternationallawobligations,theblanketinvocationofinternationallawisnot
thepanaceaforallsocialills.WerefernowtothepetitionersinvocationoftheYogyakartaPrinciples
(the Application of International Human Rights Law In Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender
[51]
Identity), whichpetitionerdeclarestoreflectbindingprinciplesofinternationallaw.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 18/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

Atthistime,wearenotpreparedtodeclarethattheseYogyakartaPrinciplescontainnormsthat
are obligatory on the Philippines. 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
sourcesofinternationallawenumeratedunderArticle38(1)oftheStatuteoftheInternationalCourtof
[52]
Justice. Petitionerhasnotundertakenanyobjectiveandrigorousanalysisoftheseallegedprinciples
ofinternationallawtoascertaintheirtruestatus.

Wealsohastentoaddthatnoteverythingthatsocietyoracertainsegmentofsocietywantsor
demandsisautomaticallyahumanright.Thisisnotanarbitraryhumaninterventionthatmaybeadded
toorsubtractedfromatwill.Itisunfortunatethatmuchofwhatpassesforhumanrightstodayisamuch
broader context of needs that identifies many social desires as rights in order to further claims that
internationallawobligesstatestosanctiontheseinnovations.Thishastheeffectofdilutingrealhuman
rights,andisaresultofthenotionthatifwantsarecouchedinrightslanguage,thentheyarenolonger
controversial.

Usingeventhemostliberaloflenses,theseYogyakartaPrinciples,consistingofadeclaration
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
internationalcooperation,harmony,andrespectforhumanrights,mostofwhichamounttonomore
[53]
thanwellmeaningdesires,withoutthesupportofeitherStatepracticeoropiniojuris.

As a final note, we cannot help but observe that the social issues presented by this case are
emotionallycharged,societalattitudesareinflux,eventhepsychiatricandreligiouscommunitiesare
dividedinopinion.ThisCourtsroleisnottoimposeitsownviewofacceptablebehavior.Rather,itisto
applytheConstitutionandlawsasbestasitcan,uninfluencedbypublicopinion,andconfidentinthe
knowledgethatourdemocracyisresilientenoughtowithstandvigorousdebate.

WHEREFORE,thePetitionisherebyGRANTED.TheResolutionsoftheCommissiononElections
datedNovember11,2009andDecember16,2009inSPPNo.09228(PL)areherebySETASIDE.
TheCommissiononElectionsisdirectedtoGRANTpetitionersapplicationforpartylistaccreditation.
SOORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 19/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:


REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice





ANTONIOT.CARPIO RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice





NCHITACARPIOMORALES PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice





TONIOEDUARDOB.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 20/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR. JOSEP.PEREZ
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice





JOSEC.MENDOZA
AssociateJustice





CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsinthe
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinionoftheCourt.


