13.LADLAD vs. Comelec

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

Chair, DANTON REMOTO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
Constitutional Law Election Law PartyList System The
enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not
exclusive.As we explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong BayaniOFW
Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, 359 SCRA 698 (2001),
the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors
is not exclusive. The crucial element is not whether a sector is
specifically enumerated, but whether a particular organization
complies with the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941.
Same Same Same Aside from Commission on Elections
(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 Republic Act
No. 7941 or the guidelines in Ang Bagong Bayani.We find 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
partylist 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.
Same Same Same It was grave violation of the non
establishment clause for the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the
exclusion of Ang Ladlad.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 nonestablish
ment clause calls for is
government neutrality in religious matters. Clearly,
governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsis
_______________
*EN BANC.
33
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
33
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections
tent with this policy of neutrality. We thus find that it was grave
violation of the nonestablishment clause for the COMELEC to
utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang
Ladlad.
Same Same Same Through the years, homosexual conduct,
and perhaps homosexuals themselves, have borne the brunt of
societal disapproval.We are not blind to the fact that, through
the years, homosexual conduct, and perhaps homosexuals
themselves, have borne the brunt of societal disapproval. It is not
difficult to imagine the reasons behind this censurereligious
beliefs, convictions about the preservation of marriage, 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, these generally accepted public
morals have not been convincingly transplanted into the realm of
law.
Election Law PartyList System Civil Law Nuisance,
Defined.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 decency or morality, the
remedies for which are a prosecution under the Revised Penal
Code or any local ordinance, a civil action, or abatement without
judicial proceedings.
Same Same Evidence A mere blanket invocation of public
morals cannot replace the institution of civil or criminal
proceedings and a judicial determination of liability or culpability.
A violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, requires
proof beyond reasonable doubt to support a criminal conviction. It
hardly needs to be emphasized that mere allegation of violation of
laws is not proof, and a mere blanket invocation of public morals
cannot replace the institution of civil or criminal proceedings and
a judicial determination of liability or culpability.
Same Same Moral disapproval, without more, is not a

sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals
from participation in the partylist system.We hold that moral
disapproval, without more, is not a sufficient governmental
interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation in
the partylist system. The denial of Ang Ladlads registration on
purely moral grounds amounts more to a statement of dislike and
disapproval of
34
34
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

homosexuals, rather than a tool to further any substantial public

interest. Respondents blanket justifications give rise to the
inevitable conclusion that the COMELEC targets homosexuals
themselves as a class, not because of any particular morally
reprehensible act. It is this selective targeting that implicates our
equal protection clause.
Constitutional Law Election Law PartyList System Equal
Protection Clause Recent jurisprudence has affirmed that if a law
neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class,
the Supreme Court will uphold the classification as long as it
bears a rational relationship to some legitimate government end.
Recent jurisprudence has affirmed that if a law neither burdens a
fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the
classification as long as it bears a rational relationship to some
legitimate government end. In Central Bank Employees
Association, Inc. v. Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 446 SCRA 299
(2004), we declared that [i]n our jurisdiction, the standard of
analysis of equal protection challenges xxx have 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
Constitution.
Same Same Same Same Law of general application should
apply with equal force to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender
(LGBTs), and they deserve to participate in the partylist system on
the same basis as other marginalized and underrepresented
sectors.From the standpoint of the political process, the lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender have the same interest in
participating in the partylist system on the same basis as other
political parties similarly situated. State intrusion in this case is

equally burdensome. Hence, laws of general application should
apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to participate
in the partylist system on the same basis as other marginalized
and underrepresented sectors.
Same Same Freedom of Expression Freedom of expression
constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society,
and this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably
received but also to those that offend, shock or disturb.Freedom
of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a
democratic society, and this freedom applies not only to those that
are favorably received but also to those that offend, shock, or
disturb. Any restriction imposed in this sphere must be
proportionate to the legitimate
35
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
35
aim pursued. Absent any compelling state interest, it is not for

the COMELEC or this Court to impose its views on the populace.
Otherwise stated, the COMELEC is certainly not free to interfere
with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved
message or discouraging a disfavored one.
Same Same Same Freedom of Association Only if a political
party incites violence or puts forward policies that are
incompatible with democracy does it fall outside the protection of
the freedom of association guarantee.A political group should
not be hindered solely because it seeks to publicly debate
controversial political issues in order to find solutions capable of
satisfying everyone concerned. Only if a political party incites
violence or puts forward policies that are incompatible with
democracy does it fall outside the protection of the freedom of
association guarantee.
Same PartyList System Equal Protection Clause The
principle of nondiscrimination requires that laws of general
application relating to elections be applied equally to all persons,
regardless of sexual orientation.The principle of non
discrimination requires that laws of general application relating
to elections be applied equally to all persons, regardless of sexual
orientation. Although sexual orientation is not specifically
enumerated as a status or ratio for discrimination in Article 26 of
the ICCPR, the ICCPR Human Rights Committee has opined that
the reference to sex in Article 26 should be construed to include
sexual orientation. Additionally, a variety of United Nations
bodies have declared discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation to be prohibited under various international
agreements.
Same Same Same Yogyakarta Principles Using even the
most liberal of lenses, these Yogyakarta Principles, consisting of a
declaration formulated by various international law professors,
areat bestde lege ferendaand do not constitute binding
obligations on the Philippines.Using even the most liberal of
lenses, these Yogyakarta Principles, consisting of a declaration
formulated by various international law professors, areat best
de lege ferendaand 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
36
36

rights, most of which amount to no more than wellmeaning

desires, without the support of either State practice or opinio
juris.
PUNO,C.J., Separate Concurring Opinion:
Constitutional Law Election Law PartyList System View
that the assailed Resolutions of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) run afoul of the nonestablishment clause of the
Constitution.The assailed Resolutions of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) run afoul of the nonestablishment clause
of the Constitution. There was cypher effort on the part of the
COMELEC to couch its reasoning in legalmuch less
constitutionalterms, as it denied Ang Ladlads petition for
registration as a sectoral party principally on the ground that it
tolerates immorality which offends religious (i.e., Christian and
Muslim) beliefs. To be sure, the COMELECs ruling is completely
antithetical to the fundamental rule that [t]he public morality
expressed in the law is necessarily secular[,] for in our
constitutional order, the religion clauses prohibit the state from
establishing a religion, including the morality it sanctions.
Same Same Same View that the assailed resolutions of the

Commission on Elections (COMELEC) are violative of the
constitutional directive that no religious test shall be required for
the exercise of civil or political rights.The assailed resolutions of
the COMELEC are violative of the constitutional directive that
no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil
or political rights. Ang Ladlads right of political participation
was unduly infringed when the COMELEC, swayed by the private
biases and personal prejudices of its constituent members,
arrogated unto itself the role of a religious court or worse, a
morality police.
Same Same Same View that the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) capitalized on Ang Ladlads definition of the term
sexual orientation, as well as its citation of the number of
Filipino men who have sex with men, as basis for the declaration
that the party espouses and advocates sexual immorality This
position would deny homosexual and bixesual individuals a
fundamental element of personal identity and a legitimate exercise
of personal liberty.The COMELEC capitalized on Ang Ladlads
definition of the term sexual orientation, as well as its citation
of the number of Filipino men who have sex with men, as basis for
the declaration that the party espouses and advocates sexual
immorality. This position, how
37
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
37
ever, would deny homosexual and bisexual individuals a

fundamental element of personal identity and a legitimate
exercise of personal liberty. For, the ability to
[independently] define ones identity that is central to any concept
of liberty cannot truly be exercised in a vacuum we all depend on
the emotional enrichment from close ties with others.
Same Same Same View that at the heart of liberty is the
right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the
universe, and of the mystery of human life.It has been said that
freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an
autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief,
expression, and certain intimate conduct. These matters,
involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may
make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and
autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the due process

clause. At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own
concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the
mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not
define the attributes of personhood were they formed under
compulsion of the State.
Same Same Same View that a classification based on gender
or sexual orientation is a quasisuspect classification, as to trigger
a heightened level of review.The ponencia of Mr. Justice Del
Castillo refused to characterize homosexuals and bisexuals as a
class in themselves for purposes of the equal protection clause.
Accordingly, it struck down the assailed Resolutions using the
most liberal basis of judicial scrutiny, the rational basis test,
according to which government need only show that the
challenged classification is rationally related to serving a
legitimate state interest. I humbly submit, however, that a
classification based on gender or sexual orientation is a quasi
suspect classification, as to trigger a heightened level of
review.
Same Same Same View that gay persons are entitled to
heightened constitutional protection despite some recent political
progress.It would not be difficult to conclude that gay persons
are entitled to heightened constitutional protection despite some
recent political progress. The discrimination that they have
suffered has been so pervasive and severeeven though their
sexual orientation has no bearing at all on their ability to
contribute to or perform in
38
38

societythat it is highly unlikely that legislative enactments

alone will suffice to eliminate that discrimination.
Same Same Same View that any state action singling les
bians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders out for disparate

treatment is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny to ensure that
it is not the product of historical prejudice and stereotyping.It is
therefore respectfully submitted that any state action singling
lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders out for disparate
treatment is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny to ensure that
it is not the product of historical prejudice and stereotyping.
Same Same Same View that the position that the Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community cannot
participate in the partylist system because it is not a
marginalized and underrepresented sector is belied by the
Supreme Court ruling in Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party
vs. COMELEC, where the Court held that the enumeration of
marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not exclusive.It
has been suggested that the LGBT community cannot participate
in the partylist system because it is not a marginalized and
underrepresented sector enumerated either in the Constitution
or Republic Act No. (RA) 7941. However, this position is belied by
our ruling in Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party v.
COMELEC, 359 SCRA 698 (2001), where we clearly held that the
enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors in RA
7941 is not exclusive.
CORONA,J., Dissenting Opinion:
that the partylist system is essentially a tool for the advancement
of social justice with the fundamental purpose of affording
opportunity to marginalized and underrepresented sectors to
participate in the shaping of public policy and the crafting of
national laws.The partylist system is an innovation of the 1987
Constitution. It is essentially a tool for the advancement of social
justice with the fundamental purpose of affording opportunity to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors to participate in the
shaping of public policy and the crafting of national laws. It is
premised on the proposition that the advancement of the interests
of the marginalized sectors contributes to the advancement of the
common good and of our nations democratic ideals.
39
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
39
Same Same Same Congress View that the Constitution left

the matter of determining the groups or sectors that may qualify as
marginalized to the hands of Congress.The Constitution left
the matter of determining the groups or sectors that may qualify
as marginalized to the hands of Congress. Pursuant to this
constitutional mandate, RA 7941 or the PartyList System Act
was enacted in 1995.
Same Same Same View that the Supreme Court stressed
that the partylist system is reserved only for those sectors

marginalized and underrepresented in the past.In Ang Bagong
BayaniOFW Labor Party, 359 SCRA 698 (2001), the Court
stressed that the partylist system is reserved only for those
sectors marginalized and underrepresented in the past (e.g.,
labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans,
overseas workers, professionals and even those in the
underground movement who wish to come out and participate).
They are those sectors traditionally and historically
marginalized and deprived of an opportunity to participate in
the formulation of national policy although their sectoral
interests are also traditionally and historically regarded
as vital to the national interest.
Same Same Same View that the concept of marginalized
and underrepresented sectors under the partylist scheme has been
carefully refined by concrete examples involving sectors deemed to
be significant in our legal tradition.The concept of marginalized
and underrepresented sectors under the partylist scheme has
been carefully refined by concrete examples involving sectors
deemed to be significant in our legal tradition. They are
essentially sectors with a constitutional bond, that is, specific
sectors subject of specific provisions in the Constitution, namely,
labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
women, youth, veterans, fisherfolk, elderly, handicapped,
overseas workers and professionals.
Same Same Same View that marginalized sectors should be
given a say in governance through the partylist system, not simply
because they desire to say something constructive but because they
deserve to be heard on account of their traditionally and
historically decisive role in Philippine society.The longmuffled
voices of marginalized sectors must be heard because their
respective interests are intimately and indispensably woven into
the fabric of the na
40
40

tional democratic agenda. The social, economic and political

aspects of discrimination and marginalization should not be
divorced from the role of a particular sector or group in the
advancement of the collective goals of Philippine society as a

whole. In other words, marginalized sectors should be given a say
in governance through the partylist system, not simply because
they desire to say something constructive but because they
deserve to be heard on account of their traditionally and
historically decisive role in Philippine society.
Same Same Same View that the majoritys decision is
cryptic and wanting when it makes short shrift of the issue of
whether petitioner is a marginalized and underrepresented sector.
The enumeration of sectors considered as marginalized and
underrepresented in the fundamental law and in the
implementing law (RA 7941) cannot be without significance. To
ignore them is to disregard the texts of the Constitution and of RA
7941. For, indeed, the very first of Ang Bagong BayaniOFW
Labor Partys eight guidelines for screening partylist participants
is this: the parties, sectors or organizations must represent the
marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5
of RA 7941. For this reason, I submit the majoritys decision is
cryptic and wanting when it makes short shrift of the issue of
whether petitioner is a marginalized and underrepresented sector
in the following manner.
Same Same Same View that marginalized sectors qualified
to participate in the partylist system but not mentioned in Section
5(2), Article VI are such other sectors as may be provided by law
duly enacted by Congress.Marginalized sectors qualified to
participate in the partylist system but not mentioned in Section
5(2), Article VI are such other sectors as may be provided by law
duly enacted by Congress. It is also consistent with the basic
canon of statutory construction, ejusdem generis, which requires
that a general word or phrase that follows an enumeration of
particular and specific words of the same class, the general word
or phrase should be construed to include, or to be restricted to
persons, things or cases, akin to, resembling, or of the same kind
or class as those specifically mentioned.
Same Same Same View that even assuming that petitioner
was able to show that the community of lesbians, gays, bisexuals
and transsexuals (LGBT) is underrepresented, it cannot be
properly con
41
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010

41
sidered as marginalized under the partylist system.Even

assuming that petitioner was able to show that the community of
lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals (LGBT) is
underrepresented, it cannot be properly considered as
marginalized under the partylist system. First, petitioner is not
included in the sectors mentioned in Section 5(2), Article VI of the
Constitution and Section 5 of RA 7941. Unless an overly strained
interpretation is resorted to, the LGBT sector cannot establish a
close connection to any of the said sectors. Indeed, petitioner does
not even try to show its link to any of the said sectors. Rather, it
represents itself as an altogether distinct sector with its own
peculiar interests and agenda.
Same Same Same View that only sectors expressly or closely
related to those sectors mentioned in Section 5 of Republic Act (RA)
No. 7941 are qualified to participate in the partylist system.In
this instance, Congress, in the exercise of its authority under
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution, enacted RA 7941.
Sections 2, 3(d) and (5) of the said law instituted a policy when it
enumerated certain sectors as qualified marginalized and
underrepresented sectors under the partylist system. Respect for
that policy and fidelity to the Courts duty in our scheme of
government require us to declare that only sectors expressly
mentioned or closely related to those sectors mentioned in Section
5 of RA 7941 are qualified to participate in the partylist system.
Same Same Same View that until and unless Congress
amends the law to include the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender (LGBTs) and other sectors in the partylist system,
deference to Congress determination on the matter is proper.The
Court is called upon to exercise judicial restraint in this case by
strictly adhering to, rather than expanding, legislative policy on
the matter of marginalized sectors as expressed in the
enumeration in Section 5 of RA 7941. The Court has no power to
amend and expand Sections 2, 3(d) and 5 of RA 7941 in the guise
of interpretation. The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests
the authority to determine such other [marginalized] sectors
qualified to participate in the partylist system to Congress. Thus,
until and unless Congress amends the law to include the LGBT
and other sectors in the partylist system, deference to Congress
determination on the matter is proper.
Same Same Same View that the partylist system was not
designed as a tool to advocate tolerance and acceptance of any and
all
42
42

socially misunderstood sectors.While bigotry, social stereotyping

and other forms of discrimination must be given no place in a
truly just, democratic and libertarian society, the partylist
system has a welldefined purpose. The partylist system was not
designed as a tool to advocate tolerance and acceptance of any and
all socially misunderstood sectors. Rather, it is a platform for the
realization of the aspirations of marginalized sectors whose
interests are, by nature and history, also the nations but which
interests have not been sufficiently brought to public attention
because of these sectors underrepresentation.
Same Same Same View that Congress was given by the
Constitution full discretion to determine what sectors may qualify
as marginalized and underrepresented, the Courts task is to
respect that legislative determination by strictly adhering to it.
Congress was given by the Constitution full discretion to
determine what sectors may qualify as marginalized and
underrepresented. The Courts task is to respect that legislative
determination by strictly adhering to it. If we effectively and
unduly expand such congressional determination, we will be
dabbling in policymaking, an act of political will and not of
judicial judgment.
ABAD,J., Separate Opinion:
that the underlying policy of Republic Act No. 7941 or The Party
List System Act is to give the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors of society an opportunity to take a direct part in enacting
the laws of the land.The underlying policy of R.A. 7941 or The
PartyList System Act is to give the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors of society an opportunity to take a direct
part in enacting the laws of the land. In Ang Bagong BayaniOFW
Labor Party v. Commission on Elections (COMELEC), 359 SCRA
698 (2001), the Court laid down guidelines for accreditation, but
these seem to leave the COMELEC like everyone else even more
perplexed and dumbfounded about what organizations, clubs, or
associations can pass for sectoral parties with a right to claim a
seat in the House of Representatives. The Court can, in
adjudicating this case, unravel some of the difficulties.
Same Same Same View that the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) erred when it denied Ang Ladlads petition for
sectoral party accreditation on religious and moral groundsthe
COMELEC
43
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
43
has never applied these tests on regular candidates for Congress.

