Scribd
Upload
60 views1 page

LGBT V Comelec

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, finding that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) improperly denied their application for registration as a party-list based on religious grounds. While the Comelec cited religious beliefs in denying the application, claiming the LGBT sector promotes immorality, the government must act for secular purposes only. Ang Ladlad demonstrated compliance with legal requirements for accreditation as a party-list. The Court also found that the international human rights principles cited by Ang Ladlad, known as the Yogyakarta Principles, do not constitute binding legal obligations for the Philippines.

Uploaded by

Lebron James
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
60 views1 page

LGBT V Comelec

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, finding that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) improperly denied their application for registration as a party-list based on religious grounds. While the Comelec cited religious beliefs in denying the application, claiming the LGBT sector promotes immorality, the government must act for secular purposes only. Ang Ladlad demonstrated compliance with legal requirements for accreditation as a party-list. The Court also found that the international human rights principles cited by Ang Ladlad, known as the Yogyakarta Principles, do not constitute binding legal obligations for the Philippines.

Uploaded by

Lebron James
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein by its Chair, DANTON REMOTO, Petitioner, -

versus- COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.


G.R. No. 190582, EN BANC, April 8, 2010, DEL CASTILLO, J.

Rather than relying on religious belief, the government must act for secular purposes and in ways that
have primarily secular effects. Here, Ang Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with the
legal requirements for accreditation. Hence, its application as a party-list should be granted.

FACTS:

Ang Ladlad is an organization of people who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals or
trans- genders. It filed a petition for registration with the Comelec as a party-list. The Comelec
dismissed the petition on moral grounds as “the definition of the LGBT sector makes it crystal clear
that petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs,” even citing passages from the
Bible and Koran. In its petition with the Supreme Court, 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. It also claimed that the assailed
Comelec 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.

ISSUE:

Whether Ang Ladlad’s application as a party-list should be granted. (YES)

RULING:

Ang Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with the legal requirements for
accreditation. Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of the Assailed Resolutions
should depend, instead, on whether the Comelec is able to advance some justification for its rulings
beyond mere conformity to religious doctrine. Otherwise stated, government must act for secular
purposes and in ways that have primarily secular effects.

The Court also discussed Ang Ladlad’s invocation of the Yogyakarta Principles (The Application of
International Human Rights Law In Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) as a binding
principle of international law. The Court said that it was not prepared to declare that the
Yogyakarta Principles contain norms obligatory on the Philippines, because they are not reflective
of the current state of international law and do not find basis in any of the sources of international
law enumerated under Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Petitioner
has not undertaken any objective and rigorous analysis of these alleged principles of international
law to ascertain their true status. Using even the most liberal of lenses, these Yogyakarta Principles,
consisting of a declaration formulated by various international law professors, are–at best–de lege
ferenda–and do not constitute binding obligations on the Philippines. Indeed, so much of
contemporary international law is characterized by the "soft law" nomenclature, i.e., international
law is full of principles that promote international cooperation, harmony, and respect for human
rights, most of which amount to no more than well-meaning desires, without the support of either
State practice or opinio juris.

You might also like