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,andworkforthepassageintolawoflegislativemeasuresunderthefollowing
platformofgovernment:
a)introductionandsupportforanantidiscriminationbillthatwillensureequalrightsforLGBTsinemploymentandcivillife
b)supportforLGBTrelatedandLGBTfriendlybusinessesthatwillcontributetothenationaleconomy
c)settingupofmicrofinanceandlivelihoodprojectsforpoorandphysicallychallengedLGBTFilipinos
d)settingupofcarecentersthatwilltakecareofthemedical,legal,pension,andotherneedsofoldandabandonedLGBTs.Thesecenters
willbesetupinitiallyinthekeycitiesofthecountryand
e)introductionandsupportforbillsseekingtherepealoflawsusedtoharassandlegitimizeextortionagainsttheLGBTcommunity.Rollo,
p.100.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 21/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582
[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.
[20]
Supranote6.
[21]
ItappearsthatonSeptember4,2009,theSecondDivisiondirectedthevariousCOMELECRegionalOfficestoverifytheexistence,status,and
capacityofpetitioner.InitsComment,respondentsubmittedcopiesofvariousreportsstatingthatANGLADLADLGBTorLADLADLGBT
didnotexistinthefollowingareas:Batangas(October6,2009)Romblon(October6,2009)Palawan(October16,2009)Sorsogon(September
29,2009)Cavite,Marinduque,Rizal(October12,2009)Basilan,Maguindanao,LanaodelSur,Sulu,TawiTawi(October19,2009)Biliran,
Leyte, Southern Leyte, Samar, Eastern Samar, Northern Samar (October 19, 2009) Albay, Camarines Sur, Camarines Norte, Catanduanes,
Masbate,Sorsogon(October25,2009)IlocosSur,IlocosNorte,LaUnion,Pangasinan(October23,2009)NorthCotabato,Sarangani,South
Cotabato,SultanKudarat(October23,2009)Aklan,Antique,IloiloandNegrosOccidental(October25,2009)Bohol,Cebu,Siquijor(October
24, 2009) Negros Oriental (October 26, 2009) CordilleraAdministrative Region (October 30, 2009) Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur,
DinagatIslands,SurigaodelNorte,SurigaodelSur(October26,2009)CagayandeOro,Bukidnon,Camiguin,MIsamisOriental,Lanaodel
Norte(October31,2009)Laguna(November2,2009)OccidentalMindoro,OrientalMindoro(November13,2009)Quezon(November24,
2009)DavaoCity,DavaodelSur,DavaodelNorte,CompostelaValley,DavaoOriental(November19,2009)Caloocan,LasPinas,Makati,
Mandaluyong,Manila,Marikina,Muntinlupa,Navotas,Paranaque,Pasay,Pasig,Pateros,QuezonCity,SanJuan,Taguig,Valenzuela(December
16,2009).Rollo,pp.323596.
[22]
Id.at96.
[23]
Id.at9697.
[24]
BERNAS,THE1987CONSTITUTIONOFTHEPHILIPPINES:ACOMMENTARY346(2009).
[25]
Estrada v. Escritor, 455 Phil. 411 (2003), citing Smith, S., "The Rise and Fall of Religious Freedom in Constitutional Discourse", 140
UNIVERSITYOFPENNSYLVANIALAWREVIEW,149,160(1991).
[26]
455Phil.411(2003).
[27]
Id.at588589.
[28]
Rollo,p.315.
[29]
InAnonymousv.Radam,A.M.No.P072333,December19,2007,541SCRA12,citingConcernedEmployeev.Mayor,A.M.No.P021564,
23November2004,443SCRA448,weruledthatimmoralitycannotbejudgedbasedonpersonalbias,specificallythosecoloredbyparticular
mores.Norshoulditbegroundedon"cultural"valuesnotconvincinglydemonstratedtohavebeenrecognizedintherealmofpublicpolicy
expressedintheConstitutionandthelaws.Atthesametime,theconstitutionallyguaranteedrights(suchastherighttoprivacy)shouldbe
observedtotheextentthattheyprotectbehaviorthatmaybefrowneduponbythemajority.
[30]
Rollo,pp.178.
[31]
Id.at179180.
[32]
CIVILCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Art.699.
[33]
POLITICSVII.14.
[34]
AbakadaGuroPartyv.ExecutiveSecretary,G.R.No.168056,September1,2005,2005,469SCRA1,139.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 22/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582
[35]
InBERNAS,THE1987CONSTITUTIONOFTHEPHILIPPINES:ACOMMENTARY139140(2009),Fr.JoaquinBernas,S.J.writes:
Fordeterminingthereasonablenessofclassification,laterjurisprudencehasdevelopedthreekindsoftest[s]dependingonthesubject