Here, I fully agree that the COMELEC erred when it denied Ang
Ladlads petition for sectoral party accreditation on religious and
moral grounds. The COMELEC has never applied these tests on
regular candidates for Congress. There is no reason for it to apply
them on Ang Ladlad. But the ponencia already amply and lucidly
discussed this point.
Same Same Same View that a reading of Ang Bagong
Bayani will show that, based on the Courts reading, neither the
Constitution nor Republic Act No. 7941 intends the excessively
limited coverage that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
now suggests.The COMELECs proposition imposes an
unwarranted restriction which is inconsistent with the purpose
and spirit of the Constitution and the law. A reading of Ang
Bagong Bayani will show that, based on the Courts reading,
neither the Constitution nor R.A. 7941 intends the excessively
limited coverage that the COMELEC now suggests. In fact, the
Court said in that case that the list in R.A. 7941 is not exclusive.
Thus, while the partylist system is not meant for all sectors of
society, it was envisioned as a social justice tool for the
marginalized and underrepresented in general.
Same Same Same View that Congress did not provide a
definition of the term marginalized and underrepresented.
Congress did not provide a definition of the term marginalized
and underrepresented. Nor did the Court dare provide one in its
decision in Ang Bagong Bayani. It is possible, however, to get a
sense of what Congress intended in adopting such term. No doubt,
Congress crafted that termmarginalized and underrepresented
from its reading of the concrete examples that the Constitution
itself gives of groupings that are entitled to accreditation. These
examples are the labor, the peasant, the urban poor, the
indigenous cultural minorities, the women, and the youth sectors.
Fortunately, quite often ideas are best described by examples of
what they are, which was what those who drafted the 1987
Constitution did, rather than by an abstract description of them.
Same Same Same View that an interpretation that will
allow concretely or specifically defined groups to seek election as a

separate partylist sector by itself will result in riot and
redundancy in the mix of sectoral parties grabbing seats in the
House of Representatives.An interpretation that will allow
concretely or specifically defined
44
44

groups to seek election as a separate partylist sector by itself will

result in riot and redundancy in the mix of sectoral parties
grabbing seats in the House of Representatives. It will defeat
altogether the objectives of the partylist system. If they can
muster enough votes, the country may have a partylist of pedicab
drivers and another of tricycle drivers. There will be an irrational
apportionment of partylist seats in the legislature.
Same Same Same View that applying the universally
accepted estimate that one out of every 10 persons is a Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBTs) of a certain kind, the
Filipino LGBTs should now stand at about 8.7 million.In this
case, Ang Ladlad represents men and women who identify
themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or transgendered persons
(LGBTs). Applying the universally accepted estimate that one out
of every 10 persons is an LGBT of a certain kind, the Filipino
LGBTs should now stand at about 8.7 million. Despite this,
however, they are by and large, subtly if not brutally, excluded
from the mainstream, discriminated against, and persecuted.
That the COMELEC denied Ang Ladlads petition on religious
and moral grounds is proof of this discrimination.
Same Same Same View that Ang Ladlad has amply proved
that it meets the requirements for sectoral party accreditation
their members are in the vulnerable class like the women and the
youth.Ang Ladlad has amply proved that it meets the
requirements for sectoral party accreditation. Their members are
in the vulnerable class like the women and the youth. Ang Ladlad
represents a narrow definition of its class (LGBTs) rather than a
concrete and specific definition of a subgroup within the class
(group of gay beauticians, for example). The people that Ang
Ladlad seeks to represent have a national presence.
SPECIAL
CIVIL
ACTION
in
the
Supreme
Court.
Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
F.D. Nicholas B. Pichay, Clara Rita A. Padilla and
Ibarra M. Gutierrez for petitioner.
R.A.V. Saguisag for intervenor Epifanio D. Salonga, Jr.
45
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
45
DEL CASTILLO,J.:
... [F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not
matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The
test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that
touch the heart of the existing order.
Justice Robert A. Jackson
West Virginia State Board of
Education v. Barnette1
One unavoidable consequence of everyone having the

freedom to choose is that others may make different choices
choices we would not make for ourselves, choices we may
disapprove of, even choices that may shock or offend or
anger us. However, choices are not to be legally prohibited
merely because they are different, and the right to disagree
and debate about important questions of public policy is a
core value protected by our Bill of Rights. Indeed, our
democracy is built on genuine recognition of, and respect
for, diversity and difference in opinion.
Since ancient times, society has grappled with deep
disagreements about the definitions and demands of
morality. In many cases, where moral convictions are
concerned, harmony among those theoretically opposed is
an insurmountable goal. Yet herein lies the paradox
philosophical justifications 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
accommodation is better than intransigence reason more
worthy than rhetoric. This will allow persons of diverse
viewpoints to live together, if not harmoniously, then, at
least, civilly.
_______________
1319 U.S. 624, 64042 (1943).
46
46

Factual Background
This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, with an application for a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction, filed by Ang Ladlad
LGBT Party (Ang Ladlad) against the Resolutions of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated November 11,
20092 (the First Assailed Resolution) and December 16,
20093 (the Second Assailed Resolution) in SPP No. 09228
(PL) (collectively, the Assailed Resolutions). The case has
its roots in the COMELECs refusal to accredit Ang Ladlad
as a partylist organization under Republic Act (RA) No.
7941, otherwise known as the PartyList System Act.4
Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of men and
women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays,
bisexuals, or transgendered individuals (LGBTs).
Incorporated in 2003, Ang Ladlad first applied for
registration with the COMELEC in 2006. The application
for accreditation was denied on the ground that the
organization had no substantial membership base. On
August 17, 2009, Ang Ladlad again filed a Petition5 for
registration with the COMELEC.
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
negative societal attitudes, LGBTs are constrained to hide
their sexual orientation and that Ang Ladlad complied
with the 8point guidelines enunciated by this Court in Ang
Bagong
_______________
2Rollo, pp. 3340.
3Id., at pp. 4174.
4AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF PARTYLIST REPRESENTATIVES
THROUGH THE PARTYLIST SYSTEM, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR

(1995).
5Rollo, pp. 89101.
47
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
47
BayaniOFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections.6 Ang

Ladlad laid out its national membership base consisting of
individual members and organizational supporters, and
outlined its platform of governance.7
On November 11, 2009, after admitting the petitioners
evidence, the COMELEC (Second Division) dismissed the
Petition on moral grounds, stating that:
x x x This Petition is dismissible on moral grounds. Petitioner
defines the Filipino Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender
(LGBT) Community, thus:
x x x a marginalized and underrepresented sector that is
particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual
orientation and gender identity.
and proceeded to define sexual orientation as that which:
x x x refers to a persons capacity for profound emotional,
affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and
sexual rela
_______________
6412 Phil. 308 359 SCRA 698 (2001).
7Ang Ladlad outlined its platform, viz.:
As a partylist organization, Ang Ladlad is willing to research, introduce, and
work for the passage into law of legislative measures under the following platform
of government:
a) introduction and support for an antidiscrimination bill that will ensure
equal rights for LGBTs in employment and civil life
b)support for LGBTrelated and LGBTfriendly businesses that will
contribute to the national economy
c)setting up of microfinance and livelihood projects for poor and physically
challenged LGBT Filipinos
d) setting up of care centers that will take care of the medical, legal, pension,
and other needs of old and abandoned LGBTs. These centers will be set up
initially in the key cities of the country and
e) introduction and support for bills seeking the repeal of laws used to harass
and legitimize extortion against the LGBT community. Rollo, p. 100.

48
48

tions with, individuals of a different gender, of the same

gender, or more than one gender.
This definition of the LGBT sector makes it crystal clear that
petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs. In
Romans 1:26, 27, Paul wrote:
For this cause God gave them up into vile affections, for
even their women did change the natural use into that
which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving
the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one
toward another men with men working that which is
unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of
their error which was meet.
In the Koran, the hereunder verses are pertinent:
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): Then see what was the end of those who
indulged in sin and crime! (7:84) He said: O my Lord!
Help Thou me against people who do mischief (29:30).
As correctly pointed out by the Law Department in its
Comment dated October 2, 2008:
The ANG LADLAD apparently advocates sexual
immorality as indicated in the Petitions par. 6F:
Consensual partnerships or relationships by gays and
lesbians who are already of age. It is further indicated in
par. 24 of the Petition which waves for the record: In 2007,
Men Having Sex with Men or MSMs in the Philippines were
estimated as 670,000 (Genesis 19 is the history of Sodom
and Gomorrah).
Laws are deemed incorporated in every contract, permit,
license, relationship, or accreditation. Hence, pertinent
provisions of the Civil Code and the Revised Penal Code are
deemed part of the requirement to be complied with for
accreditation.
ANG LADLAD collides with Article 695 of the Civil Code
which defines nuisance as Any act, omission,
establishment, business, condition of property, or anything
else which x x x (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or
morality x x x
It also collides with Article 1306 of the Civil Code: The
contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses,
terms and conditions as they may deem convenient,
provided
49
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
49
they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public

order or public policy. Art 1409 of the Civil Code provides
that Contracts whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to
law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy are
inexistent and void from the beginning.
Finally to safeguard the morality of the Filipino community,
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, penalizes Immoral
doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent
shows as follows:
Art. 201.Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and
exhibitions, and indecent shows.The penalty of prision
mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve
thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall
be imposed upon:
1.Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim
doctrines openly contrary to public morals
2. (a) The authors of obscene literature, published with
their knowledge in any form the editors publishing such
literature and the owners/operators of the establishment
selling the same
(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or
any other place, exhibit indecent or immoral plays, scenes,
acts or shows, it being understood that the obscene
literature or indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or
shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by
virtue hereof, shall include those which: (1) glorify criminals
or condone 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, established policies, lawful orders,
decrees and edicts.
3.Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films,
prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are
offensive to morals.
Petitioner should likewise be denied accreditation not only for
advocating immoral doctrines but likewise for not being truthful
when it said that it or any of its nominees/partylist
representatives have not violated or failed to comply with laws,
rules, or regulations relating to the elections.
50
50

Furthermore, should this Commission grant the petition, we

will be exposing our youth to an environment that does not
conform to the teachings of our faith. Lehman Strauss, a famous
bible teacher and writer in the U.S.A. said in one article that
older practicing homosexuals are a threat to the youth. As an
agency of the government, ours too is the States avowed duty
under Section 13, Article II of the Constitution to protect our
youth from moral and spiritual degradation.8
When Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration,9 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 Assailed
Resolution, stating that:
I.The Spirit of Republic Act No. 7941
Ladlad is applying for accreditation as a sectoral party in the
partylist system. Even assuming that it has properly proven its
underrepresentation and marginalization, it cannot be said that
Ladlads expressed sexual orientations per se would benefit the
nation as a whole.
Section 2 of the partylist law unequivocally states that the
purpose of the partylist system of electing congressional
representatives is to enable Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and
parties, and who lack welldefined political constituencies but who
could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate
legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become
members of the House of Representatives.
_______________
8Id., at pp. 3639. Citations omitted. Italics and underscoring in original text.
9Id., at pp. 7788.
51
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
51
If entry into the partylist system would depend only on the

ability of an organization to represent its constituencies, then all
representative organizations would have found themselves into
the partylist race. But that is not the intention of the framers of
the law. The partylist system is not a tool to advocate tolerance
and acceptance of misunderstood persons or groups of persons.
Rather, the partylist system is a tool for the realization of
aspirations of marginalized individuals whose interests
are also the nationsonly that their interests have not been
brought to the attention of the nation because of their under
representation. Until the time comes when Ladlad is able to
justify that having mixed sexual orientations and
transgender identities is beneficial to the nation, its
application for accreditation under the partylist system
will remain just that.
II.No substantial differentiation
In the United States, whose equal protection doctrine pervades
Philippine jurisprudence, courts do not recognize lesbians, gays,
homosexuals, and bisexuals (LGBT) as a special class of
individuals. xxx Significantly, it has also been held that
homosexuality is not a constitutionally protected fundamental
right, and that nothing in the U.S. Constitution discloses a
comparable intent to protect or promote the social or legal
equality of homosexual relations, as in the case of race or religion
or belief.
xxxx
Thus, even if societys understanding, tolerance, and
acceptance of LGBTs is elevated, there can be no denying that
Ladlad constituencies are still males and females, and they will
remain either male or female protected by the same Bill of
Rights that applies to all citizens alike.
xxxx
IV.Public Morals
x x x There is no question about not imposing on Ladlad
Christian or Muslim religious practices. Neither is there any
attempt to any particular religious groups moral rules on Ladlad.
Rather, what are being adopted as moral parameters and precepts

are generally accepted public morals. They are possibly religious
based, but as a society, the Philippines cannot ignore its
more than 500
52
52

years of Muslim and Christian upbringing, such that some

moral precepts espoused by said religions have sipped
[sic] into society and these are not publicly accepted moral
norms.
V.Legal Provisions
But above morality and social norms, they have become part of
the law of the land. Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code imposes
the penalty of prision mayor upon Those who shall publicly
expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals.
It penalizes immoral doctrines, obscene publications and
exhibition and indecent shows. Ang Ladlad apparently falls
under these legal provisions. This is clear from its Petitions
paragraph 6F: Consensual partnerships or relationships by gays
and lesbians who are already of age It is further indicated in par.
24 of the Petition which waves for the record: In 2007, Men
Having Sex with Men or MSMs in the Philippines were estimated
as 670,000. Moreoever, Article 694 of the Civil Code defines
nuisance as any act, omission x x x or anything else x x x which
shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality
xxx. These are all unlawful.10
On January 4, 2010, Ang Ladlad filed this Petition,

praying that the Court annul the Assailed Resolutions and
direct the COMELEC to grant Ang Ladlads application for
accreditation. Ang Ladlad also sought the issuance ex parte
of a preliminary mandatory injunction against the
COMELEC, which had previously announced that it would
begin printing the final ballots for the May 2010 elections
by January 25, 2010.
On January 6, 2010, we ordered the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) to file its Comment on behalf of
COMELEC not later than 12:00 noon of January 11,
2010.11 Instead of filing a Comment, however, the OSG
filed a Motion for Extension, requesting that it be given
until January 16, 2010 to Comment.12 Somewhat
surprisingly, the OSG later filed a

_______________
10 Id., at pp. 5054. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
11Id., at p. 121.
12Id., at pp. 129132.
53
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
53
Comment in support of petitioners application.13 Thus, in

order to give COMELEC the opportunity to fully ventilate
its position, we required it to file its own comment.14 The
COMELEC, through its Law Department, filed its
Comment on February 2, 2010.15
In the meantime, due to the urgency of the petition, we
issued a temporary restraining order on January 12, 2010,
effective immediately and continuing until further orders
from this Court, directing the COMELEC to cease and
desist from implementing the Assailed Resolutions.16
Also, on January 13, 2010, the Commission on Human
Rights (CHR) filed a Motion to Intervene or to Appear as
Amicus Curiae, attaching thereto its CommentinInter
17
vention. The CHR opined that the denial of Ang Ladlads
petition on moral grounds violated the standards and
principles of the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR), and the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). On January 19, 2010,
we granted the CHRs motion to intervene.
On January 26, 2010, Epifanio D. Salonga, Jr. filed his
Motion to Intervene18 which motion was granted on
February 2, 2010.19
The Parties Arguments
Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of accreditation,
insofar as it justified the exclusion by using religious
dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees against the
establishment of religion. Petitioner also claimed that the
Assailed Resolutions
_______________
13Id., at pp. 151283.
14Id., at p. 284.
15Id., at pp. 301596.
16Id., at p. 126.
17Id., at pp. 133160.
18Id., at pp. 288291.
19Id., at p. 296.
54
54

contravened its constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of

speech and assembly, and equal protection of laws, as well
as constituted violations of the Philippines international
obligations against discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
The OSG concurred with Ang Ladlads petition and
argued that the COMELEC erred in denying petitioners
application for registration since there was no basis for
COMELECs allegations of immorality. It also opined that
LGBTs have their own special interests and concerns
which should have been recognized by the COMELEC as a
separate classification. However, insofar as the purported
violations of petitioners freedom of speech, expression, and
assembly were concerned, the OSG maintained that there
had been no restrictions on these rights.
In its Comment, the COMELEC reiterated that
petitioner does not have a concrete and genuine national
political agenda to benefit the nation and that the petition
was validly dismissed on moral grounds. It also argued for
the first time that the LGBT sector is not among the
sectors enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941, and
that petitioner made untruthful statements in its petition
when it alleged its national existence contrary to actual
verification reports by COMELECs field personnel.
Our Ruling
We grant the petition.
Compliance with the Requirements
of the Constitution and Republic
Act No. 7941
The COMELEC denied Ang Ladlads application for
registration on the ground that the LGBT sector is neither
enumerated in the Constitution and RA 7941, nor is it

associated with or related to any of the sectors in the
enumeration.
55
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
55
Respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang

Bagong Bayani stands for the proposition that only those
sectors specifically enumerated in the law or related to said
sectors (labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth,
veterans, overseas workers, and professionals) may be
registered under the partylist system. As we explicitly
ruled in Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party v.
Commission on Elections,20 the enumeration of
marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not
exclusive. The crucial element is not whether a sector is
specifically enumerated, but whether a particular
organization complies with the requirements of the
Constitution and RA 7941.
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 isolated places in the country, petitioner does not
exist in almost all provinces in the country.21
_______________
20Supra note 6.
21 It appears that on September 4, 2009, the Second Division directed
the various COMELEC Regional Offices to verify the existence, status,
and capacity of petitioner. In its Comment, respondent submitted copies of
various reports stating that ANG LADLAD LGBT or LADLAD LGBT did
not exist in the following areas: Batangas (October 6, 2009) Romblon
(October 6, 2009) Palawan (October 16, 2009) Sorsogon (September 29,
2009)
Cavite,
Marinduque,
Rizal
(October
12,
2009)
Basilan,
Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, Sulu, Tawi Tawi (October 19, 2009) Biliran,
Leyte, Southern Leyte, Samar, Eastern Samar, Northern Samar (October
19, 2009) Albay, Camarines Sur, Camarines Norte, Catanduanes,
Masbate, Sorsogon (October 25, 2009) Ilocos Sur, Ilocos Norte, La Union,
Pangasinan (October 23, 2009) North Cotabato, Sarangani, South

Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat (October 23, 2009) Aklan, Antique, Iloilo and
Negros Occidental (October 25, 2009) Bohol, Cebu, Siquijor (October 24,
2009) Negros Oriental (October 26, 2009) Cordillera Adminis
56
56

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 truthful when it said that it
or any of its nominees/partylist representatives have not
violated or failed to comply with laws, rules, or regulations
relating to the elections. Nowhere was this ground for
denial of petitioners accreditation mentioned or even
alluded to in the Assailed Resolutions. This, in itself, is
quite curious, considering that the reports of petitioners
alleged nonexistence were already available to the
COMELEC prior to the issuance of the First Assailed
Resolution. At best, this is irregular procedure at worst, a
belated afterthought, a change in respondents theory, and
a serious violation of petitioners right to procedural due
process.
Nonetheless, we find that there has been no
misrepresentation. A cursory perusal of Ang Ladlads
initial petition shows that it never claimed to exist in each
province of the Philippines. Rather, petitioner alleged that
the LGBT community in the Philippines was estimated to
constitute at least 670,000 persons that it had 16,100
affiliates and members around the country, and 4,044
members in its electronic discussion group.22 Ang Ladlad
also represented itself to be a national LGBT umbrella
organization with affiliates around the Philippines
composed of the following LGBT networks:
_______________
trative Region (October 30, 2009) Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur,
Dinagat Islands, Surigao del Norte, Surigao del Sur (October 26, 2009)
Cagayan de Oro, Bukidnon, Camiguin, Misamis Oriental, Lanao del Norte
(October 31, 2009) Laguna (November 2, 2009) Occidental Mindoro,
Oriental Mindoro (November 13, 2009) Quezon (November 24, 2009)
Davao City, Davao del Sur, Davao del Norte, Compostela Valley, Davao
Oriental
(November
19,
2009)
Caloocan,
Las
Pinas,
Makati,
Mandaluyong, Manila, Marikina, Muntinlupa, Navotas, Paraaque,

Pasay, Pasig, Pateros, Quezon City, San Juan, Taguig, Valenzuela
(December 16, 2009). Rollo, pp. 323596.
22Id., at p. 96.
57
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
57

