Facts

Ang Ladlad was a political organisation composed of members of the Filipino LGBT community.
In 2006, in accordance with Filipino law, Ang Ladlad applied for registration with the Commission
on Elections. The application was denied because the Commission on Elections found that the
organisation lacked a substantial membership base. The group applied again in 2009, but the
Commission on Elections again dismissed the application, this time on moral and religious
grounds.

The Commission on Elections found that Ang Ladlad, as an LGBT organisation, “tolerate[d]
immorality which offends religious beliefs”. It cited the Bible and the Koran as proof that
homosexual activity violated standards of morality, and held that it could only recognise law-
abiding parties.

The Commission believed that Ang Ladlad’s support of LGBT issues violated several statutes
(including Articles 201, 695 and 1306 of the Civil Code of the Republic of the Philippines) that
referred to concepts such as “morality,” “mores, good customs,” “public morals,” and “morals”.
Additionally, the Commission believed that approving Ang Ladlad would violate the constitutional
duty to “promote and protect [the youth’s] physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-
being”.

Issue

Whether the Commission on Elections’ refusal to register Ang Ladlad violated the right of the
organisation and its members to freedom of association, freedom of expression, and political
participation.

Ruling:

The Court said that the Comelec is wrong. That the enumeration in the law was not exclusive.
The crucial element is not the sector is enumerated but that the organizationn complies with
constitutional requirement and partylist system law. Comelec did not give due coursse to the
application of the Ladlad, and concludes that this group is a nuisance.

The application was questioned on several grounds. First, it violates religion. Second, it also
concludes immorality. The COMELEC also adds that the partylist only accomodates those who
represent the marginalized as enumerated by jurisprudence like labor, peasant and since LGBT
was not part of that, it must not given representation.

The Court said, you cannot rely to the Bible. The separation of Church and State, secular
matters are insulated from religious matters. Also, we follow the BENEVOLENT EQUALITY
RULE. That as much as possible we accomodate, we harmonize secular and religious ideals.

The Court also said that, the cOMELEC failed to show that Ang Ladlad promoted immorality.
There must be a finding that the group promotes or are COMELEC without more is not sufficient
governmental interest that justified its disapproval in thr participation of the group in the partylist
system.