matterinvolved.Themostdemandingisthestrictscrutinytestwhichrequiresthegovernmenttoshowthatthechallengedclassification
servesacompellingstateinterestandthattheclassificationisnecessarytoservethatinterest.This[case]isusedincasesinvolving
classificationsbasedonrace,nationalorigin,religion,alienage,denialoftherighttovote,interstatemigration,accesstocourts,and
otherrightsrecognizedasfundamental.
Nextistheintermediateormiddletierscrutinytestwhichrequiresgovernmenttoshowthatthechallengedclassificationservesanimportant
stateinterestandthattheclassificationisatleastsubstantiallyrelatedtoservingthatinterest.Thisisappliedtosuspectclassifications
likegenderorillegitimacy.
Themostliberalistheminimumorrationalbasisscrutinyaccordingtowhichgovernmentneedonlyshowthatthechallengedclassification
isrationallyrelatedtoservingalegitimatestateinterest.Thisisthetraditionalrationalitytestanditappliestoallsubjectsotherthan
thoselistedabove.
[36]
487Phil.531,583(2004).
[37]
Id.at584.SeealsoMidStatesFreightLinesv.Bates,111N.Y.S.2d568.
[38]
TheOSGarguesthat[w]hileitistruethatLGBTsareimmutablymalesandfemales,andtheyareprotectedbythesameBillofRightsthat
appliestoallcitizensalike,itcannotbedeniedthatasasector,LGBTshavetheirownspecialinterestsandconcerns.Rollo,p.183.
[39]
ArticleIII,Section4oftheConstitutionprovidesthat[n]olawshallbepassedabridgingthefreedomofspeech,ofexpression,orofthepress,or
therightofthepeoplepeaceablytoassembleandpetitionthegovernmentforredressofgrievances.
[40]
Supranote26.
[41]
InBowersv.Hardwick,478U.S.186(1986),theUSSupremeCourtfirstupheldtheconstitutionalityofaGeorgiasodomylawthatcriminalized
oralandanalsexinprivatebetweenconsentingadultswhenappliedtohomosexuals.SeventeenyearslatertheSupremeCourtdirectlyoverruled
BowersinLawrencev.Texas,539U.S.558(2003),holdingthat"Bowerswasnotcorrectwhenitwasdecided,anditisnotcorrecttoday."
InLawrence,theUSSupremeCourthasheldthatthelibertyprotectedbytheConstitutionallowshomosexualpersonstherighttochoosetoenterinto
intimaterelationships,whetherornotsaidrelationshipswereentitledtoformalorlegalrecognition.
Ourpriorcasesmaketwopropositionsabundantlyclear.First,thefactthatthegoverningmajorityinaStatehastraditionallyvieweda
particularpracticeasimmoralisnotasufficientreasonforupholdingalawprohibitingthepracticeneitherhistorynortraditioncouldsavealaw
prohibitingmiscegenationfromconstitutionalattack.Second,individualdecisionsbymarriedpersons,concerningtheintimaciesoftheirphysical
relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.Moreover,thisprotectionextendstointimatechoicesbyunmarriedaswellasmarriedpersons.
Thepresentcasedoesnotinvolveminors.Itdoesnotinvolvepersonswhomightbeinjuredorcoercedorwhoaresituatedinrelationships
whereconsentmightnoteasilyberefused.Itdoesnotinvolvepublicconductorprostitution.Itdoesnotinvolvewhetherthegovernmentmust
giveformalrecognitiontoanyrelationshipthathomosexualpersonsseektoenter.Thecasedoesinvolvetwoadultswho,withfullandmutual
consentfromeachother,engagedinsexualpracticescommontoahomosexuallifestyle.Thepetitionersareentitledtorespectfortheirprivate
lives.TheStatecannotdemeantheirexistenceorcontroltheirdestinybymakingtheirprivatesexualconductacrime.Theirrighttolibertyunder
the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. It is a promise of the
Constitutionthatthereisarealmofpersonallibertywhichthegovernmentmaynotenter.TheTexasstatutefurthersnolegitimatestateinterest
whichcanjustifyitsintrusionintothepersonalandprivatelifeoftheindividual.
Insimilarfashion,theEuropeanCourtofHumanRightshasruledthattheavowedstateinterestinprotectingpublicmoralsdidnotjustifyinterference
intoprivateactsbetweenhomosexuals.InNorrisv.Ireland,theEuropeanCourtheldthatlawscriminalizingsamesexsexualconductviolated