Abra Gay Association
Aklan Butterfly Brigade (ABB) Aklan
Albay Gay Association
Arts Center of Cabanatuan City Nueva Ecija
Boys Legion Metro Manila
Cagayan de Oro People Like Us (CDO PLUS)
Cant Live in the Closet, Inc. (CLIC) Metro Manila
Cebu Pride Cebu City
Circle of Friends
Dipolog Gay Association Zamboanga del Norte
Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Youth Association (GABAY)
Gay and Lesbian Activists Network for Gender Equality (GALANG)
Metro Manila
Gay Mens Support Group (GMSG) Metro Manila
Gay United for Peace and Solidarity (GUPS) Lanao del Norte
Iloilo City Gay Association Iloilo City
Kabulig Writers Group Camarines Sur
Lesbian Advocates Philippines, Inc. (LEAP)
LUMINA Baguio City
Marikina Gay Association Metro Manila
Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) Metro Manila
Naga City Gay Association Naga City
ONE BACARDI
Order of St. Aelred (OSAe) Metro Manila
PUP LAKAN
RADAR PRIDEWEAR
Rainbow Rights Project (RRights), Inc. Metro Manila
San Jose del Monte Gay Association Bulacan
Sining Kayumanggi Royal Family Rizal
Society of Transexual Women of the Philippines (STRAP) Metro
Manila
Soul Jive Antipolo, Rizal
The Link Davao City
Tayabas Gay Association Quezon

Womens Bisexual Network Metro Manila
Zamboanga Gay Association Zamboanga City23
_______________
23Id., at pp. 9697.
58
58

Since the COMELEC only searched for the names ANG

LADLAD LGBT or LADLAD LGBT, 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
registered as Ang Ladlads principal place of business.
Against this backdrop, we find 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
nonexistence, nowhere in the records has the respondent
ever found/ruled that Ang Ladlad is not qualified to
register as a partylist 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.
Religion as the Basis for Refusal
to Accept Ang Ladlads Petition
for Registration
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 nonestablishment clause calls for is
government neutrality in religious matters.24 Clearly,
governmental reliance on religious justification is
inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.25 We thus find
that it was grave violation of the nonestablishment clause
for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to
justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad.
_______________
24 BERNAS, THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
OF THE
PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY
346 (2009).
25Estrada v. Escritor, 455 Phil. 411 408 SCRA 1 (2003), citing Smith,
S., The Rise and Fall of Religious Freedom in Constitutional Discourse,
140 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW, 149, 160 (1991).
59
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
59
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. As we held in Estrada v. Escritor:26
x x x The morality referred to in the law is public and
necessarily secular, not religious as the dissent of Mr. Justice
Carpio holds. Religious teachings as expressed in public debate
may influence the civil public order but public moral disputes may
be resolved only on grounds articulable in secular terms.
Otherwise, if government relies upon religious beliefs in
formulating public policies and morals, the resulting policies and
morals would require conformity to what some might regard as
religious programs or agenda. The nonbelievers would therefore
be compelled to conform to a standard of conduct buttressed by a
religious belief, i.e., to a compelled religion, anathema to
religious freedom. Likewise, if government based its actions upon
religious beliefs, it would tacitly approve or endorse that belief
and thereby also tacitly disapprove contrary religious or non
religious views that would not support the policy. As a result,
government will not provide full religious freedom for all its
citizens, or even make it appear that those whose beliefs are
disapproved are secondclass citizens.
In other words, government action, including its proscription of
immorality as expressed in criminal law like concubinage, must
have a secular purpose. That is, the government proscribes this
conduct because it is detrimental (or dangerous) to those
conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of
human society and not because the conduct is proscribed by the
beliefs of one religion or the other. Although admittedly, moral
judgments based on religion might have a compelling influence on
those engaged in public deliberations over what actions would be

considered a moral disapprobation punishable by law. After all,
they might also be adherents of a religion and thus have religious
opinions and moral codes with a compelling influence on them
the human mind endeavors to regulate the temporal and spiritual
institutions of society in a uniform
_______________
26455 Phil. 411 408 SCRA 1 (2003).
60
60

manner, harmonizing earth with heaven. Succinctly put, a law

could be religious or Kantian or Aquinian or utilitarian in its
deepest roots, but it must have an articulable and discernible
secular purpose and justification to pass scrutiny of the religion
clauses. x x x Recognizing the religious nature of the Filipinos and
the elevating influence of religion in society, however, the
Philippine constitutions religion clauses prescribe not a strict but
a benevolent neutrality. Benevolent neutrality recognizes that
government must pursue its secular goals and interests but at the
same time strive to uphold 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 morality based on religion,
provided it does not offend compelling state interests.27
Public Morals as a Ground to Deny Ang

Ladlads Petition for Registration
Respondent suggests that although the moral
condemnation of homosexuality and homosexual conduct
may be religionbased, it has long been transplanted into
generally accepted public morals. The COMELEC argues:
Petitioners accreditation was denied not necessarily because
their group consists of LGBTs but because of the danger it poses
to the people especially the youth. Once it is recognized by the
government, a sector which believes that there is nothing wrong
in having sexual relations with individuals of the same gender is
a bad example. It will bring down the standard of morals we
cherish in our civilized society. Any society without a set of moral
precepts is in danger of losing its own existence.28
We are not blind to the fact that, through the years,

homosexual conduct, and perhaps homosexuals themselves,
have borne the brunt of societal disapproval. It is not
difficult to imagine the reasons behind this censure
religious beliefs, convictions about the preservation of
marriage, family, and
_______________
27Id., at pp. 588589 pp. 180182.
28Rollo, p. 315.
61
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
61
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, these generally
accepted public morals have not been convincingly
transplanted into the realm of law.29
The Assailed Resolutions have not identified any specific
overt immoral act performed by Ang Ladlad. Even the OSG
agrees that there should have been a finding by the
COMELEC that the groups members have committed or
are committing immoral acts.30 The OSG argues:
xxx A person may be sexually attracted to a person of the
same gender, of a different gender, or more than one gender, but
mere attraction does not translate to immoral acts. There is a
great divide between thought and action. Reduction ad absurdum.
If immoral thoughts could be penalized, COMELEC would have
its hands full of disqualification cases against both the straights
and the gays. Certainly this is not the intendment of the law.31
Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are

sought to be prevented, or why special protection is
required for the youth. Neither has the COMELEC
condescended to justify its position that petitioners
admission into the partylist system would be so harmful
as to irreparably damage the moral fabric of society. We, of
course, do not suggest that the
_______________
29In Anonymous v. Radam, A.M. No. P072333, December 19, 2007,
541 SCRA 12, citing Concerned Employee v. Mayor, A.M. No. P021564,
23 November 2004, 443 SCRA 448, we ruled that immorality cannot be
judged based on personal bias, specifically those colored by particular
mores. Nor should it be grounded on cultural values not convincingly
demonstrated to have been recognized in the realm of public policy
expressed in the Constitution and the laws. At the same time, the
constitutionally guaranteed rights (such as the right to privacy) should be
observed to the extent that they protect behavior that may be frowned
upon by the majority.
30Rollo, pp. 178.
31Id., at pp. 179180.
62
62

state is wholly without authority to regulate matters

concerning morality, sexuality, and sexual relations, and
we recognize that the government will and should continue
to restrict behavior considered detrimental to society.
Nonetheless, we cannot countenance advocates who,
undoubtedly with the loftiest of intentions, situate morality
on one end of an argument or another, without bothering to
go through the rigors of legal reasoning and explanation. In
this, the notion of morality is robbed of all value. Clearly
then, the bare invocation of morality will not remove an
issue from our scrutiny.
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 decency or morality, the remedies for which are
a prosecution under the Revised Penal Code or any local
ordinance, a civil action, or abatement without judicial
proceedings.32 A violation of Article 201 of the Revised
Penal Code, on the other hand, requires proof beyond
reasonable doubt to support a criminal conviction. It hardly
needs to be emphasized that mere allegation of violation of
laws is not proof, and a mere blanket invocation of public
morals cannot replace the institution of civil or criminal
proceedings and a judicial determination of liability or

culpability.
As such, we hold that moral disapproval, without more,
is not a sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion
of homosexuals from participation in the partylist system.
The denial of Ang Ladlads registration on purely moral
grounds amounts more to a statement of dislike and
disapproval of homosexuals, rather than a tool to further
any substantial public interest. Respondents blanket
justifications give rise to the inevitable conclusion that the
COMELEC targets homosexuals themselves as a class, not
because of any particular
_______________
32CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 699.
63
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
63
morally reprehensible act. It is this selective targeting that

implicates our equal protection clause.
Equal Protection
Despite the absolutism of Article III, Section 1 of our
Constitution, which provides nor shall any person be
denied equal protection of the laws, courts have never
interpreted the provision as an absolute prohibition on
classification. Equality, said Aristotle, consists in the
same treatment of similar persons.33 The equal protection
clause guarantees that no person or class of persons shall
be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed
by other persons or other classes in the same place and in
like circumstances.34
Recent jurisprudence has affirmed that if a law neither
burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class,
we will uphold the classification as long as it bears a
rational relationship to some legitimate government end.35
In Central
_______________
33POLITICS VII. 14.
34Abakada Guro Party v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 168056,
September 1, 2005, 2005, 469 SCRA 1, 139.

35IN BERNAS, THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
OF THE
PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY
139140 (2009), Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. writes:

For
determining
the
reasonableness
of
classification,
later
jurisprudence has developed three kinds of test[s] depending on the

subject matter involved. The most demanding is the strict scrutiny test
which requires the government to show that the challenged classification
serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary
to serve that interest. This [case] is used in cases involving classifications
based on race, national origin, religion, alienage, denial of the right to
vote, interstate migration, access to courts, and other rights recognized as
fundamental.
Next is the intermediate or middletier scrutiny test which requires
government to show that the challenged classification serves an important
state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to
serving that interest. This is applied to suspect classifications like gender
or illegitimacy.
64
64

Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Banko Sentral ng

Pilipinas,36 we declared that [i]n our jurisdiction, the
standard of analysis of equal protection challenges x x x
have 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 Constitution.37
The COMELEC posits that the majority of the
Philippine population considers homosexual conduct as
immoral and unacceptable, and this constitutes sufficient
reason to disqualify the petitioner. Unfortunately for the
respondent, the Philippine electorate has expressed no
such belief. No law exists to criminalize homosexual
behavior or expressions or parties about homosexual
behavior. Indeed, even if we were to assume that public
opinion is as the COMELEC describes it, the asserted state
interest herethat is, moral disapproval of an unpopular
minorityis not a legitimate state interest that is
sufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the equal
protection clause. The COMELECs differentiation, and its
unsubstantiated claim that Ang Ladlad cannot contribute
to the formulation of legislation that would benefit the
nation, furthers no legitimate state interest other than

disapproval of or dislike for a disfavored group.
From the standpoint of the political process, the lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender have the same interest in
participating in the partylist system on the same basis as
other political parties similarly situated. State intrusion in
this case is equally burdensome. Hence, laws of general
appli
_______________
The most liberal is the minimum or rational basis scrutiny according to
which government need only show that the challenged classification is
rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest. This is the
traditional rationality test and it applies to all subjects other than those
listed above.
36487 Phil. 531, 583 446 SCRA 299, 370 (2004).
37Id., at p. 584 p. 370. See also MidStates Freight Lines v. Bates, 111
N.Y.S. 2d 568.
65
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
65
cation should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they

deserve to participate in the partylist system on the same
basis as other marginalized and underrepresented sectors.
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 distinguishing between heterosexuals and
homosexuals under different circumstances would similarly
fail. We disagree with the OSGs position that homosexuals
are a class in themselves for the purposes of the equal
protection clause.38 We are not prepared to single out
homosexuals as a separate class meriting special or
differentiated treatment. We have not received sufficient
evidence to this effect, and it is simply unnecessary to
make such a ruling today. Petitioner itself has merely
demanded that it be recognized under the same basis as all
other groups similarly situated, and that the COMELEC
made an unwarranted and impermissible classification not
justified by the circumstances of the case.
Freedom of Expression and Association
Under our system of laws, every group has the right to

promote its agenda and attempt to persuade society of the
validity of its position through normal democratic means.39
It is in the public square that deeply held convictions and
differing opinions should be distilled and deliberated upon.
As we held in Estrada v. Escritor:40
_______________
38The OSG argues that [w]hile it is true that LGBTs are immutably
males and females, and they are protected by the same Bill of Rights that
applies to all citizens alike, it cannot be denied that as a sector, LGBTs
have their own special interests and concerns. Rollo, p. 183.
39Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that [n]o law shall
be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press,
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.
40Supra note 26.
66
66

In a democracy, this common agreement on political and

moral ideas is distilled in the public square. Where citizens are
free, every opinion, every prejudice, every aspiration, and every
moral discernment has access to the public square where people
deliberate the order of their life together. Citizens are the bearers
of opinion, including opinion shaped by, or espousing religious
belief, and these citizens have equal access 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
designed process, the people deliberate and decide. Majority rule
is a necessary principle in this democratic governance. Thus,
when public deliberation on moral judgments is finally
crystallized into law, the laws will largely reflect the beliefs and
preferences of the majority, i.e., the mainstream or median
groups. Nevertheless, in the very act of adopting and accepting a
constitution and the limits it specifiesincluding protection of
religious freedom not only for a minority, however smallnot
only for a majority, however largebut for each of usthe
majority imposes upon itself a selfdenying ordinance. It promises
not to do what it otherwise could do: to ride roughshod over the
dissenting minorities.
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential

foundations of a democratic society, and this freedom
applies not only to those that are favorably received but
also to those that offend, shock, or disturb. Any restriction
imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the
legitimate aim pursued. Absent any compelling state
interest, it is not for the COMELEC or this Court to impose
its views on the populace. Otherwise stated, the
COMELEC is certainly not free to interfere with speech for
no better reason than promoting an approved message or
discouraging a disfavored one.
This position gains even more force if one considers that
homosexual conduct is not illegal in this country. It follows
that both expressions concerning ones homosexuality and
the activity of forming a political association that supports
LGBT individuals are protected as well.
Other jurisdictions have gone so far as to categorically
rule that even overwhelming public perception that
homosexual
67
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
67
conduct violates public morality does not justify

criminalizing samesex conduct.41 European and United
Nations judicial
_______________
41In Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), the US Supreme Court
first upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law that
criminalized oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when
applied to homosexuals. Seventeen years later the Supreme Court directly
overruled Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), holding that
Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.
In Lawrence, the US Supreme Court has held that the liberty protected
by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter
into intimate relationships, whether or not said relationships were
entitled to formal or legal recognition.
Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact
that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a
particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a

law prohibiting the practice neither history nor tradition could save a law
prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual
decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical
relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of
liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by
unmarried as well as married persons.
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons
who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships
where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public
conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must
give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek
to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual
consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a
homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their
private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their
destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to
liberty under 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 Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the
government may not enter. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate
state
68
68

decisions have ruled in favor of gay rights claimants on

both
_______________
interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life
of the individual.
In similar fashion, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that
the avowed state interest in protecting public morals did not justify
interference into private acts between homosexuals. In Norris v. Ireland,
the European Court held that laws criminalizing samesex sexual conduct
violated the right to privacy enshrined in the European Convention.
The Government are in effect saying that the Court is precluded from
reviewing Irelands observance of its obligation not to exceed what is
necessary in a democratic society when the contested interference with an
Article 8 (Art. 8) right is in the interests of the protection of morals. The
Court cannot accept such an interpretation. x x x.

x x x The present case concerns a most intimate aspect of private life.
Accordingly, there must exist particularly serious reasons before
interferences on the part of public authorities can be legitimate x x x.
x x x Although members of the public who regard homosexuality as
immoral may be shocked, offended or disturbed by the commission by
others of private homosexual acts, this cannot on its own warrant the
application of penal sanctions when it is consenting adults alone who are
involved. (Norris v. Ireland (judgment of October 26, 1988, Series A no.
142, pp. 2021, 46) Marangos v. Cyprus (application no. 31106/96,
Commissions report of 3 December 1997, unpublished)).
The United Nations Human Rights Committee came to a similar
conclusion in 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]), involving a complaint that Tasmanian laws criminalizing
consensual sex between adult males violated the right to privacy under
Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The
Committee held:
x x x it is undisputed that adult consensual sexual activity in private is
covered by the concept of privacy x x x any interference with privacy
must be proportional to the end sought and be necessary in the
circumstances of any given case.
69
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
69
privacy and equality grounds, citing general privacy and

equal protection provisions in foreign and international
texts.42 To the extent that there is much to learn from
other jurisdictions that have reflected on the issues we face
here, such jurisprudence is certainly illuminating. These
foreign authorities, while not formally binding on
Philippine courts, may nevertheless have persuasive
influence on the Courts analysis.
In the area of freedom of expression, for instance, United
States courts have ruled that existing free speech doctrines
protect gay and lesbian rights to expressive conduct. In
order to justify the prohibition of a particular expression of
opinion, public institutions must show that their actions
were caused by something more than a mere desire to
avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always
accompany an unpopular viewpoint.43
With respect to freedom of association for the

advancement of ideas and beliefs, in Europe, with its
vibrant human rights tradition, the European Court of
Human Rights (ECHR) has repeatedly stated that a
political party may campaign for a
_______________
42See 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 Convention
on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Norris v. Ireland, 13 Eur.
Ct. H.R. 186 (1991) Modinos v. Cyprus, 16 Eur. H.R. Rep. 485 (1993). See
also, L. and V. v Austria (2003I 29 (2003) 36 EHRR 55) and S.L. v
Austria (2003I 71 (2003) 37 EHRR 39), where the European Court
considered that Austrias differing age of consent for heterosexual and
homosexual relations was discriminatory it embodied a predisposed bias
on the part of a heterosexual majority against a homosexual minority,
which could not amount to sufficient justification for the differential
treatment any more than similar negative attitudes towards those of a
different race, origin or colour.
43 See Fricke v. Lynch, 491 F. Supp. 381 (1980) and Gay Student
Services v. Texas A&M University, 737 F. 2d 1317 (1984).
70
70

change in the law or the constitutional structures of a

state if it uses legal and democratic means and the changes
it proposes are consistent with democratic principles. The
ECHR has emphasized that political ideas that challenge
the existing order and whose realization is advocated by
peaceful means must be afforded a proper opportunity of
expression through the exercise of the right of association,
even if such ideas may seem shocking or unacceptable to
the authorities or the majority of the population.44 A
political group should not be hindered solely because it
seeks to publicly debate controversial political issues in
order to find solutions capable of satisfying everyone
concerned.45 Only if a political party incites violence or puts
forward policies that are incompatible
_______________
44Case of the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v.
Bulgaria Application No. 5941/00 Judgment of January 20, 2006. Note
that in Baczkowski and Others v. Poland, Application No. 1543/06
Judgment of May 3, 2007, the ECHR unanimously ruled that the banning
of an LGBT gay parade in Warsaw was a discriminatory violation of
Article 14 of the ECHR, which provides:
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention
shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race,
colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other
status.
It also found that banning LGBT parades violated the groups freedom
of assembly and association. Referring to the hallmarks of a democratic
society, the Court has attached particular importance to pluralism,
tolerance and broadmindedness. In that context, it has held that although
individual interests must on occasion be subordinated to those of a group,
democracy does not simply mean that the views of the majority must
always prevail: a balance must be achieved which ensures the fair and
proper treatment of minorities and avoids any abuse of a dominant
position.
45Case of Freedom & Democracy Party (OZDEP) v. Turkey, Application
No. 23885/94 Judgment of December 8, 1999.
71
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
71
with democracy does it fall outside the protection of the

freedom of association guarantee.46
_______________
46 Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention) provides:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to
freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join
trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other
than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic
society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the
prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or
for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall
not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these
rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the
administration of the State. Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 213 U.N.T.S. 222, entered into force
September 3, 1953, as amended by Protocols Nos. 3, 5, 8, and 11 which
entered into force on September 21, 1970, December 20, 1971, January 1,
1990, and November 1, 1998, respectively.
* Note that while the state is not permitted to discriminate against
homosexuals, private individuals cannot be compelled to accept or condone
homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior. In Hurley v. Irish
American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. (515 U.S. 557
[1995]), the US Supreme Court discussed whether antidiscrimination
legislation operated to require the organizers of a private St. Patricks Day
parade to include among the marchers an IrishAmerican gay, lesbian,
and bisexual group. The court held that private citizens organizing a
public demonstration may not be compelled by the state to include groups
that impart a message the organizers do not want to be included in their
demonstration. The court observed:
[A] contingent marching behind the organizations banner
would at least bear witness to the fact that some Irish are gay,
lesbian, or bisexual, and the presence of the organized marchers
would suggest their view that people of their sexual orientations
have
as
much
claim
to
unqualified
social
acceptance
as
heterosexuals x x x. The parades organizers may not