therighttoprivacyenshrinedintheEuropeanConvention.
TheGovernmentareineffectsayingthattheCourtisprecludedfromreviewingIrelandsobservanceofitsobligationnottoexceedwhatisnecessary
inademocraticsocietywhenthecontestedinterferencewithanArticle8(Art.8)rightisintheinterestsofthe"protectionofmorals".TheCourt
cannotacceptsuchaninterpretation.xxx.
xxxThepresentcaseconcernsamostintimateaspectofprivatelife.Accordingly,theremustexistparticularlyseriousreasonsbefore
interferencesonthepartofpublicauthoritiescanbelegitimatexxx.
xxxAlthoughmembersofthepublicwhoregardhomosexualityasimmoralmaybeshocked,offendedordisturbedbythecommissionby
othersofprivatehomosexualacts,thiscannotonitsownwarranttheapplicationofpenalsanctionswhenitisconsentingadultsalonewhoare
involved.(Norrisv.Ireland(judgmentofOctober26,1988,SeriesAno.142,pp.2021,46)Marangosv.Cyprus(applicationno.31106/96,
Commission'sreportof3December1997,unpublished)).
TheUnitedNationsHumanRightsCommitteecametoasimilarconclusioninToonenv.Australia(Comm.No.488/1992U.N.GAORHum.Rts.
Comm., 50th Sess., U.N. Doc. CCPR/c/50/D/488/1992 (1994)), involving a complaint that Tasmanian laws criminalizing consensual sex
betweenadultmalesviolatedtherighttoprivacyunderArticle17oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.TheCommittee
held:
xxxitisundisputedthatadultconsensualsexualactivityinprivateiscoveredbytheconceptofprivacyxxxanyinterferencewithprivacy
mustbeproportionaltotheendsoughtandbenecessaryinthecircumstancesofanygivencase.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 23/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582
[42]
See Toonen v. Australia, (Comm. No. 488/1992 U.N. GAOR Hum. Rts. Comm., 50th Sess., U.N. Doc. CCPR/c/50/D/488/1992 (1994))
Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, 45 Eur. H.R. Rep. 52 (1981) (decision by the European Court of Human Rights, construing the European
ConventiononHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedoms)Norrisv.Ireland,13Eur.Ct.H.R.186(1991)Modinosv.Cyprus,16Eur.H.R.Rep.
485(1993).Seealso,L.andV.vAustria(2003I29(2003)36EHRR55)andS.L.vAustria(2003I71(2003)37EHRR39), where the
EuropeanCourtconsideredthatAustriasdifferingageofconsentforheterosexualandhomosexualrelationswasdiscriminatoryitembodieda
predisposedbiasonthepartofaheterosexualmajorityagainstahomosexualminority,whichcouldnotamounttosufficientjustificationforthe
differentialtreatmentanymorethansimilarnegativeattitudestowardsthoseofadifferentrace,originorcolour.
[43]
SeeFrickev.Lynch,491F.Supp.381(1980)andGayStudentServicesv.TexasA&MUniversity,737F.2d1317(1984).
[44]
CaseoftheUnitedMacedonianOrganisationIlindenandOthersv.BulgariaApplicationNo.5941/00JudgmentofJanuary20,2006.Notethatin
BaczkowskiandOthersv.Poland,ApplicationNo.1543/06JudgmentofMay3,2007,theECHRunanimouslyruledthatthebanningofanLGBT
gayparadeinWarsawwasadiscriminatoryviolationofArticle14oftheECHR,whichprovides:
Theenjoymentoftherightsandfreedomssetforthin[the]Conventionshallbesecuredwithoutdiscriminationonanygroundsuchassex,
race,colour,language,religion,politicalorotheropinion,nationalorsocialorigin,associationwithanationalminority,property,birthor
otherstatus.
ItalsofoundthatbanningLGBTparadesviolatedthegroupsfreedomofassemblyandassociation.Referringtothehallmarks
ofademocraticsociety,theCourthasattachedparticularimportancetopluralism,toleranceandbroadmindedness.Inthat
context,ithasheldthatalthoughindividualinterestsmustonoccasionbesubordinatedtothoseofagroup,democracy
doesnotsimplymeanthattheviewsofthemajoritymustalwaysprevail:abalancemustbeachievedwhichensuresthe
fairandpropertreatmentofminoritiesandavoidsanyabuseofadominantposition.
[45]
CaseofFreedom&DemocracyParty(OZDEP)v.Turkey,ApplicationNo.23885/94JudgmentofDecember8,1999.
[46]