72
72

We do not doubt that a number of our citizens may

believe that homosexual conduct is distasteful, offensive, or
even defiant. They are entitled to hold and express that
view. On the other hand, LGBTs and their supporters, in
all likelihood, believe with equal fervor that relationships
between individuals of the same sex are morally equivalent
to heterosexual relationships. They, too, are entitled 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 values of other members of the
community.
Of course, none of this suggests the impending arrival of
a golden age for gay rights litigants. It well may be that

this Decision will only serve to highlight the discrepancy
between the rigid constitutional analysis of this Court and
the more complex moral sentiments of Filipinos. We do not
suggest that
_______________
believe these facts about Irish sexuality to be so, or they may object to
unqualified social acceptance of gays and lesbians or have some other
reason for wishing to keep GLIBs message out of the parade. But
whatever the reason, it boils down to the choice of a speaker not to
propound a particular point of view, and that choice is presumed to lie
beyond the governments power to control.
So, too, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (530 U.S. 640 [2000]), the US
Supreme Court held that the Boy Scouts of America could not be
compelled to accept a homosexual as a scoutmaster, because the Boy
Scouts believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it
seeks to instill in its youth members it will not promote homosexual
conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.
When an expressive organization is compelled to associate with a
person whose views the group does not accept, the organizations message
is undermined the organization is understood to embrace, or at the very
least tolerate, the views of the persons linked with them. The
scoutmasters presence would, at the very least, force the organization to
send a message, both to the youth members and the world, that the Boy
Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.
73
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
73
public opinion, even at its most liberal, reflect a clearcut

strong consensus favorable to gay rights claims and we
neither attempt nor expect to affect individual perceptions
of homosexuality through this Decision.
The OSG argues that since there has been neither prior
restraint nor subsequent punishment imposed on Ang
Ladlad, and its members have not been deprived of their
right to voluntarily associate, then there has been no
restriction on their freedom of expression or association.
The OSG argues that:
There was no utterance restricted, no publication censored, or
any assembly denied. [COMELEC] simply exercised its authority

to review and verify the qualifications of petitioner as a sectoral
party applying to participate in the partylist system. This lawful
exercise of duty cannot be said to be a transgression of Section 4,
Article III of the Constitution.
xxxx
A denial of the petition for registration x x x does not deprive
the members of the petitioner to freely take part in the conduct of
elections. Their right to vote will not be hampered by said denial.
In fact, the right to vote is a constitutionallyguaranteed right
which cannot be limited.
As to its right to be elected in a genuine periodic election,
petitioner contends that the denial of Ang Ladlads petition has
the clear and immediate effect of limiting, if not outrightly
nullifying the capacity of its members to fully and equally
participate in public life through engagement in the party list
elections.
This argument is puerile. The holding of a public office is not a
right but a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. x x x47
The OSG fails to recall that petitioner has, in fact,

established its qualifications to participate in the partylist
system, andas advanced by the OSG itselfthe moral
objection offered by the COMELEC was not a limitation
imposed by law. To the extent, therefore, that the
petitioner has been
_______________
47Rollo, pp. 197199.
74
74

precluded, because of COMELECs action, from publicly

expressing its views as a political party and participating
on an equal basis in the political process with other
equallyqualified partylist candidates, we find that there
has, indeed, been a transgression of petitioners
fundamental rights.
NonDiscrimination and International Law
In an age that has seen international law evolve
geometrically in scope and promise, international human
rights law, in particular, has grown dynamically in its

attempt to bring about a more just and humane world
order. For individuals and groups struggling with
inadequate structural and governmental support,
international human rights norms are particularly
significant, and should be effectively enforced in domestic
legal systems so that such norms may become actual,
rather than ideal, standards of conduct.
Our Decision today is fully in accord with our
international obligations to protect and promote human
rights. In particular, we explicitly recognize the principle of
nondiscrimination as it relates to the right to electoral
participation, enunciated in the UDHR and the ICCPR.
The principle of nondiscrimination is laid out in Article
26 of the ICCPR, as follows:
Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without
any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this
respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee
to all persons equal and effective protection against
discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status.
In this context, the principle of nondiscrimination

requires that laws of general application relating to
elections be applied equally to all persons, regardless of
sexual orientation. Although sexual orientation is not
specifically enumerated as a status or ratio for
discrimination in Article 26 of the ICCPR,
75
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
75
the ICCPR Human Rights Committee has opined that the

reference to sex in Article 26 should be construed to
include sexual orientation.48 Additionally, a variety of
United Nations bodies have declared discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation to be prohibited under various
international agreements.49
_______________
48In Toonen v. Australia, supra note 42, the Human Rights Committee
noted that in its view the reference to sex in Articles 2, paragraph 2, and
26 is to be taken as including sexual orientation.
49 The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
has dealt with the matter in its General Comments, the interpretative
texts it issues to explicate the full meaning of the provisions of the
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In General Comments
Nos. 18 of 2005 (on the right to work) (Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 18: The right to work,
E/C.12/GC/18, November 24, 2005), 15 of 2002 (on the right to water)
(Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment
No. 15: The right to water, E/C.12/2002/11, November 26, 2002) and 14 of
2000 (on the right to the highest attainable standard of health)
(Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment
No. 14: The right to the highest attainable standard of health,
E/C.12/2000/4, August 14, 2000), it has indicated that the Covenant
proscribes any discrimination on the basis of, interalia, sex and sexual
orientation.
The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has also dealt with the
issue in a General Comment. In its General Comment No. 4 of 2003, it
stated that, State parties have the obligation to ensure that all human
beings below 18 enjoy all the rights set forth in the Convention [on the
Rights of the Child] without discrimination (Article 2), including with
regard to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
These grounds also cover [inter alia] sexual orientation. (Committee on
the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 4: Adolescent health and
development in the context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
July 1, 2003, CRC/GC/2003/4).
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW), has, on a number of occasions, criticized States for
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. For example, it
76
76

The UDHR provides:

Article21.
(1)Everyone has the right to take part in the government of
his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Likewise, the ICCPR states:
Article 25
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without
any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without
unreasonable restrictions:
(a)To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or
through freely chosen representatives
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections
which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held
by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the
electors
(c)To have access, on general terms of equality, to public
service in his country.
As stated by the CHR in its CommentinIntervention,

the scope of the right to electoral participation is elaborated
by the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment
No. 25 (Participation in Public Affairs and the Right to
Vote) as follows:
1.Article 25 of the Covenant recognizes and protects the
right of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs,
the right to vote and to be elected and the right to have access to
public service. Whatever form of constitution or government is in
force, the Covenant requires States to adopt such legislative and
other measures as may be necessary to ensure that citizens have
an effective
_______________
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 Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women regarding Kyrgyzstan, February 5, 1999, A/54/38
at par. 128).
77
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
77
opportunity to enjoy the rights it protects. Article 25 lies at the

core of democratic government based on the consent of the people
and in conformity with the principles of the Covenant.
xxxx
15.The effective implementation of the right and the
opportunity to stand for elective office ensures that persons
entitled to vote have a free choice of candidates. Any restrictions

on the right to stand for election, such as minimum age, must be
justifiable on objective and reasonable criteria. Persons who are
otherwise eligible to stand for election should not be excluded by
unreasonable or discriminatory requirements such as education,
residence or descent, or by reason of political affiliation. No
person should suffer discrimination or disadvantage of any kind
because of that persons candidacy. States parties should indicate
and explain the legislative provisions which exclude any group or
category of persons from elective office.50
We stress, however, that although this Court stands

willing to assume the responsibility of giving effect to the
Philippines international law obligations, the blanket
invocation of international law is not the panacea for all
social ills. We refer now to the petitioners invocation of the
Yogyakarta Principles (the Application of International
Human Rights Law In Relation to Sexual Orientation and
Gender Identity),51 which petitioner declares to reflect
binding principles of international law.
_______________
50General Comment No. 25: The right to participate in public affairs,
voting rights and the right of equal access to public service (Art. 25)
December 16, 1996. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7.
51The Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of Inter
na
tional
Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
is a set of international principles relating to sexual orientation and
gender identity, intended to address documented evidence of abuse of
rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals. It
contains 29 Principles adopted by human rights practitioners and experts,
together
with
recommendations
to
governments,
regional
intergovernmental institutions, civil society, and the United Nations.

78
78

At this time, we are not prepared to declare that these

Yogyakarta Principles contain norms that 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 sources of international law enumerated under

Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of
Justice.52 Peti
_______________
52 One example is Principle 3 (The Right to Recognition Before the
Law), which provides:
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before
the law. Persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities shall
enjoy legal capacity in all aspects of life. Each persons selfdefined sexual
orientation and gender identity is integral to their personality and is one
of the most basic aspects of selfdetermination, dignity and freedom. No
one shall be forced to undergo medical procedures, including sex
reassignment surgery, sterilization or hormonal therapy, as a requirement
for legal recognition of their gender identity. No status, such as marriage
or parenthood, may be invoked as such to prevent the legal recognition of
a persons gender identity. No one shall be subjected to pressure to
conceal, suppress or deny their sexual orientation or gender identity.
States shall:
a) Ensure that all persons are accorded legal capacity in civil
matters, without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or
gender identity, and the opportunity to exercise that capacity, including
equal rights to conclude contracts, and to administer, own, acquire
(including through inheritance), manage, enjoy and dispose of property
b)Take all necessary legislative, administrative and other
measures to fully respect and legally recognise each persons self
defined gender identity
c)Take all necessary legislative, administrative and other
measures to ensure that procedures exist whereby all Stateissued
identity papers which indicate a persons gender/sex including
birth
certificates,
passports,
electoral
records
and
other
documents reflect the persons profound selfdefined gender

identity
79
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
79
tioner has not undertaken any objective and rigorous

analysis of these alleged principles of international law to
ascertain their true status.
We also hasten to add that not everything that society
or a certain segment of societywants or demands is
automatically a human right. This is not an arbitrary

human intervention that may be added to or subtracted
from at will. It is unfortunate that much of what passes for
human rights today is a much broader context of needs
that identifies many social desires as rights in order to
further claims that international law obliges states to
sanction these innovations. This has the effect of diluting
real human rights, and is a result of the notion that if
wants are couched in rights language, then they are no
longer controversial.
Using even the most liberal of lenses, these Yogyakarta
Principles, consisting of a declaration formulated by
various international law professors, areat bestde lege
ferendaand 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.53
_______________
d)Ensure that such procedures are efficient, fair and non
discriminatory, and respect the dignity and privacy of the person
concerned
e)Ensure that changes to identity documents will be recognized in all
contexts where the identification or disaggregation of persons by gender is
required by law or policy
f)Undertake targeted programmes to provide social support for all
persons experiencing gender transitioning or reassignment. (Emphasis
ours)
53See Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines
v. Secretary of Health, G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007, 535 SCRA 265,
where we explained that soft law does not fall into any
80
80

As a final note, we cannot help but observe that the

social issues presented by this case are emotionally
charged, societal attitudes are in flux, even the psychiatric

and religious communities are divided in opinion. This
Courts role is not to impose its own view of acceptable
behavior. Rather, it is to apply the Constitution and laws
as best as it can, uninfluenced by public opinion, and
confident in the knowledge that our democracy is resilient
enough to withstand vigorous debate.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The
Resolutions of the Commission on Elections dated
November 11, 2009 and December 16, 2009 in SPP No. 09
228 (PL) are hereby SET ASIDE. The Commission on
Elections is directed to GRANT petitioners application for
partylist accreditation.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., LeonardoDe Castro, Bersamin,
Villarama, Jr., Perez and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Puno (C.J.), See Separate Opinion.
Corona, J., Please see Dissenting Opinion.
CarpioMorales, J., I join J. Abad., concurring opinion.
Nachura, J., I join concurring opinion of J. Abad.
Brion, J., I join dissent of J. Corona.
Peralta, J., I join the concurring opoinion of J.
Abad.
Abad, J., I certify that J. Abad write a separate
concurring opinionPuno, C.J.
_______________
of the categories of international law set forth in Article 38, Chapter III of
the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice. It is, however, an
expression of nonbinding norms, principles, and practices that influence
state behavior. Certain declarations and resolutions of the UN General
Assembly fall under this category.
81
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
81
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION

PUNO,C.J.:
I concur with the groundbreaking ponencia of my
esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo.
Nonetheless, I respectfully submit this separate opinion to
underscore some points that I deem significant.

FIRST. The assailed Resolutions of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) run afoul of the nonestablishment
clause1 of the Constitution. There was cypher effort on
the part of the COMELEC to couch its reasoning in legal
much less constitutionalterms, as it denied Ang Ladlads
petition for registration as a sectoral party principally on
the ground that it tolerates immorality which offends
religious (i.e., Christian2 and Muslim3) beliefs. To be sure,
the COMELECs
_______________
1 Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states: No law shall be
made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or
political rights.
2 The November 11, 2009 Resolution of the COMELEC cited the
following passage from the Bible to support its holding: For this cause
God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change
the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the
men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one
toward another men with men working that which is unseemly, and
receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
(Romans 1:2627)
3The November 11, 2009 Resolution of the COMELEC cited the
following passages from the Koran to support its holding:
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): Then see
what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime! (7.84)
82
82

ruling is completely antithetical to the fundamental rule

that [t]he public morality expressed in the law is
necessarily secular[,] for in our constitutional order, the
religion clauses prohibit the state from establishing a
religion, including the morality it sanctions.4 As we
explained in Estrada v. Escritor,5 the requirement of an
articulable and discernible secular purpose is meant to give

flesh to the constitutional policy of full religious freedom
for all, viz.:
Religion also dictates how we ought to live for the nature of
religion is not just to know, but often, to act in accordance with
mans views of his relations to His Creator. But the
Establishment Clause puts a negative bar against establishment
of this morality arising from one religion or the other, and implies
the affirmative establishment of a civil order for the resolution
of public moral dis
putes. This agreement on a secular mechanism
is the price of ending the war of all sects against all the
establishment of a secular public moral order is the social contract
produced by religious truce.
Thus, when the law speaks of immorality in the Civil Service
Law or immoral in the Code of Professional Responsibility for
lawyers, or public morals in the Revised Penal Code, or morals
in the New Civil Code, or moral character in the Constitution,
the distinction between public and secular morality on the one
hand, and religious morality, on the other, should be kept in
mind. The morality referred to in the law is public and necessarily
secular, not religious as the dissent of Mr. Justice Carpio holds.
Religious teachings as expressed in public debate may influence
the civil public order but public moral disputes may be resolved
only on grounds articulable in secular terms. Otherwise, if
government relies upon religious beliefs in formulating public
policies and morals, the resulting policies and morals would
require conformity to what some might regard as religious
programs or agenda. The nonbelievers would therefore be
compelled to conform to a standard of conduct buttressed by a
religious belief, i.e., to a compelled religion anathema to
religious
_______________
He said: O my Lord! Help Thou me against people who do mischief!
(29:30)
4 Estrada v. Escritor, 455 Phil. 411 408 SCRA 1 (2003).
5 Id.
83
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
83
freedom. Likewise, if government based its 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, government will not
provide full religious freedom for all its citizens, or even make it
appear that those whose beliefs are disapproved are secondclass
citizens. Expansive religious freedom therefore requires that
government be neutral in matters of religion governmental
reliance upon religious justification is inconsistent with this policy
of neutrality.6 (citations omitted and italics supplied)
Consequently, the assailed resolutions of the COMELEC

are violative of the constitutional directive that no
religious test shall be required for the exercise of
civil or political rights.7 Ang Ladlads right of political
participation was unduly infringed when the COMELEC,
swayed by the private biases and personal prejudices of its
constituent members, arrogated unto itself the role of a
religious court or worse, a morality police.
The COMELEC attempts to disengage itself from this
excessive entanglement8 with religion by arguing thatwe
cannot ignore our strict religious upbringing, whether
Christian or Muslim9 since the moral precepts espoused
by [these] religions have slipped into society and are now
publicly accepted moral norms.10 However, as correctly
observed by Mr. Justice Del Castillo, the Philippines has
not seen fit to disparage homosexual conduct as to actually
criminalize it. Indeed, even if the State has legislated to
this effect, the law is vulnerable to constitutional attack on
privacy grounds.11 These alleged generally accepted public
morals have not, in reality, crossed over from the religious
to the secular sphere.
_______________
6 Id.
7 Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
8 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
9 COMELECs Comment, p. 13.
10 Id.
11 See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472.
84
84

Some people may find homosexuality and bisexuality

deviant, odious, and offensive. Nevertheless, private
discrimination, however unfounded, cannot be attributed or
ascribed to the State. Mr. Justice Kennedy, speaking for
the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court in the landmark
case of Lawrence v. Texas,12 opined:
It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was
making the broader point that for centuries there have been
powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The
condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of
right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional
family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but
profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral
principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the
course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the
question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority
may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole
society through operation of the law. Our obligation is to define
the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.13
SECOND. The COMELEC capitalized on Ang Ladlads

definition of the term sexual orientation,14 as well as its
citation of the number of Filipino men who have sex with
men,15 as basis for the declaration that the party espouses
and advocates sexual immorality. This position,
however, would deny homosexual and bisexual
individuals a fundamental element of personal
identity and a legitimate exercise of personal liberty.
For, the ability to [in
_______________
12 Id.
13Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850,
112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992).
14Ang Ladlad defined sexual orientation as a persons capacity for
profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and
sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender, of the same gender,
or more than one gender. (italics supplied)
15Paragraph 24 of Ang Ladlads Petition for Registration stated, in
relevant part: In 2007, Men Having Sex with Men or MSMs in the
Philippines were estimated at 670,000.
85
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
85
dependently] define ones identity that is central to any

concept of liberty cannot truly be exercised in a vacuum
we all depend on the emotional enrichment from close ties
with others.16 As Mr. Justice Blackmun so eloquently said
in his stinging dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick17
(overturned by the United States Supreme Court seventeen
years later in Lawrence v. Texas18):
Only the most willful blindness could obscure the fact that
sexual intimacy is a sensitive, key relationship of human
existence, central to family life, community welfare, and the
development of human personality[.]19 The fact that individuals
define themselves in a significant way through their intimate
sexual relationships with others suggests, in a Nation as diverse
as ours, that there may be many right ways of conducting those
relationships, and that much of the richness of a relationship will
come from the freedom an individual has to choose the form and
nature of these intensely personal bonds.20
In a variety of circumstances we have recognized that a
necessary corollary of giving individuals freedom to choose how to
conduct their lives is acceptance of the fact that different
individuals will make different choices. For example, in holding
that the clearly important state interest in public education
should give way to a competing claim by the Amish to the effect
that extended formal schooling threatened their way of life, the
Court declared: There can be no assumption that todays
majority is right and the Amish and
_______________
16Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S.Ct. 3244, as cited in the
Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice Blackmun in Bowers v. Hardwick, infra.
17 478 U.S. 186, 106 S.Ct. 2841.
18 Supra note 11.
19Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 63, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 2638, 37
L.Ed.2d 446 (1973) See also Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S.
678, 685, 97 S.Ct. 2010, 2016, 52 L.Ed.2d 675 (1977).
20See Karst, The Freedom of Intimate Association, 89 Yale L.J. 624, 637 (1980)
cf. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, 31 L.Ed.2d 349
(1972) Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S., at 153, 93 S.Ct., at 726.
86
86

others like them are wrong. A way of life that is odd or even
erratic but interferes with no rights or interests of others is not to
be condemned because it is different.21 The Court claims that its
decision today merely refuses to recognize a fundamental right to
engage in homosexual sodomy what the Court really has refused
to recognize is the fundamental interest all individuals have in
controlling the nature of their intimate associations with others.
(italics supplied)
It has been said that freedom extends beyond spatial

bounds.22 Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that
includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain
intimate conduct.23 These matters, involving the most
intimate and personal choices a person may make in a
lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy,
are central to the liberty protected by the due process
clause.24 At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones
own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and
of the mystery of human life.25 Beliefs about these matters
could not define the attributes of personhood were they
formed under compulsion of the State.26 Lawrence v.
Texas27 is again instructive:
To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage
in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put
forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be
said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual
intercourse. The laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure,
statutes that purport to do no more than prohibit a particular
sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far
reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human
conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the
home. The statutes do seek to
_______________
21 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 223224, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1537, 32 L.Ed.2d
15 (1972).
22 Lawrence v. Texas, supra note 11.
23 Id.
24Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, supra note 13.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Supra note 11.

87
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
87
control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to

formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to
choose without being punished as criminals.
This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the
State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to
set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an
institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that
adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of
their homes and their own private lives and still retain their
dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in
intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one
element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty
protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right
to make this choice. (italics supplied)
THIRD. The ponencia of Mr. Justice Del Castillo refused

to characterize homosexuals and bisexuals as a class in
themselves for purposes of the equal protection clause.
Accordingly, it struck down the assailed Resolutions using
the most liberal basis of judicial scrutiny, the rational basis
test, according to which government need only show that
the challenged classification is rationally related to serving
a legitimate state interest.
I humbly submit, however, that a classification based on
gender or sexual orientation is a quasisuspect
classification, as to trigger a heightened level of
review.
Preliminarily, in our jurisdiction, the standard and
analysis of equal protection challenges in the main have
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 Constitution.28 However,
Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas,29 carved out an exception to this
general rule, such that prejudice to
_______________
28 Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng

Pilipinas, 487 Phil. 531, 583 446 SCRA 299, 370 (2004).
29 Id.
88
88

persons accorded special protection by the Constitution

requires stricter judicial scrutiny than mere rationality,
viz.:
Congress retains its wide discretion in providing for a valid
classification, and its policies should be accorded recognition and
respect by the courts of justice except when they run afoul of the
Constitution. The deference stops where the classification violates
a fundamental right, or prejudices persons accorded special
protection by the Constitution. When these violations arise, this
Court must discharge its primary role as the vanguard of
constitutional guaranties, and require a stricter and more exacting
adherence to constitutional limitations. Rational basis should not
suffice. (citations omitted and italics supplied)
Considering thus that labor enjoys such special and

protected status under our fundamental law, the Court
ruled in favor of the Central Bank Employees Association,
Inc. in this wise:
While R.A. No. 7653 started as a valid measure well within
the legislatures power, we hold that the enactment of subsequent
laws exempting all rankandfile employees of other GFIs leeched
all validity out of the challenged proviso.
xxxx
According to petitioner, the last proviso of Section 15(c), Article
II of R.A. No. 7653 is also violative of the equal protection clause
because after it was enacted, the charters of the GSIS, LBP, DBP
and SSS were also amended, but the personnel of the latter GFIs
were all exempted from the coverage of the SSL. Thus, within the
class of rankandfile personnel of GFIs, the BSP rankandfile are
also discriminated upon.
Indeed, we take judicial notice that after the new BSP charter
was enacted in 1993, Congress also undertook the amendment of
the charters of the GSIS, LBP, DBP and SSS, and three other
GFIs, from 1995 to 2004, viz.:
xxxx
It is noteworthy, as petitioner points out, that the subsequent
charters of the seven other GFIs share this common proviso: a
blanket exemption of all their employees from the coverage of the
SSL, expressly or impliedly...
89
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
89
xxxx
The abovementioned subsequent enactments, however,
constitute significant changes in circumstance that considerably
alter the reasonability of the continued operation of the last
proviso of Section 15(c), Article II of Republic Act No. 7653,
thereby exposing the proviso to more serious scrutiny. This time,
the scrutiny relates to the constitutionality of the classification
albeit made indirectly as a consequence of the passage of eight
other lawsbetween the rankandfile of the BSP and the seven
other GFIs. The classification must not only be reasonable, but
must also apply equally to all members of the class. The proviso
may be fair on its face and impartial in appearance but it cannot
be grossly discriminatory in its operation, so as practically to
make unjust distinctions between persons who are without
differences.
Stated differently, the second level of inquiry deals with the
following questions: Given that Congress chose to exempt other
GFIs (aside the BSP) from the coverage of the SSL, can the
exclusion of the rankandfile employees of the BSP stand
constitutional scrutiny in the light of the fact that Congress did
not exclude the rankandfile employees of the other GFIs? Is
Congress power to classify so unbridled as to sanction unequal
and discriminatory treatment, simply because the inequity
manifested itself, not instantly through a single overt act, but
gradually and progressively, through seven separate acts of
Congress? Is the right to equal protection of the law bounded in
time and space that: (a) the right can only be invoked against a
classification made directly and deliberately, as opposed to a
discrimination that arises indirectly, or as a consequence of
several other acts and (b) is the legal analysis confined to
determining the validity within the parameters of the statute or
ordinance (where the inclusion or exclusion is articulated),
thereby proscribing any evaluation visvis the grouping, or the
lack thereof, among several similar enactments made over a
period of time?
In this second level of scrutiny, the inequality of treatment
cannot be justified on the mere assertion that each exemption
(granted to the seven other GFIs) rests on a policy determination
by the legislature. All legislative enactments necessarily rest on
a policy determinationeven those that have been declared to
contravene the Constitution. Verily, if this could serve as a magic
wand to sustain the validity of a statute, then no due process and
equal protection challenges would ever prosper. There is nothing
inherently
90
90

sacrosanct in a policy determination made by Congress or by the

Executive it cannot run riot and overrun the ramparts of
protection of the Constitution.
xxxx
In the case at bar, it is precisely the fact that as regards the
exemption from the SSL, there are no characteristics peculiar
only to the seven GFIs or their rankandfile so as to justify the
exemption which BSP rankandfile employees were denied (not to
mention the anomaly of the SEC getting one). The distinction
made by the law is not only superficial, but also arbitrary. It is
not based on substantial distinctions that make real differences
between the BSP rankandfile and the seven other GFIs.
xxxx
The disparity of treatment between BSP rankandfile and the
rankandfile of the other seven GFIs definitely bears the
unmistakable badge of invidious discriminationno one can, with
candor and fairness, deny the discriminatory character of the
subsequent blanket and total exemption of the seven other GFIs
from the SSL when such was withheld from the BSP. Alikes are
being treated as unalikes without any rational basis.
xxxx
Thus, the twotier analysis made in the case at bar of the
challenged provision, and its conclusion of unconstitutionality by
subsequent operation, are in cadence and in consonance with the
progressive trend of other jurisdictions and in international law.
There should be no hesitation in using the equal protection clause
as a major cutting edge to eliminate every conceivable irrational
discrimination in our society. Indeed, the social justice imperatives
in the Constitution, coupled with the special status and protection
afforded to labor, compel this approach.

Apropos the special protection afforded to labor under our
Constitution and international law, we held in International
School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing:
That public policy abhors inequality and discrimination
is beyond contention. Our Constitution and laws reflect the
policy against these evils. The Constitution in the Article on
Social Justice and Human Rights exhorts Congress to give
highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect
and enhance the right of all people to human dignity,
reduce social,
91
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
91
economic, and political inequalities. The very broad Article

19 of the Civil Code requires every person, in the exercise
of his rights and in the performance of his duties, [to] act
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and
good faith.
International law, which springs from general principles
of law, likewise proscribes discrimination. General
principles of law include principles of equity, i.e., the
general principles of fairness and justice, based on the test
of what is reasonable. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social,
and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the
Convention against Discrimination in Edu
ca
tion, the
Convention (No. 111) Concerning Discrimination in Respect
of Employment and Occupationall embody the general
principle against discrimination, the very antithesis of
fairness and justice. The Philippines, through its
Constitution, has incorporated this principle as part of its
national laws.
In the workplace, where the relations between capital
and labor are often skewed in favor of capital, inequality
and discrimination by the employer are all the more
reprehensible.
The Constitution specifically provides that labor is
entitled to humane conditions of work. These conditions
are not restricted to the physical workplacethe factory, the
office or the fieldbut include as well the manner by which
employers treat their employees.

The Constitution also directs the State to promote
equality of employment opportunities for all. Similarly, the
Labor Code provides that the State shall ensure equal work
opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed. It would be an
affront to both the spirit and letter of these provisions if the
State, in spite of its primordial obligation to promote and
ensure equal employment opportunities, closes its eyes to
unequal and discriminatory terms and conditions of
employment.
xxxxxxxxx
Notably, the International Covenant on Economic, Social,
and Cultural Rights, in Article 7 thereof, provides:
The States Parties to the present Covenant
recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of
just and [favorable] conditions of work, which ensure,
in particular:
92
92

a.Remuneration which provides all workers, as a

minimum, with:
i. Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of
equal value without distinction of any kind, in
particular women being guaranteed conditions of
work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal
pay for equal work
xxxxxxxxx
The foregoing provisions impregnably institutionalize in
this jurisdiction the long honored legal truism of equal pay
for equal work. Persons who work with substantially equal
qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, under similar
conditions, should be paid similar salaries.
x x x x
Under most circumstances, the Court will exercise judicial
restraint in deciding questions of constitutionality, recognizing
the broad discretion given to Congress in exercising its legislative
power. Judicial scrutiny would be based on the rational basis
test, and the legislative discretion would be given deferential
treatment.
But if the challenge to the statute is premised on the denial of a
fundamental right, or the perpetuation of prejudice against
persons favored by the Constitution with special protection,

judicial scrutiny ought to be more strict. A weak and watered
down view would call for the abdication of this Courts solemn
duty to strike down any law repugnant to the Constitution and the
rights it enshrines. This is true whether the actor committing the
unconstitutional act is a private person or the government itself
or one of its instrumentalities. Oppressive acts will be struck
down regardless of the character or nature of the actor.
In the case at bar, the challenged proviso operates on the basis
of the salary grade or officeremployee status. It is akin to a
distinction based on economic class and status, with the higher
grades as recipients of a benefit specifically withheld from the
lower grades. Officers of the BSP now receive higher
compensation packages that are competitive with the industry,
while the poorer, lowsalaried employees are limited to the rates
prescribed by the SSL. The implications are quite disturbing: BSP
rankandfile employees are paid the strictly regimented rates of
the SSL while employees higher in rankpossessing higher and
better education and opportunities for career advancementare
given higher compensation packages to
93
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
93
entice them to stay. Considering that majority, if not all, the rank
andfile employees consist of people whose status and rank in life
are less and limited, especially in terms of job marketability, it is
theyand not the officerswho have the real economic and
financial need for the adjustment. This is in accord with the policy
of the Constitution to free the people from poverty, provide
adequate social services, extend to them a decent standard of
living, and improve the quality of life for all. Any act of Congress
that runs counter to this constitutional desideratum deserves strict
scrutiny by this Court before it can pass muster. (citations
omitted and italics supplied)
Corollarily, American case law provides that a state

action questioned on equal protection grounds is subject to
one of three levels of judicial scrutiny. The level of review,
on a sliding scale basis, varies with the type of
classification utilized and the nature of the right affected.30
If a legislative classification disadvantages a suspect
class or impinges upon the exercise of a fundamental
right, then the courts will employ strict scrutiny and the
statute must fall unless the government can demonstrate
that the classification has been precisely tailored to serve a
compelling governmental interest.31 Over the years, the
United States Supreme Court has determined that suspect
classes for equal protection purposes include classifications
based on race, religion, alienage, national origin, and
ancestry.32 The under
_______________
30Pace Membership Warehouse, Div. of KMart Corp. v. Axelson, 938
P.2d 504.
3116B Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law 857, citing Clark v. Jeter, 486
U.S. 456, 108 S. Ct. 1910, 100 L. Ed. 2d 465 (1988) Perry Educ. Assn v.
Perry Local Educators Assn, 460 U.S. 37, 103 S. Ct. 948, 74 L. Ed. 2d 794,
9 Ed. Law Rep. 23 (1983) Christie v. Coors Transp. Co., 933 P.2d 1330
(Colo. 1997) Baker v. City of Ottumwa, 560 N.W.2d 578 (Iowa 1997)
Zempel v. Uninsured Employers Fund, 282 Mont. 424, 938 P.2d 658
(1997) Hovland v. City of Grand Forks, 1997 ND 95, 563 N.W.2d 384
(N.D. 1997).
32 Murray v. State of Louisiana, 2010 WL 334537. See Burlington N.
R.R. Co. v. Ford, 112 S.Ct. 2184, 2186 (1992) (holding classification based
on religion is a suspect classification) Graham v.
94
94

lying rationale of this theory is that where legislation

affects discrete and insular minorities, the presumption of
constitutionality fades because traditional political
processes may have broken down.33 In such a case, the
State bears a heavy burden of justification, and the
government action will be closely scrutinized in light of its
asserted purpose.34
On the other hand, if the classification, while not facially
invidious, nonetheless gives rise to recurring constitutional
difficulties, or if a classification disadvantages a quasi
suspect class, it will be treated under intermediate or
heightened review.35 To survive intermediate scrutiny, the
law must not only further an important governmental
interest and be substantially related to that interest, but
the justification for the classification must be genuine and

must not depend on broad generalizations.36 Noteworthy,
and of special interest to us in this case, quasisuspect
classes include classifications based on gender or
illegitimacy.37
_______________
Richardson, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 1852 (1971) (holding classification based on
alienage is a suspect classification) Loving v. Virginia, 87 S.Ct. 1817,
1823
(1967)
(holding
classification
based
on
race
is
suspect
classification) Oyama v. California, 68 S.Ct. 269, 27474 (1948) (holding

classification based on national origin is a suspect classification)
Hirabayashi v. U.S., 63 S.Ct. 1375 (1943) (holding classification based on
ancestry is a suspect classification).
33Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 94 S. Ct. 1160, 39 L. Ed. 2d 389
(1974).
34Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 92 S. Ct. 995, 31 L. Ed. 2d 274
(1972) Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385, 89 S. Ct. 557, 21 L. Ed. 2d 616
(1969) McLaughlin v. State of Fla., 379 U.S. 184, 85 S. Ct. 283, 13 L. Ed.
2d 222 (1964).
35 Supra note 31.
36United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533, 116 S.Ct. 2264, 2275,
135 L.Ed.2d 735, 751 (1996).
37Murray v. State of Louisiana, supra note 32. See Mississippi
University for Women v. Hogan, 102 S.Ct. 3331, 3336 (1982) (holding
classifications based on gender calls for heightened standard of review)
Trimble v. Gordon, 97 S.Ct. 1459, 1463 (1977) (holding illegitimacy is a
quasisuspect classification).
95
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
95
If neither strict nor intermediate scrutiny is

appropriate, then the statute will be tested for mere
rationality.38 This is a relatively relaxed standard
reflecting the Courts awareness that the drawing of lines
which creates distinctions is peculiarly a legislative task
and an unavoidable one.39 The presumption is in favor of
the classification, of the reasonableness and fairness of
state action, and of legitimate grounds of distinction, if any
such grounds exist, on which the State acted.40
such grounds exist, on which the State acted.40

Instead of adopting a rigid formula to determine
whether certain legislative classifications warrant more
demanding constitutional analysis, the United States
Supreme Court has looked to four factors,41 thus:
_______________
38Supra note 31.
39Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory, 431 U.S. 471, 97 S.
Ct. 1898, 52 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1977) Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v.
Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 96 S. Ct. 2562, 49 L. Ed. 2d 520 (1976) Costner v.
U.S., 720 F.2d 539 (8th Cir. 1983).
40Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365 (4th Cir. 1996) Cornerstone Christian
Schools v. University Interscholastic League, 563 F.3d 127, 243 Ed. Law
Rep. 609 (5th Cir. 2009) Independent Charities of America, Inc. v. State of
Minn., 82 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 1996) Bah v. City of Atlanta, 103 F.3d 964
(11th Cir. 1997).
41 Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (2009) citing the following
passage from Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2394, 72
L.Ed.2d 786, 799 (1982):
Several formulations
might
explain
our
treatment
of
certain
classifications as suspect. Some classifications are more likely than

others to reflect deepseated prejudice rather than legislative rationality
in pursuit of some legitimate objective. Legislation predicated on such
prejudice is easily recognized as incompatible with the constitutional
understanding that each person is to be judged individually and is entitled
to equal justice under the law. Classifications treated as suspect tend to
be irrelevant to any proper legislative goal. Finally, certain groups, indeed
largely the same groups, have historically been relegated to such a
position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection
from the majoritarian po
96
96