Article11oftheEuropeanConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedoms(EuropeanConvention)provides:
1.Everyonehastherighttofreedomofpeacefulassemblyandtofreedomofassociationwithothers,includingtherighttoformandtojointrade
unionsfortheprotectionofhisinterests.
2.Norestrictionsshallbeplacedontheexerciseoftheserightsotherthansuchasareprescribedbylawandarenecessaryinademocraticsocietyinthe
interestsofnationalsecurityorpublicsafety,forthepreventionofdisorderorcrime,fortheprotectionofhealthormoralsorfortheprotectionof
therightsandfreedomsofothers.Thisarticleshallnotpreventtheimpositionoflawfulrestrictionsontheexerciseoftheserightsbymembersof
thearmedforces,ofthepoliceoroftheadministrationoftheState.ConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedoms,
213U.N.T.S.222,enteredintoforceSeptember3,1953,asamendedbyProtocolsNos.3,5,8,and11whichenteredintoforceonSeptember
21,1970,December20,1971,January1,1990,andNovember1,1998,respectively.
*Notethatwhilethestateisnotpermittedtodiscriminateagainsthomosexuals,privateindividualscannotbecompelledtoacceptorcondone
homosexualconductasalegitimateformofbehavior.InHurleyv.IrishAmericanGay,LesbianandBisexualGroupofBoston,Inc.(515U.S.
557(1995)),theUSSupremeCourtdiscussedwhetherantidiscriminationlegislationoperatedtorequiretheorganizersofaprivateSt.Patricks
DayparadetoincludeamongthemarchersanIrishAmericangay,lesbian,andbisexualgroup.Thecourtheldthatprivatecitizensorganizinga
publicdemonstrationmaynotbecompelledbythestatetoincludegroupsthatimpartamessagetheorganizersdonotwanttobeincludedin
theirdemonstration.Thecourtobserved:
[A]contingentmarchingbehindtheorganizationsbannerwouldatleastbearwitnesstothefactthatsomeIrisharegay,lesbian,or
bisexual,andthepresenceoftheorganizedmarcherswouldsuggesttheirviewthatpeopleoftheirsexualorientationshaveasmuch
claimtounqualifiedsocialacceptanceasheterosexualsxxx.TheparadesorganizersmaynotbelievethesefactsaboutIrishsexuality
tobeso,ortheymayobjecttounqualifiedsocialacceptanceofgaysandlesbiansorhavesomeotherreasonforwishingtokeep
GLIBsmessageoutoftheparade.Butwhateverthereason,itboilsdowntothechoiceofaspeakernottopropoundaparticularpoint
ofview,andthatchoiceispresumedtoliebeyondthegovernmentspowertocontrol.
So,too,inBoyScoutsofAmericav.Dale(530U.S.640[2000]),theUSSupremeCourtheldthattheBoyScoutsofAmericacouldnotbe
compelledtoacceptahomosexualasascoutmaster,becausetheBoyScoutsbelievethathomosexualconductisinconsistentwiththevaluesit
seekstoinstillinitsyouthmembersitwillnotpromotehomosexualconductasalegitimateformofbehavior.
When an expressive organization is compelled to associate with a person whose views the group does not accept, the organizations message is
underminedtheorganizationisunderstoodtoembrace,orattheveryleasttolerate,theviewsofthepersonslinkedwiththem.Thescoutmasters
presencewould,attheveryleast,forcetheorganizationtosendamessage,bothtotheyouthmembersandtheworld,thattheBoyScouts
acceptshomosexualconductasalegitimateformofbehavior.
[47]
Rollo,pp.197199.
[48]
InToonenv.Australia,supranote42,theHumanRightsCommitteenotedthatinitsviewthereferencetosexinArticles2,paragraph2,and26is
tobetakenasincludingsexualorientation.
[49]
TheCommitteeonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights(CESCR)hasdealtwiththematterinitsGeneralComments,theinterpretativetextsit
issuestoexplicatethefullmeaningoftheprovisionsoftheCovenantonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights.InGeneralCommentsNos.18of
2005(ontherighttowork)(CommitteeonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights,GeneralCommentNo.18:Therighttowork,E/C.12/GC/18,
November24,2005),15of2002(ontherighttowater)(CommitteeonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights,GeneralCommentNo.15:The
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 24/25
10/9/2017 G.R. No. 190582