(1)The history of invidious discrimination

against the class burdened by the legislation42
(2)Whether the characteristics that distinguish
the class indicate a typical class members ability to
contribute to society43
_______________
litical process. The experience of our Nation has shown that prejudice
may manifest itself in the treatment of some groups. Our response to that
experience is reflected in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Legislation imposing special disabilities upon groups
disfavored by virtue of circumstances beyond their control suggests the
kind of class or caste treatment that the Fourteenth Amendment was
designed to abolish.
42 See United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. at 53132, 116 S.Ct. at 2274
75, 135 L.Ed.2d at 750 (observing long and unfortunate history of sex
discrimination (quoting Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 684, 93
S.Ct. 1764, 1769, 36 L.Ed.2d 583, 590 (1973) (Brennan, J., plurality
opinion))) Lyng v. Castillo, 477 U.S. 635, 638, 106 S.Ct. 2727, 2729, 91
L.Ed.2d 527, 533 (1986) (noting subject class had not been subjected to
discrimination) City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 at
443, 105 S.Ct. at 3256, 87 L.Ed.2d at 332 (mentally retarded not victims of
continuing antipathy or prejudice) Mass. Bd. of Ret. v. Murgia, 427 U.S.
307, 313, 96 S.Ct. 2562, 2567, 49 L.Ed.2d 520, 525 (1976) (considering
history of purposeful unequal treatment (quoting San Antonio Indep.
Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 28, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1294, 36 L.Ed.2d 16,
40 [1973]).
43See Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. at 440, 105 S.Ct. at 3254, 87
L.Ed.2d at 320 (certain classifications merely reflect prejudice and
antipathy) Miss. Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 725, 102 S.Ct.
3331, 3336, 73 L.Ed.2d 1090, 1098 (1982) (Care must be taken in
ascertaining whether the statutory objective itself reflects archaic and
stereotypic notions.) Murgia, 427 U.S. at 313, 96 S.Ct. at 2566, 49
L.Ed.2d at 525 (considering whether aged have been subjected to unique
disabilities on the basis of stereotyped characteristics not truly indicative
of their abilities) Frontiero, 411 U.S. at 686, 93 S.Ct. at 1770, 36 L.Ed.2d
at 591 (Brennan, J., plurality opinion) ([T]he sex characteristic
frequently bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to
society.).
97
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
97
(3)Whether the distinguishing characteristic is

immutable or beyond the class members control44
and
(4)The political power of the subject class.45
These factors, it must be emphasized, are not

constitutive essential elements of a suspect or quasi
suspect class, as to individually demand a certain weight.46
The U.S. Supreme Court has applied the four factors in a
flexible manner it has neither required, nor even
discussed, every factor in every case.47 Indeed, no single
talisman can define those
_______________
44 Lyng, 477 U.S. at 638, 106 S.Ct. at 2729, 91 L.Ed.2d at 533 (close
relatives
do
not
exhibit
obvious,
immutable,
or
distinguishing
characteristics that define them as a discrete group) Cleburne Living

Ctr., 473 U.S. at 442, 105 S.Ct. at 325556, 87 L.Ed.2d at 322 (mentally
retarded people are different from other classes of people, immutably so,
in relevant respects) Plyler, 457 U.S. at 220, 102 S.Ct. at 2396, 72
L.Ed.2d at 801 (children of illegal aliens, unlike their parents, have legal
characteristic[s] over which children can have little control) Mathews v.
Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 505, 96 S.Ct. 2755, 2762, 49 L.Ed.2d 651, 660 (1976)
(status of illegitimacy is, like race or national origin, a characteristic
determined by causes not within the control of the illegitimate
individual) Frontiero, 411 U.S. at 686, 93 S.Ct. at 1770, 36 L.Ed.2d at
591 (Brennan, J., plurality opinion) ([S]ex, like race and national origin,
is an immutable characteristic determined solely by the accident of
birth....).
45 Lyng, 477 U.S. at 638, 106 S.Ct. at 2729, 91 L.Ed.2d at 533 (close
relatives of primary household are not a minority or politically
powerless) Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. at 445, 105 S.Ct. at 3257, 87
L.Ed.2d at 324 (refusing to find that the mentally retarded are politically
powerless) San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist., 411 U.S. at 28, 93 S.Ct. at
1294, 36 L.Ed.2d at 40 (considering whether minority and poor school
children were relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to
command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political
process).
46 Varnum v. Brien, supra note 41 Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public
Health, 289 Conn. 135, 957 A.2d 407 (2008).
47 Varnum v. Brien, id., citing, among others, Palmore v. Sidoti, 466
U.S. 429, 43334, 104 S.Ct. 1879, 188283, 80 L.Ed.2d 421, 426 (1984)
(foregoing analysis of political power) Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432
98
98

groups likely to be the target of classifications offensive to

the equal protection clause and therefore warranting
heightened or strict scrutiny experience, not abstract logic,
must be the primary guide.48
In any event, the first two factorshistory of intentional
discrimination and relationship of classifying characteristic
to a persons ability to contributehave always been
present when heightened scrutiny has been applied.49 They
have been critical to the analysis and could be considered
as prerequisites to concluding a group is a suspect or quasi
suspect class.50 However, the last two factors
immutability of the characteristic and political
powerlessness of the groupare considered simply to
supplement the analysis as a means to discern whether a
need for heightened scrutiny exists.51
_______________
U.S. 1, 9 n. 11, 97 S.Ct. 2120, 2125 n. 11, 53 L.Ed.2d 63, 71 n. 11 (1977)
(jettisoning immutability requirement and scrutinizing classification of
resident aliens closely despite aliens voluntary status as residents)
Mathews, 427 U.S. at 50506, 96 S.Ct. at 276263, 49 L.Ed.2d at 66061
(according heightened scrutiny to classifications based on illegitimacy
despite mutability and political power of illegitimates) Murgia, 427 U.S.
at 31314, 96 S.Ct. at 2567, 49 L.Ed.2d at 525 (omitting any reference to
immutability) San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist., 411 U.S. at 25, 93 S.Ct. at
1292, 36 L.Ed.2d at 38 (omitting any reference to immutability) Frontiero,
411 U.S. at 68588, 93 S.Ct. at 177071, 36 L.Ed.2d at 59192 (Brennan,
J., plurality opinion) (scrutinizing classification based on gender closely
despite political power of women) Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365,
37172, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 1852, 29 L.Ed.2d 534, 54142 (1971) (foregoing
analysis of immutability) see also Lyng, 477 U.S. at 638, 106 S.Ct. at
2729, 91 L.Ed.2d at 533 (referring to whether members of the class
exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define
them as a discrete group).
48 Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice Thurgood
Marshall in Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., infra.
49 Varnum v. Brien, supra note 41.
50 Id.
51 Id.
99
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
99
Guided by this framework, and considering further that

classifications based on sex or genderalbeit on a male/
female, man/woman basishave been previously held to
trigger heightened scrutiny, I respectfully submit that
classification on the basis of sexual orientation (i.e.,
homosexuality and/or bisexuality) is a quasisuspect
classification that prompts intermediate review.
The first consideration is whether homosexuals have
suffered a history of purposeful unequal treatment because
of their sexual orientation.52 One cannot, in good faith,
dispute that gay and lesbian persons historically have
been, and continue to be, the target of purposeful and
pernicious discrimination due solely to their sexual
orientation.53 Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Ang Ladlads Petition
for Registration for partylist accreditation in fact state:
6.There have been documented cases of discrimination and
violence perpetuated against the LGBT Community, among which are:
(a)Effeminate or gay youths being beaten up by their parents and/or
guardians to make them conform to standard gender norms of
behavior
(b)Fathers and/or guardians who allow their daughters who are
butch lesbians to be raped[, so as] to cure them into becoming
straight women
(c)Effeminate gays and butch lesbians are kicked out of school,
NGOs, and choirs because of their identity
(d)Effeminate youths and masculine young women are refused
admission from (sic) certain schools, are suspended or are
automatically put on probation
(e)Denial of jobs, promotions, trainings and other work benefits
once ones sexual orientation and gender identity is (sic) revealed
_______________
52Id. Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, supra note 46.
53Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, id.
100
100
(f)Consensual partnerships or relationships by gays and lesbians

who are already of age, are broken up by their parents or
guardians using the [A]ntikidnapping [L]aw
(g)Prayovers, exorcisms, and other religious cures are performed
on gays and lesbians to reform them
(h)Young gays and lesbians are forcibly subjected to psychiatric
counseling and therapy to cure them[,] despite the delisting (sic)
of homosexuality and lesbianism as a mental disorder by the
American Psychiatric Association
(i)Transgenders, or individuals who were born mail (sic) but who
selfidentity as women and dress as such, are denied entry or
services in certain restaurants and establishments and
(j)Several murders from the years 20033006 were committed
against gay men, but were not acknowledged by police as hate
crimes or violent acts of bigotry.
7.In the recent May 2009 US asylum case of Philip Belarmino, he
testified that as a young gay person in the Philippines, he was subjected
to a variety of sexual abuse and violence, including repeated rapes[,]
which he could not report to [the] police [or speak of] to his own parents.
Accordingly, this history of discrimination suggests that

any legislative burden placed on lesbian and gay people as
a class is more likely than others to reflect deepseated
prejudice rather than legislative rationality in pursuit of
some legitimate objective.54
A second relevant consideration is whether the
characterinissue is related to the persons ability to
contribute to society.55 Heightened scrutiny is applied
when the classification bears no relationship to this ability
the existence of this factor indicates the classification is
likely based on irrelevant stereotypes and prejudice.56
Insofar as sexual orientation is
_______________
55 Id.
56 Id.
101
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
101
concerned, it is gainful to repair to Kerrigan v.

Commissioner of Public Health,57 viz.:
Commissioner of Public Health,57 viz.:

The defendants also concede that sexual orientation bears no
relation to a persons ability to participate in or contribute to
society, a fact that many courts have acknowledged, as well. xxx
If homosexuals were afflicted with some sort of impediment to
their ability to perform and to contribute to society, the entire
phenomenon of staying in the [c]loset and of coming out would
not exist their impediment would betray their status. xxx In
this critical respect, gay persons stand in stark contrast to other
groups that have been denied suspect or quasisuspect class
recognition, despite a history of discrimination, because the
distinguishing characteristics of those groups adversely affect
their ability or capacity to perform certain functions or to
discharge certain responsibilities in society.58
Unlike the characteristics unique to those groups, however,
homosexuality bears no relation at all to [an] individuals ability
to contribute fully to society.59 Indeed, because an individuals
homosexual orientation implies no impairment in judgment,
stability, reliability or general social or vocational capabilities60
the observation of the United States Supreme Court that race,
alienage and
_______________
57 Supra note 46.
58 See, e.g., Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. at 442, 105 S.Ct.
3249 (for purposes of federal constitution, mental retardation is not quasisuspect
classification because, inter alia, it is undeniable ... that those who are mentally
retarded have a reduced ability to cope with and function in the everyday world)
Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. at 315, 96 S.Ct. 2562 (age
is not suspect classification because, inter alia, physical ability generally declines
with age) see also Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 472, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115
L.Ed.2d 410 (1991) ([i]t is an unfortunate fact of life that physical [capacity] and
mental capacity sometimes diminish with age).
59 L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law (2d Ed. 1988) 1633, p. 1616.
60 Jantz v. Muci, 759 F.Supp. 1543, 1548 (D.Kan.1991) (quoting 1985
Resolution of the American Psychological Association), 976 F.2d 623 (10th
Cir.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 952, 113 S.Ct. 2445, 124 L.Ed.2d 662 (1993).
102
102

national originall suspect classes entitled to the highest level of
constitutional protectionare so seldom relevant to the

achievement of any legitimate state interest that laws grounded in
such considerations are deemed to reflect prejudice and
antipathy61 is no less applicable to gay persons. (italics supplied)
Clearly, homosexual orientation is no more relevant to a

persons ability to perform and contribute to society than is
heterosexual orientation.62
A third factor that courts have considered in
determining whether the members of a class are entitled to
heightened protection for equal protection purposes is
whether the attribute or characteristic that distinguishes
them is immutable or otherwise beyond their control.63 Of
course, the characteristic that distinguishes gay persons
from others and qualifies them for recognition as a distinct
and discrete group is the characteristic that historically
has resulted in their social and legal ostracism, namely,
their attraction to persons of the same sex.64
Immutability is a factor in determining the appropriate
level of scrutiny because the inability of a person to change
a characteristic that is used to justify different treatment
makes the discrimination violative of the rather basic
concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some
relationship to individual responsibility.65 However, the
constitutional relevance of the immutability factor is not
reserved to those instances in which the trait defining the
burdened class is absolutely impossible to change.66 That
is, the immutability prong of the suspectness inquiry surely
is satisfied when the
_______________
61 Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. at 440, 105 S.Ct.
3249.
62 Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, supra note 46.
63 Id.
64 Id.
66 Id.
103
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010

103
identifying trait is so central to a persons identity that it

would be abhorrent for government to penalize a person for
refusing to change [it].67
Prescinding from these premises, it is not appropriate to
require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual
orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment,
because a persons sexual orientation is so integral an
aspect of ones identity.68 Consequently, because sexual
orientation may be altered [if at all] only at the expense of
significant damage to the individuals sense of self,
classifications based thereon are no less entitled to
consideration as a suspect or quasisuspect class than any
other group that has been deemed to exhibit an immutable
characteristic.69 Stated differently, sexual orientation is
not the type of human trait that allows courts to relax their
standard of review because the barrier is temporary or
susceptible to selfhelp.70
The final factor that bears consideration is whether the
group is a minority or politically powerless.71 However,
the political powerlessness factor of the levelofscrutiny
inquiry does not require a showing of absolute political
powerlessness.72 Rather, the touchstone of the analysis
should be whether the group lacks sufficient political
strength to bring a prompt end to the prejudice and
discrimination through traditional political means.73
Applying this standard, it would not be difficult to
conclude that gay persons are entitled to heightened
constitutional
_______________
67Id., citing Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, supra note 46.
68 Id., citing In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 442.
69 Id., citing Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, supra note 46.
70 Id.
72 Varnum v. Brien, supra note 41, citing Kerrigan v. Commissioner of
Public Health, supra note 46.
73 Id.
104
104
protection despite some recent political progress.74 The
protection despite some recent political progress.74 The

discrimination that they have suffered has been so
pervasive and severeeven though their sexual orientation
has no bearing at all on their ability to contribute to or
perform in societythat it is highly unlikely that
legislative enactments alone will suffice to eliminate that
discrimination.75 Furthermore, insofar as the LGBT
community plays a role in the political process, it is
apparent that their numbers reflect their status as a small
and insular minority.76
It is therefore respectfully submitted that any state
action singling lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders
out for disparate treatment is subject to heightened judicial
scrutiny to ensure that it is not the product of historical
prejudice and stereotyping.77
In this case, the assailed Resolutions of the COMELEC
unmistakably fail the intermediate level of review.
Regrettably, they betray no more than bigotry and
intolerance they raise the inevitable inference that the
disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class
of persons affected78 (that is, lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgendered individuals). In our constitutional system,
statusbased classification undertaken for its own sake
cannot survive.79
FOURTH. It has been suggested that the LGBT
community cannot participate in the partylist system
because it is not a marginalized and underrepresented
sector enumerated either in the Constitution80 or Republic
Act No. (RA)
_______________
75 Id.
76 Id.
77 Id.
78 Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S.Ct. 1620.
79 Id.
80Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution states, in relevant
part:
SECTION5.x x x x
105
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
105
7941.81 However, this position is belied by our ruling in

Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party v. COMELEC,82
where we clearly held that the enumeration of
marginalized and underrepresented sectors in RA 7941 is
not exclusive.
I likewise see no logical or factual obstacle to classifying
the members of the LGBT community as marginalized and
underrepresented, considering their long history (and
indeed, ongoing narrative) of persecution, discrimination,
and pathos. In my humble view, marginalization for
purposes of partylist representation encompasses
social marginalization as well. To hold otherwise is
tantamount to trivializing socially marginalized groups as
mere passive recipients
_______________
(2) The partylist representatives shall constitute twenty per centum
of the total number of representatives including those under the party list.
For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one
half of the seats allocated to partylist representatives shall be filled, as
provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban
poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other
sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector. (italics
supplied)
81 On the other hand, Section 5 of RA 7941 provides:
SECTION5.Registration.Any organized group of persons may
register as a party, organization or coalition for purposes of the partylist
system by filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days
before the election a petition verified by its president or secretary stating
its desire to participate in the partylist system as a national, regional or
sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or
organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, bylaws, platform or
program of government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other
relevant information as the COMELEC may require: Provided, That the
sectors shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans,
overseas workers, and professionals. (italics supplied)
82 G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001, 359 SCRA 698.
106
106
of the States benevolence and denying them the right to

participate directly [in the mainstream of representative
democracy] in the enactment of laws designed to benefit
them.83 The partylist system could not have been
conceptualized to perpetuate this injustice.
Accordingly, I vote to grant the petition.
DISSENTING OPINION
CORONA,J.:
Stripped of the complicated and contentious issues of
morality and religion, I believe the basic issue here is
simple: does petitioner Ang Ladlad LGBT Party qualify,
under the terms of the Constitution and RA 7941, as a
marginalized and underrepresented sector in the partylist
system?
The relevant facts are likewise relatively uncomplicated.
Petitioner seeks accreditation by the respondent
Commission on Elections as a political organization of a
marginalized and underrepresented sector under the party
list system. Finding that petitioner is not a marginalized
sector under RA 7941, the Commission on Elections denied
its petition.
A System For Marginalized
And Underrepresented Sectors
The partylist system is an innovation of the 1987
Constitution. It is essentially a tool for the advancement of
social justice with the fundamental purpose of affording
opportunity to marginalized and underrepresented sectors
to participate in the shaping of public policy and the
crafting of national laws. It is premised on the proposition
that the advancement of the interests of the marginalized
sectors contributes to the advancement of the common good
and of our nations democratic ideals.
_______________
1 Id.
107
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010

107
But who are the marginalized and underrepresented

sectors for whom the partylist system was designed?
The Texts of the Constitution
And of RA1 7941
The resolution of a constitutional issue primarily
requires that the text of the fundamental law be consulted.
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution directs the
course of our present inquiry. It provides:
SEC.5.x x x
(2)The partylist representatives shall constitute twenty per
centum of the total number of Representatives including those
under the partylist. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, onehalf of the seats allocated to
partylist representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by
selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such
other sectors as may be provided by law, except the
religious sector. (emphasis supplied)
The Constitution left the matter of determining the

groups or sectors that may qualify as marginalized to the
hands of Congress. Pursuant to this constitutional
mandate, RA 7941 or the PartyList System Act was
enacted in 1995. The law provides:
Section2.Declaration
of
policy.The
State
shall
promote
proportional representation in the election of representatives to the

House of Representatives through a partylist system of registered
national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions
thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized
and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and
who lack welldefined political constituencies but who could
contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate
legislation that will benefit the nation as
_______________
1 Republic Act.
108
108
whole,
to
become
members
of
the
House
of
Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop

and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order
to attain the broadest possible representation of party,
sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives
by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in
the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme
possible.
x x xx x xx x x
Section5.Registration.Any organized group of persons may
register as a party, organization or coalition for purposes of the partylist
system by filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days
before the election a petition verified by its president or secretary stating
its desire to participate in the partylist system as a national, regional or
sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or
organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, bylaws, platform or
program of government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other
relevant information as the COMELEC may require: Provided, That the
sectors shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women,
youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.
The COMELEC shall publish the petition in at least two (2) national
newspapers of general circulation.
The COMELEC shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve the
petition within fifteen (15) days from the date it was submitted for
decision but in no case not later than sixty (60) days before election.
Section6.Refusal
and/or
Cancellation
of
Registration.The
COMELEC may, motu propio or upon verified complaint of any

interested party, refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the
registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or
coalition on any of the following grounds:
(1)It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association,
organized for religious purposes
(2)It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal
(3)It is a foreign party or organization
(4)It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign
political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or
through any of its officers or members or indi
109
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
109
rectly through third parties for partisan election purposes

(5)It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations
relating to elections
(6)It declares untruthful statements in its petition
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year or
(8)It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or
fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under
the partylist system in the two (2) preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered. (emphasis supplied)
The Courts Previous Pronouncements

As the oracle of the Constitution, this Court divined the
intent of the partylist system and defined its meaning in
Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party v. Commission on
Elections:2
That political parties may participate in the partylist
elections does not mean, however, that any political partyor
any organization or group for that mattermay do so. The
requisite character of these parties or organizations must be
consistent with the purpose of the partylist system, as laid down
in the Constitution and RA 7941. x x x
The Marginalized and Underrepresented to Become Lawmakers
Themselves
[Section 2 of RA 7941] mandates a state policy of promoting
proportional representation by means of the Filipinostyle partylist
system, which will enable the election to the House of Representatives
of Filipino citizens,
1.who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties and
2.who lack welldefined constituencies but
_______________
2 412 Phil. 308 359 SCRA 698 (2001).
110
110

3.who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.
The key words in this policy are proportional representation,
marginalized and underrepresented, and lack [of] welldefined
constituencies.
Proportional representation here does not refer to the number of
people in a particular district, because the partylist election is national

in scope. Neither does it allude to numerical strength in a distressed or
oppressed group. Rather, it refers to the representation of the
marginalized and underrepresented as exemplified by the
enumeration in Section 5 of the law namely, labor, peasant,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and
professionals.
However, it is not enough for the candidate to claim representation of
the marginalized and underrepresented, because representation is easy
to claim and to feign. The partylist organization or party must
factually
and
truly
underrepresented
represent
constituencies
the
marginalized
mentioned
in
and
Section
5.
Concurrently, the persons nominated by the partylist candidate

organization must be Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.
Finally, lack of welldefined constituenc[y] refers to the absence of a
traditionally identifiable electoral group, like voters of a congressional
district or territorial unit of government. Rather, it points again to those
with
disparate
interests
identified
with
the
marginalized
or
underrepresented.
In the end, the role of the Comelec is to see to it that only
those Filipinos who are marginalized and underrepresented
become members of Congress under the partylist system,
Filipinostyle.
The intent of the Constitution is clear: to give genuine power to the
people, not only by giving more law to those who have less in life, but
more so by enabling them to become veritable lawmakers themselves.
Consistent with this intent, the policy of the implementing law, we
repeat, is likewise clear: to enable Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, x
x x, to become members of the House of Representatives.
111
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
111
Where the language of the law is clear, it must be applied

according to its express terms.
The
marginalized
and
underrepresented
sectors
to
be
represented under the partylist system are enumerated in

Section 5 of RA 7941, which states:
SEC.5.Registration.Any organized group of persons may
register as a party, organization or coalition for purposes of the
partylist system by filing with the COMELEC not later than

ninety (90) days before the election a petition verified by its
president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the party
list system as a national, regional or sectoral party or organization
or a coalition of such parties or organizations, attaching thereto its
constitution, bylaws, platform or program of government, list of
officers, coalition agreement and other relevant information as the
COMELEC may require: Provided, that the sector shall include
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans,
overseas workers, and professionals.
While the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented
sectors is not exclusive, it demonstrates the clear intent of the
law that not all sectors can be represented under the partylist
system. It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that
words employed in a statute are interpreted in connection with, and their
meaning is ascertained by reference to, the words and the phrases with
which they are associated or related. Thus, the meaning of a term in a
statute may be limited, qualified or specialized by those in immediate
association.
x x xx x xx x x
Indeed, the law crafted to address the peculiar disadvantages of
Payatas hovel dwellers cannot be appropriated by the mansion owners of
Forbes Park. The interests of these two sectors are manifestly disparate
hence, the OSGs position to treat them similarly defies reason and
common sense. In contrast, and with admirable candor, Atty. Lorna
PatajoKapunan admitted during the Oral Argument that a group of
bankers, industrialists and sugar planters could not join the partylist
system as representatives of their respective sectors.
While the business moguls and the megarich are, numerically
speaking, a tiny minority, they are neither marginalized nor under
112
112
represented, for the stark reality is that their economic

clout engenders political power more awesome than their
numerical limitation. Traditionally, political power does
not necessarily emanate from the size of ones constituency
indeed, it is likely to arise more directly from the number
and amount of ones bank accounts.
It is ironic, therefore, that the marginalized and underrepresented in
our midst are the majority who wallow in poverty, destitution and
infirmity. It was for them that the partylist system was enactedto give
them not only genuine hope, but genuine power to give them the
opportunity to be elected and to represent the specific concerns of their
constituencies and simply to give them a direct voice in Congress and in
the larger affairs of the State. In its noblest sense, the partylist system
truly empowers the masses and ushers a new hope for genuine change.
Verily, it invites those marginalized and underrepresented in the
pastthe farm hands, the fisherfolk, the urban poor, even those
in the underground movementto come out and participate, as
indeed many of them came out and participated during the last elections.
The State cannot now disappoint and frustrate them by disabling and
desecrating this social justice vehicle.
x x xx x xx x x
Verily, allowing the nonmarginalized and overrepresented to
vie for the remaining seats under the partylist system would not
only dilute, but also prejudice the chance of the marginalized
and underrepresented, contrary to the intention of the law to enhance
it. The partylist system is a tool for the benefit of the underprivileged
the law could not have given the same tool to others, to the prejudice of
the intended beneficiaries.
This Court, therefore, cannot allow the partylist system to be
sullied and prostituted by those who are neither marginalized
nor underrepresented. It cannot let that flicker of hope be snuffed out.
The clear state policy must permeate every discussion of the qualification
of political parties and other organizations under the partylist system.
(emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Hence, in Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party, the

Court stressed that the partylist system is reserved only
for those sectors marginalized and underrepresented in
the past (e.g., labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural
113
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
113
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth,

veterans, overseas workers, professionals and even those in
the underground movement who wish to come out and
participate). They are those sectors traditionally and
historically marginalized and deprived of an
opportunity to participate in the formulation of national
policy although their sectoral interests are also
traditionally and historically regarded as vital to the

national interest. That is why Section 2 of RA 7941
speaks of marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties, and who lack welldefined
political constituencies but who could contribute to the
formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that
will benefit the nation as a whole.
How should the matter of whether a particular sectoral
interest is vital to national interest (and therefore
beneficial to the nation as a whole) be determined? Chief
Justice Reynato S. Punos opinion3 in Barangay Association
for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v.
Commission on Elections4 offers valuable insight:
Similarly, limiting the partylist system to the marginalized
and excluding the major political parties from participating in the
election of their representatives is aligned with the constitutional
mandate to reduce social, economic, and political inequalities,
and remove cultural inequalities by equitably diffusing wealth
and political power for the common good the right of the people
and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation
at all levels of social, political, and economic decisionmaking the
right of women to opportunities that will enhance their welfare
and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the
nation the right of labor to participate in policy and decision
making processes affecting their rights and benefits in keeping
with its role as a primary social
_______________
3 The Chief Justices stance is the official stance of the Court on the matter
because majority of the members of the Court sided with him on the issue of
disallowing major political parties from participating in the partylist elections,
directly or indirectly.
4 G.R. No. 179271, 21 April 2009, 586 SCRA 210, 258259.
114
114

economic force the right of teachers to professional advancement

the rights of indigenous cultural communities to the consideration
of their cultures, traditions and institutions in the formulation of
national plans and policies, and the indispensable role of the
private sector in the national economy.
As such, the interests of marginalized sectors are by

tradition and history vital to national interest and
therefore beneficial to the nation as a whole because the
Constitution declares a national policy recognizing the role
of these sectors in the nations life. In other words, the
concept of marginalized and underrepresented sectors
under the partylist scheme has been carefully refined by
concrete examples involving sectors deemed to be
significant in our legal tradition. They are essentially
sectors with a constitutional bond, that is, specific sectors
subject of specific provisions in the Constitution, namely,
labor,5 peasant,6 urban poor,7 indigenous cultural
communities,8 women,9 youth,10 veterans,11 fisherfolk,12
elderly,13
handicapped,14
overseas
workers15
and
16
professionals.
The premise is that the advancement of the interests of
these important yet traditionally and historically
marginalized sectors promotes the national interest. The
Filipino people as a whole are benefited by the
empowerment of these sectors.
_______________
5 Section 18, Article II Section 3, Article XIII.
8 Section 22, Article II Section 5, Article XII.
10 Section 13, Article II Section 3(2), Article XV.
11 Section 7, Article XVI.
12Paragraph three of Section 2, Article XII, Section 7, Article XIII.
13 Section 11, Article XIII.
14 Sections 11 and 13 XIII.5
156Section 18, Article II Section 3, Article XIII.
16 Section 14, Article XII.
115
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
115
The longmuffled voices of marginalized sectors must be

heard because their respective interests are intimately and
indispensably woven into the fabric of the national
democratic agenda. The social, economic and political
aspects of discrimination and marginalization should not

be divorced from the role of a particular sector or group in
the advancement of the collective goals of Philippine
society as a whole. In other words, marginalized sectors
should be given a say in governance through the partylist
system, not simply because they desire to say something
constructive but because they deserve to be heard on
account of their traditionally and historically decisive role
in Philippine society.
A Unifying Thread
Fidelity to the Constitution requires commitment to its
text. Thus, in the exercise of its function as official
interpreter of the Constitution, the Court should always
bear in mind that judicial prudence means that it is safer
to construe the Constitution from what appears upon its
face.17
With regard to the matter of what qualifies as
marginalized and underrepresented sectors under the
partylist system, Section 5(2), Article VI of the
Constitution mentions the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such
other sectors as may be provided by law, except the
religious sector. On the other hand, the law speaks of
veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.18
Surely, the enumeration of sectors considered as
marginalized and underrepresented in the fundamental
law and in the implementing law (RA 7941) cannot be
without significance. To ignore them is to disregard the
texts of the Constitution
_______________
17 Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 83896, 22
February 1991, 194 SCRA 317, 337.
18 See proviso of the first paragraph of Section 5, RA 7941.
116
116
and of RA 7941. For, indeed, the very first of Ang

Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Partys eight guidelines for
screening partylist participants is this: the parties, sectors

or organizations must represent the marginalized and
underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA
7941.19
For this reason, I submit the majoritys decision is
cryptic and wanting when it makes short shrift of the issue
of
whether
petitioner
is
a
marginalized
and
underrepresented sector in the following manner:
The crucial element is not whether a sector is specifically
enumerated, but whether a particular organization complies with
the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941.
The resolution of petitions for accreditation in the party

list system on a casetocase basis not tethered to the
enumeration of the Constitution and of RA 7941 invites the
exercise of unbridled discretion. Unless firmly anchored on
the fundamental law and the implementing statute, the
partylist system will be a ship floating aimlessly in the
ocean of uncertainty, easily tossed by sudden waves of flux
and tipped by shifting winds of change in societal attitudes
towards certain groups. Surely, the Constitution and RA
7941 did not envision such kind of a system.
Indeed, the significance of the enumeration in Section
5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and Section 5 of RA
7941 is clearly explained in Ang Bagong BayaniOFW
Labor Party:
Proportional representation here does not refer to the
number of people in a particular district, because the partylist
election is national in scope. Neither does it allude to numerical
strength in a distressed or oppressed group. Rather, it refers to
the
representation
of
the
marginalized
and
underrepresented as exemplified by the enumeration in
Section 5 of the law namely, labor, peasant, fisherfolk,
urban poor, indigenous cultural
_______________
19 Supra note 2 at 342.
117
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010

117

veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.
However, it is not enough for the candidate to claim
representation of the marginalized and underrepresented,
because representation is easy to claim and to feign. The party
list organization or party must factually and truly
represent the marginalized and underrepresented
constituencies mentioned in Section 5. Concurrently, the
persons nominated by the partylist candidateorganization must
be Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized
and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.
x x xx x xx x x
The marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be
represented under the partylist system are enumerated in
Section 5 of RA 7941, which states:
SEC.5.Registration.Any organized group of persons
may register as a party, organization or coalition for
purposes of the partylist system by filing with the
COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the
election a petition verified by its president or secretary
stating its desire to participate in the partylist system as a
national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a
coalition of such parties or organizations, attaching thereto
its constitution, bylaws, platform or program of
government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other
relevant information as the COMELEC may require:
Provided, that the sector shall include labor, peasant,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas
workers, and professionals.
While
the
enumeration
of
marginalized
and
underrepresented sectors is not exclusive, it demonstrates
the clear intent of the law that not all sectors can be
represented under the partylist system. It is a fundamental
principle of statutory construction that words employed in a
statute are interpreted in connection with, and their meaning is
ascertained by reference to, the words and the phrases with which
they are associated or related. Thus, the meaning of a term in
a statute may be limited, qualified or specialized by those
in immediate association.20 (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
_______________
20 Supra note 2.
118
118
More importantly, in defining the concept of a sectoral

party, Section 3(d) of RA 7941 limits marginalized and
underrepresented sectors and expressly refers to the list in
Section 5 thereof:
Section3.Definition of Terms.x x x
(d)A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens
belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5
hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interest
and concerns of their sector, x x x. (emphasis supplied)
Petitioner does not question the constitutionality of

Sections 2, 3(d) and 5 of RA 7941. (Its charges of violation
of nonestablishment of religion, equal protection, free
speech and free association are all leveled at the assailed
resolutions of the Commission on Elections.) Thus,
petitioner admits and accepts that its case must rise or fall
based on the aforementioned provisions of RA 7941.
Following the texts of the Constitution and of RA 7941,
and in accordance with established rules of statutory
construction and the Courts pronouncement in Ang
Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party, the meaning of
marginalized sectors under the party list system is
limited and qualified. Hence, other sectors that may
qualify as marginalized and underrepresented should have
a close connection to the sectors mentioned in the
Constitution and in the law. In other words, the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors qualified to
participate in the partylist system refer only to the labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
veterans, overseas workers, professionals and other
related or similar sectors.
This interpretation is faithful to and deeply rooted in the
language of the fundamental law and of its implementing
statute. It is coherent with the mandate of the Constitution
that marginalized sectors qualified to participate in the
partylist system but not mentioned in Section 5(2), Article
VI are
119
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
119
such other sectors as may be provided by law duly

enacted by Congress. It is also consistent with the basic
canon of statutory construction, ejusdem generis, which
requires that a general word or phrase that follows an
enumeration of particular and specific words of the same
class, the general word or phrase should be construed to
include, or to be restricted to persons, things or cases, akin
to, resembling, or of the same kind or class as those
specifically mentioned.21 Moreover, it reins in the
subjective elements of passion and prejudice that
accompany discussions of issues with moral or religious
implications as it avoids the need for complex balancing
and undue policymaking.
What is the unifying thread that runs through the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors under the
partylist system? What are the family resemblances that
would characterize them?22
Based on the language of the Constitution and of RA
7941 and considering the pronouncements of this Court in
Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party and BANAT, the
following factors are significant:
(a)they must be among, or closely connected with
or similar to, the sectors mentioned in Section 5 of RA
7941
(b)they must be sectors whose interests are
traditionally and historically regarded as vital to the
national interest but they have long been relegated to
the fringes
_______________
21 Miranda v. Abaya, 370 Phil. 642, 658 311 SCRA 617, 626 (1999).
22The notion of family resemblances (familienhnlichkeit) was
introduced by the leading analytic philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, in
his book Philosophical Investigations. As used in this opinion, however,
family resemblances specifically refer to the DNA, the basic component
unit, that identifies a sector as a member of the family of marginalized
and underrepresented sectors enumerated in Section 5(2), Article VI of the
Constitution and Section 5 of RA 7941.
120
120
of society and deprived of an opportunity to

participate in the formulation of national policy
(c)the vinculum that will establish the close
connection with or similarity of sectors to those
expressly mentioned in Section 5 of RA 7941 is a
constitutional provision specifically recognizing the
special significance of the said sectors (other than
peoples
organizations,
unless
such
peoples
organizations represent sectors mentioned in Section
5 of RA 7941)23 to the advancement of the national
interest and
(d)while lacking in welldefined political
constituencies, they must have regional or national
presence to ensure that their interests and agenda
will be beneficial not only to their respective sectors
but, more importantly, to the nation as a whole.
For Purposes of the PartyList System,
Petitioner is Not a Marginalized Sector
In this case, petitioner asserts that it is entitled to
accreditation as a marginalized and underrepresented
sector under the partylist system. However, the
Commission on Elections disagrees.
The majority reverses the Commission on Elections.
While it focuses on the contentious issues of morality,
religion, equal protection, and freedom of expression and
association, by granting the petition, the majority
effectively rules that peti
_______________
23 The reason behind this exception is obvious. If all peoples
organizations
are
automatically
considered
as
marginalized
and
underrepresented, then no sector or organization may be disqualified on

the grounds of nonmarginalization and lack of underrepresentation. The
Courts guidelines in Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party would have
been unnecessary after all and, worse, the constitutional requirement that
the sectors qualified to participate in the partylist system be determined
by law would have been merely superfluous and pointless.
121
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
121
tioner is a qualified marginalized and underrepresented

sector, thereby allowing its accreditation and participation
in the partylist system.
I disagree.
Even assuming that petitioner was able to show that the
community of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals
(LGBT) is underrepresented, it cannot be properly
considered as marginalized under the partylist system.
First, petitioner is not included in the sectors mentioned in
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and Section 5 of
RA 7941. Unless an overly strained interpretation is
resorted to, the LGBT sector cannot establish a close
connection to any of the said sectors. Indeed, petitioner
does not even try to show its link to any of the said sectors.
Rather, it represents itself as an altogether distinct sector
with its own peculiar interests and agenda.
Second, petitioners interest as a sector, which is
basically the legal recognition of its members sexual
orientation as a right, cannot be reasonably considered as
an interest that is traditionally and historically considered
as vital to national interest. At best, petitioner may cite an
emergent awareness of the implications of sexual
orientation on the national human rights agenda. However,
an emergent awareness is but a confirmation of lack of
traditional and historical recognition.24 Moreover, even the
majority admits that there is no clear cut consensus
favorable to gay rights claims.25
Third, petitioner is cut off from the common
constitutional thread that runs through the marginalized
and underrepresented sectors under the partylist system.
It lacks the vinculum, a constitutional bond, a provision in
the fundamental law that specifically recognizes the LGBT
sector as specially significant to the national interest. This
standard, implied in BANAT, is required to create the
necessary link of a particu
_______________
24 Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), (Scalia, J., dissenting).
25 Decision, p. 23.
122
122
lar sector to those sectors expressly mentioned in Section