righttowater,E/C.12/2002/11,November26,2002) and14of2000(ontherighttothehighestattainablestandardofhealth)(Committeeon
Economic,SocialandCulturalRights,GeneralCommentNo.14:Therighttothehighestattainablestandardofhealth,E/C.12/2000/4,August
14,2000),ithasindicatedthattheCovenantproscribesanydiscriminationonthebasisof,interalia,sexandsexualorientation.
TheCommitteeontheRightsoftheChild(CRC)hasalsodealtwiththeissueinaGeneralComment.InitsGeneralCommentNo.4of2003,itstated
that,Statepartieshavetheobligationtoensurethatallhumanbeingsbelow18enjoyalltherightssetforthintheConvention[ontheRightsofthe
Child]withoutdiscrimination(Article2),includingwithregardtorace,colour,sex,language,religion,politicalorotheropinion,national,ethnic
orsocialorigin,property,disability,birthorotherstatus.Thesegroundsalsocover[interalia]sexualorientation.(CommitteeontheRightsofthe
Child,GeneralCommentNo.4:AdolescenthealthanddevelopmentinthecontextoftheConventionontheRightsoftheChild,July1,2003,
CRC/GC/2003/4).
TheCommitteeontheEliminationofDiscriminationAgainstWomen(CEDAW),has,onanumberofoccasions,criticizedStatesfordiscrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation. For example, it also addressed the situation in Kyrgyzstan and recommended that, lesbianism be
reconceptualized as a sexual orientation and that penalties for its practice be abolished (Concluding Observations of the Committee on the
EliminationofDiscriminationAgainstWomenregardingKyrgyzstan,February5,1999,A/54/38atpar.128).
[50]
General Comment No. 25: The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service (Art. 25)
December16,1996.CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7.
[51]
TheYogyakartaPrinciplesontheApplicationofInternationalHumanRightsLawinrelationtoSexualOrientationandGenderIdentityisasetof
internationalprinciplesrelatingtosexualorientationandgenderidentity,intendedtoaddressdocumentedevidenceofabuseofrightsoflesbian,
gay,bisexual,andtransgender(LGBT)individuals.Itcontains29Principlesadoptedbyhumanrightspractitionersandexperts,togetherwith
recommendationstogovernments,regionalintergovernmentalinstitutions,civilsociety,andtheUnitedNations.
[52]
OneexampleisPrinciple3(TheRighttoRecognitionBeforetheLaw),whichprovides:
Everyonehastherighttorecognitioneverywhereasapersonbeforethelaw.Personsofdiversesexualorientationsandgenderidentitiesshallenjoy
legalcapacityinallaspectsoflife.Eachpersonsselfdefinedsexualorientationandgenderidentityisintegraltotheirpersonalityandisoneofthe
mostbasicaspectsofselfdetermination,dignityandfreedom.Nooneshallbeforcedtoundergomedicalprocedures,includingsexreassignment
surgery, sterilization or hormonal therapy, as a requirement for legal recognition of their gender identity. No status, such as marriage or
parenthood,maybeinvokedassuchtopreventthelegalrecognitionofapersonsgenderidentity.Nooneshallbesubjectedtopressureto
conceal,suppressordenytheirsexualorientationorgenderidentity.
Statesshall:
a)Ensurethatallpersonsareaccordedlegalcapacityincivilmatters,withoutdiscriminationonthebasisofsexualorientationorgenderidentity,
andtheopportunitytoexercisethatcapacity,includingequalrightstoconcludecontracts,andtoadminister,own,acquire(includingthrough
inheritance),manage,enjoyanddisposeofproperty
b)Takeallnecessarylegislative,administrativeandothermeasurestofullyrespectandlegallyrecogniseeachpersonsselfdefined
genderidentity
c)Takeallnecessarylegislative,administrativeandothermeasurestoensurethatproceduresexistwherebyallStateissuedidentity
paperswhichindicateapersonsgender/sexincludingbirthcertificates,passports,electoralrecordsandotherdocumentsreflectthe
personsprofoundselfdefinedgenderidentity
d)Ensurethatsuchproceduresareefficient,fairandnondiscriminatory,andrespectthedignityandprivacyofthepersonconcerned
e)Ensurethatchangestoidentitydocumentswillberecognizedinallcontextswheretheidentificationordisaggregationofpersonsbygender
isrequiredbylaworpolicy
f)Undertaketargetedprogrammestoprovidesocialsupportforallpersonsexperiencinggendertransitioningorreassignment.(Emphasisours)
[53]
SeePharmaceuticalandHealthCareAssociationofthePhilippinesv.SecretaryofHealth,G.R.No.173034,October9,2007,535SCRA265,
whereweexplainedthatsoftlawdoesnotfallintoanyofthecategoriesofinternationallawsetforthinArticle38,ChapterIIIofthe1946Statute
oftheInternationalCourtofJustice. Itis,however,anexpressionofnonbindingnorms,principles,andpracticesthatinfluencestatebehavior.
CertaindeclarationsandresolutionsoftheUNGeneralAssemblyfallunderthiscategory.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm 25/25