5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and Section 5 of RA
7941.
Finally, considering our history and tradition as a
people, to consider the promotion of the LGBT agenda and
gay rights as a national policy as beneficial to the nation
as a whole is debatable at best. Even the majority (aside
from
extensively
invoking
foreign
practice
and
international conventions rather than Philippine laws)
states:
We do not suggest that public opinion, even at its most liberal,
reflect a clear cut strong consensus favorable to gay rights
claims.26
This is so unlike the significance of the interests of the

sectors in Section 5 of RA 7941 which are, without doubt,
indisputable.
Regardless of the personal beliefs and biases of its
individual members, this Court can only apply and
interpret the Constitution and the laws. Its power is not to
create policy but to recognize, review or reverse the policy
crafted by the political departments if and when a proper
case is brought before it. Otherwise, it will tread on the
dangerous grounds of judicial legislation.
In this instance, Congress, in the exercise of its
authority under Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution,
enacted RA 7941. Sections 2, 3(d) and (5) of the said law
instituted a policy when it enumerated certain sectors as
qualified marginalized and underrepresented sectors under
the partylist system. Respect for that policy and fidelity to
the Courts duty in our scheme of government require us to
declare that only sectors expressly mentioned or closely
related to those sectors mentioned in Section 5 of RA 7941
are qualified to participate in the partylist system. That is
the tenor of the Courts rulings in Ang Bagong Bayani
OFW Labor Party and BANAT.
_______________
26Id.
123
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
123
As there is no strong reason for the Court to rule otherwise,

stare decisis compels a similar conclusion in this case.
The Court is called upon to exercise judicial restraint in
this case by strictly adhering to, rather than expanding,
legislative policy on the matter of marginalized sectors as
expressed in the enumeration in Section 5 of RA 7941. The
Court has no power to amend and expand Sections 2, 3(d)
and 5 of RA 7941 in the guise of interpretation. The
Constitution expressly and exclusively vests the authority
to determine such other [marginalized] sectors qualified
to participate in the partylist system to Congress. Thus,
until and unless Congress amends the law to include the
LGBT and other sectors in the partylist system, deference
to Congress determination on the matter is proper.
A Final Word
To be succinctly clear about it, I do not say that there is
no truth to petitioners claim of discriminatory and
oppressive acts against its members. I am in no position to
make that claim. Nor do I claim that petitioner has no right
to speak, to assemble or to access our political
departments, particularly the legislature, to promote the
interests of its constituency. Social perceptions of sexual
and other moral issues may change over time, and every
group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its
view of such matters is the best.27 But persuading ones
fellow citizens is one thing and insisting on a right to
participate in the partylist system is something else.
Considering the facts, the law and jurisprudence, petitioner
cannot properly insist on its entitlement to use the party
list system as a vehicle for advancing its social and political
agenda.
While bigotry, social stereotyping and other forms of
discrimination must be given no place in a truly just,
democratic
_______________
27Lawrence v. Texas, supra note 29 (J. Scalia, dissenting).
124
124
and libertarian society, the partylist system has a well

defined purpose. The partylist system was not designed as
a tool to advocate tolerance and acceptance of any and all
socially misunderstood sectors. Rather, it is a platform for
the realization of the aspirations of marginalized sectors
whose interests are, by nature and history, also the
nations but which interests have not been sufficiently
brought to public attention because of these sectors
underrepresentation.
Congress was given by the Constitution full discretion to
determine what sectors may qualify as marginalized and
underrepresented. The Courts task is to respect that
legislative determination by strictly adhering to it. If we
effectively and unduly expand such congressional
determination, we will be dabbling in policymaking, an act
of political will and not of judicial judgment.
Accordingly, I respectfully vote to dismiss the petition.
SEPARATE OPINION
ABAD,J.:
I have to concur only in the result set forth in the well
written ponencia of Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo because
I arrived at the same conclusion following a different path.
I also felt that the Court needs, in resolving the issues in
this case, to say more about what the Constitution and
Republic Act (R.A.) 7941 intends in the case of the party
list system to abate the aggravations and confusion caused
by the alarming overnight proliferation of sectoral parties.
The underlying policy of R.A. 7941 or The PartyList
System Act is to give the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors of society an opportunity to take
a direct part in enacting the laws of the land. In Ang
Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party v. Commission on
Elections (COMELEC),1 the Court
_______________
1 412 Phil. 308 359 SCRA 698 (2001).
125
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
125
laid down guidelines for accreditation, but these seem to

leave the COMELEC like everyone else even more
perplexed and dumbfounded about what organizations,
clubs, or associations can pass for sectoral parties with a
right to claim a seat in the House of Representatives. The
Court can, in adjudicating this case, unravel some of the
difficulties.
Here, I fully agree that the COMELEC erred when it
denied Ang Ladlads petition for sectoral party
accreditation on religious and moral grounds. The
COMELEC has never applied these tests on regular
candidates for Congress. There is no reason for it to apply
them on Ang Ladlad. But the ponencia already amply and
lucidly discussed this point.
What I am more concerned about is COMELECs claim
in its comment on the petition that the Ang Ladlad sectoral
party was not marginalized and underrepresented since it
is not among, or even associated with, the sectors specified
in the Constitution and in R.A. 7941.2 Ang Ladlad, it
claims, did not qualify as a marginalized and
underrepresented group of people like those representing
veterans, overseas workers, and professionals. This is
effectively the COMELECs frame of mind in adjudicating
applications for accreditation.
But, the COMELECs proposition imposes an
unwarranted restriction which is inconsistent with the
purpose and spirit of the Constitution and the law. A
reading of Ang Bagong Bayani will show that, based on the
Courts reading, neither the Constitution nor R.A. 7941
intends the excessively limited coverage that the
COMELEC now suggests. In fact, the Court said in that
case that the list in R.A. 7941 is not exclusive. Thus, while
the partylist system is not meant for all sectors of society,
it was envisioned as a social justice tool for the
marginalized and underrepresented in general.
_______________
2 Comment, pp. 26.

126
126
As it happened, the only clue that the Constitution

provides respecting the identity of the sectors that will
make up the partylist system is found in the examples it
gives, namely, the labor, the peasant, the urban poor, the
indigenous cultural minorities, the women, and the youth
segments of society. Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution provides:
(2) The partylist representative shall constitute twenty
per centum of the total number of representatives
including those under the party list. For three consecutive
terms after the ratification of this Constitution, onehalf of
the seats allocated to partylist representatives shall be
filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the
labor, peasant, urban
poor,
indigenous
cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as
may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
(Underscoring supplied.)
Getting its bearing from the examples given above, the

Congress provided in Section 2 of R.A. 7941 a broad
standard for screening and identifying those who may
qualify for the partylist system. Thus:
Sec.2.Declaration of policy.The State shall promote
proportional
representation
in
the
election
of
representatives to the House of Representatives through a
partylist system of registered regional and sectoral
parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will
enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and
who lack well defined political constituencies but who
could contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a
whole,
to
become
members
of
the
House
of
Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop
and guarantee a full, free and open party system or group
interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing
their chances to compete for and win seats in the

legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme
possible. (Underscoring supplied.)
127
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
127
The
above
speaks
of
marginalized
and
underrepresented sectoral parties or organizations x x x
lack well defined political constituencies x x x who could
contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate
legislation. But, as the Court said in Ang Bagong Bayani,
the whole thing boils down to ascertaining whether the
party seeking accreditation belongs to the marginalized
and underrepresented.3
Unfortunately, Congress did not provide a definition of
the term marginalized and underrepresented. Nor did the
Court dare provide one in its decision in Ang Bagong
Bayani. It is possible, however, to get a sense of what
Congress intended in adopting such term. No doubt,
Congress
crafted
that
termmarginalized
and
underrepresentedfrom its reading of the concrete
examples that the Constitution itself gives of groupings
that are entitled to accreditation. These examples are the
labor, the peasant, the urban poor, the indigenous cultural
minorities, the women, and the youth sectors. Fortunately,
quite often ideas are best described by examples of what
they are, which was what those who drafted the 1987
Constitution did, rather than by an abstract description of
them.
For Congress it was much like looking at a gathering of
a dog, a cat, a horse, an elephant, and a tiger and
concluding that it is a gathering of animals. Here, it
looked at the samples of qualified groups (labor, peasant,
urban poor, indigenous cultural minorities, women, and
youth) and found a common thread that passes through
them all. Congress concluded that these groups belonged to
the marginalized and underrepresented.
So what is the meaning of the term marginalized and
underrepresented? The examples given (labor, peasant,
urban
_______________
3 In the end, the role of the Comelec is to see to it that only those
Filipinos who are marginalized and underrepresented become members
of Congress under the partylist system, Filipino style. Ang Bagong
BayaniOFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, supra note 1, at
334 p. 719.
128
128
poor, indigenous cultural minorities, women, and youth)

should be the starting point in any search for definition.
Congress has added six others to this list: the fisherfolk,
the elderly, the handicapped, the veterans, the overseas
workers, and the professionals.4 Thus, the pertinent
portion of Section 5 of R.A. 7941 provides:
Sec.5.Registration.x x x Provided, that the sector
shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped,
women,
youth,
veterans,
overseas
workers,
and
professionals.
If one were to analyze these Constitutional and

statutory examples of qualified parties, it should be evident
that they represent the working class (labor, peasant,
fisherfolk, overseas workers), the service class
(professionals), the economically deprived (urban poor),
the social outcasts (indigenous cultural minorities), the
vulnerable (women, youth) and the work impaired
(elderly, handicapped, veterans). This analysis provides
some understanding of who, in the eyes of Congress, are
marginalized and underrepresented.
The parties of the marginalized and underrepresented
should be more than just lobby or interest groups. They
must have an authentic identity that goes beyond mere
similarities in background or circumstances. It is not
enough that their members belong to the same industry,
speak the same dialect, have a common hobby or sport, or
wish to promote public support for their mutual interests.
The group should be characterized by a shared advocacy for
genuine issues affecting basic human rights as these apply
to their groups. This is in keeping with the statutory

objective of sharing with them
_______________
4Section5.Registration.xxx Provided, that the sector shall
include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas
workers, and professionals.
129
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
129
seats in the House of Representatives so they can take part

in enacting beneficial legislation.
It should be borne in mind, however, that both the
Constitution and R.A. 7941 merely provide by examples a
sense of what the qualified organizations should look like.
As the Court acknowledged in Ang Bagong Bayani, these
examples are not exclusive. For instance, there are groups
which are pushed to the margin because they advocate an
extremist political ideology, such as the extreme right and
the extreme left of the political divide. They may be
regarded, if the evidence warrants, as qualified sectors.
Further, to qualify, a party applying for accreditation
must represent a narrow rather than a specific definition of
the class of people they seek to represent. For example, the
Constitution uses the term labor, a narrower definition
than the broad and more abstract term, working class,
without slipping down to the more specific and concrete
definition like carpenters, security guards, microchips
factory workers, barbers, tricycle drivers, and similar
subgroupings in the labor group. See the other
illustrations below.
Broad
Definition
Working
Class
*Narrow
Definition
Labor
Economically
Deprived
Urban
Poor
Specifically Defined Groups

Carpenters,
security
guards,
microchip factory workers, barbers,
tricycle drivers
Informal settlers, the jobless,
persons displaced by domestic
wars
The
Vulnerable
Work
Impaired
Women
Handi
Capped
Working women, battered women,

victims of slavery
Deaf and dumb, the blind, people on
wheelchairs
*The definition that the Constitution and R.A. 7941

use by their examples.
230
230
Obviously, the level of representation desired by both

the Constitution and R.A. 7941 for the partylist system is
the second, the narrow definition of the sector that the law
regards as marginalized and underrepresented. The
implication of this is that, if any of the subgroupings (the
carpenters, the security guards, the microchips factory
workers, the barbers, the tricycle drivers in the example)
within the sector desires to apply for accreditation as a
partylist group, it must compete with other subgroups for
the seat allotted to the labor sector in the House of
Representatives. This is the apparent intent of the
Constitution and the law.
An interpretation that will allow concretely or
specifically defined groups to seek election as a separate
partylist sector by itself will result in riot and redundancy
in the mix of sectoral parties grabbing seats in the House of
Representatives. It will defeat altogether the objectives of
the partylist system. If they can muster enough votes, the
country may have a partylist of pedicab drivers and
another of tricycle drivers. There will be an irrational
apportionment of partylist seats in the legislature.
In addition, Section 5 of R.A. 7941 provides that parties
interested in taking part in the partylist system must
state if they are to be considered as national, regional, or
sectoral parties. Thus:
Sec.5.Registration.Any organized group of persons
may register as a party, organization or coalition for
purposes of the partylist system by filing with the
COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the
election a petition verified by its president or secretary
stating its desire to participate in the partylist system as a
national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a
coalition of such parties or organizations, x x x.
This provision, taken alongside with the territorial

character of the sample sectors provided by the
Constitution and R.A. 7941, indicates that every sectoral
partylist applicant
131
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
131
must have an inherently regional presence (indigenous

cultural minorities) or a national presence (all the rest).
The people they represent are not bound up by the
territorial borders of provinces, cities, or municipalities. A
sectoral group representing the sugar plantation workers of
Negros Occidental, for example, will not qualify because it
does not represent the inherently national character of the
labor sector.
Finally, as the Court held in Ang Bagong Bayani, it is
not enough for a party to claim that it represents the
marginalized and underrepresented. That is easy to do.
The party must factually and truly represent the
marginalized and underrepresented. It must present to the
COMELEC clear and convincing evidence of its history,
authenticity, advocacy, and magnitude of presence. The
COMELEC must reject those who put up building props
overnight as in the movies to create an illusion of sectoral
presence so they can get through the door of Congress
without running for a seat in a regular legislative district.
In sum, to qualify for accreditation:
One, the applying party must show that it represents
the marginalized and underrepresented, exemplified by
the working class, the service class, the economically
deprived, the social outcasts, the vulnerable, the work
impaired, or some such similar class of persons.
Two, the applying party should be characterized by a
shared advocacy for genuine issues affecting basic human
rights as these apply to the sector it represents.
Three, the applying party must share the cause of their
sector, narrowly defined as shown above. If such party is a
subgroup within that sector, it must compete with other
subgroups for the seat allocated to their sector.
Four, the members of the party seeking accreditation
must have an inherent regional or national presence.

132
132
And five, except for matters the COMELEC can take

judicial notice of, the party applying for accreditation must
prove its claims by clear and convincing evidence.
In this case, Ang Ladlad represents men and women
who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or
transgendered persons (LGBTs). Applying the universally
accepted estimate that one out of every 10 persons is an
LGBT of a certain kind,5 the Filipino LGBTs should now
stand at about 8.7 million. Despite this, however, they are
by and large, subtly if not brutally, excluded from the
mainstream, discriminated against, and persecuted. That
the COMELEC denied Ang Ladlads petition on religious
and moral grounds is proof of this discrimination.
Ang Ladlad claims that many cases of intolerance and
violence against LGBTs have been documented. At home,
effeminate or gay youths are subjected to physical abuse by
parents or guardians to make them conform to standard
gender norms of behavior, while lesbian youths are raped
to cure them of their perceived affliction. LGBTs are
refused admission from certain schools, or are suspended
and put on probation. Meanwhile, in the workplace, they
are denied promotions or benefits which are otherwise
available to heterosexuals holding the same positions.
There is bigotry for their group.
Ang Ladlad has amply proved that it meets the
requirements for sectoral party accreditation. Their
members are in the vulnerable class like the women and
the youth. Ang Ladlad represents a narrow definition of its
class (LGBTs) rather than a concrete and specific definition
of a subgroup within the class (group of gay beauticians,
for example). The people that Ang Ladlad seeks to
represent have a national presence.
The lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered
persons in our communities are our brothers, sisters,
friends, or col
_______________
5 http://www.aglbical.org/2STATS.htm.
133
VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010
133
leagues who have suffered in silence all these years. True,

the partylist system is not necessarily a tool for advocating
tolerance or acceptance of their practices or beliefs. But it
does
promise
them,
as
a
marginalized
and
underrepresented group, the chance to have a direct
involvement in crafting legislations that impact on their
lives and existence. It is an opportunity for true and
effective representation which is the very essence of our
partylist system.
For the above reasons, I vote to GRANT the petition.
Petition granted, resolutions set aside.
Notes.A classification can only be assailed if it is
deemed invidi
ous, that is, it is not based on real or
substantial differences. (Mirasol vs. Department of Public
Works and Highways, 490 SCRA 318 [2006])
While PDPLaban and Bayan Muna both have members
in Congress, the former, unlike the latter, is not
represented therein as a partylist or
ganization, thus
entitling Bayan Muna to participate in the legislative proc
ess in a way that cannot be said of PDPLaban. (Senate of

the Philippines vs. Ermita, 495 SCRA 170 [2006])
Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 prohibits
major political parties from participating in the partylist
system. (Barangay Association for National Advancement
and Transparency (BANAT) vs. Commission on Elections,
586 SCRA 210 [2009]).
o0o
Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

13.LADLAD vs. Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

13.LADLAD vs. Comelec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

13.LADLAD vs. Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 190582. April 8, 2010.

ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein by its

VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections

Same Same Moral disapproval, without more, is not a

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

homosexuals, rather than a tool to further any substantial public

political parties similarly situated. State intrusion in this case is

VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections

aim pursued. Absent any compelling state interest, it is not for

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

rights, most of which amount to no more than wellmeaning

Same Same Same View that the assailed resolutions of the

VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections

ever, would deny homosexual and bisexual individuals a

autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the due process

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

societythat it is highly unlikely that legislative enactments

bians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders out for disparate

VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections

Same Same Same Congress View that the Constitution left

that the partylist system is reserved only for those sectors

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tional democratic agenda. The social, economic and political

advancement of the collective goals of Philippine society as a

VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010

sidered as marginalized under the partylist system.Even

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

socially misunderstood sectors.While bigotry, social stereotyping

VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections

has never applied these tests on regular candidates for Congress.

allow concretely or specifically defined groups to seek election as a

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

groups to seek election as a separate partylist sector by itself will

VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections

One unavoidable consequence of everyone having the

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THROUGH THE PARTYLIST SYSTEM, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR

VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections

BayaniOFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections.6 Ang

and legitimize extortion against the LGBT community. Rollo, p. 100.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tions with, individuals of a different gender, of the same

VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections

they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Furthermore, should this Commission grant the petition, we

When Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration,9 three

VOL. 618, APRIL 8, 2010

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections

If entry into the partylist system would depend only on the

Rather, what are being adopted as moral parameters and precepts

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED