ANG LADLAD vs. COMELEC

Nung 1st year law ako ang halos biruan namen sa school yung sa CR ng lalake yung pagnagkasabaysabay kayo sa salamen grooming your selves before the class para sa mga chikababes sa klase. Yung tipong kararating mo pa lang before 5 p.m. para sa Criminal Law class mo daladala mo yung makakapal mong libro na yung iba di mo pa binasa at hinugot mo pa lang sa locker mo at may 30 minutos ka pa para magbasa LOL tas derecho ka sa CR para i-retouch mo yung napakagroovy mong naka-gel na hair haha! (mas importante pa talaga yung buhok e).

Pagdating mo nakahilera kayo sa salamen. Mga usual na mga banat habang nagsusuklay kayo eh "Gwapo na pre!" "Tama na yan Chip! gwapo ka naaa!!" haha. Tapos may biglang dadateng na susundot na lintik na sasabihin "Uy gwapo ah pakiss nga!" LOL. "Po' taena! hahaha" biglang magtatawanan kayo. Mga lalake yon ah. Hehe.

So sa kakabiroan namen we couldn't help carrying it outside. Kaya pag may pinahiram kang libro & binalik sayo.. "Chip eto na.. thanks pare... (biglang popose ngingite ng nakakaloko) I lab you pare" Ha ha ha. Kaya susuntukin mo sa balikat,  Tapos sa susunod paghumiram ka.. taena.. gagawin mo ren. I'm a bit homo-phobic pero natatawa talaga ako pag nagbibiruan kame barkada ng ganon. We couldn't help it minsan nadadala namen yun kulitan sa library. "O kinuha ko na yung SCRA ah.. jan yun xerox ah" "Ok pare thankyou pare... I love you pare" tatawa ng "Hihihihihi!!" taena. Biglang sisitsit yung librarian "(tok tok tok!) Sileeence!!!". LOL.

Let's get to the case. This one's for the 3rd gender. Obviously haha.

This is a fairly new case, in such a way na buhay pa mga proponents ng kaso na to.. of course led by no less than Professor Danton Remoto whom I have a disrespe...  no no no.. I mean a deep respect... (Lol sorry) for his brilliant commentaries in his radio program that I always try to listen to whenever I got the free time. Funny and brilliant, that’s what I can say for the good professor. 

Okay.. let’s see what happened here. 

Petitioner in this is case.. of course we all know... ANG LADLAD (aaaahhhyyy!!) LOL just kidding  is a national organization representing the lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans-genders (LGBT) community.  I think this was during the hype of the 2006 National Election?.. Yup Arroyo administration. Kung anuano kasi ininsert nila sa Freedom Constitution.

This is the time when everyone was filing Petition for Accreditations  with of course our electoral body the COMELEC. Comelec kase has announced that pursuant to the constitutional provision that the state in its duty to promote social justice gives way for the marginalized group to be heard and be part of the decision making process of the nation.  I remember during that time everyone seemed to be grouping together creating a so called marginalized sector... mga trycicle driver, pedicab driver, barbero... magsasaka.. magbobote... so probably one gay fella said to another gay fella...  “E bat sila? E bat tayo hindweh... mas may karapwatan twayoo nwo! malakwe ang ambag natwen sa lipunan kaya di ba teh?”  “Ay korek ka jan baklush!!”  LOL. hehe joke lang. 

So in consideration of this new found ‘marginalized’ freedom  the LGBT community assembled themselves under one umbrella organization called ANG LADLAD with a soul intent to function as a political group. Of course it’s second step was to be recognized and be accredited as a political party. Hence,  it filed a petition for accreditation as a party-list organization to public respondent in this case, the COMELEC. 

However, due to moral grounds, the latter denied the said petition.  

So... the accreditation petition was denied. And to buttress their denial, COMELEC cited certain biblical and quranic passages in their decision. It also stated that since their ways are immoral and contrary to public policy, they are considered nuisance. In fact, their acts are even punishable under the Revised Penal Code in its Article 201. 

'Ahhyyy nakwooo! bruhang Comelec yan! Nuisance lang kamweh.. ganwon??' (LOL) 

So a motion for reconsideration (MR) was filed and denied, Hence petitioner filed this instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC.  

So before the court Ang Ladlad argued that:

1. the denial of accreditation, insofar as it justified the exclusion by using religious dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees against the establishment of religion.

'dogma lang ang dahilahn your honor!!  isa itong pagyurak sa aming pagkatwao!! File kami ng file tapos kami ang nagsu-SUFFER ditwoh!!'  (LOL)

2. the Assailed Resolutions contravened its constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and equal protection of laws, as well as constituted violations of the Philippines’ international obligations against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In its comment, the COMELEC reiterated their stand that: 

1.petitioner does not have a concrete and genuine national political agenda to benefit the nation and 

2.that the petition was validly dismissed on moral grounds. 

3.LGBT sector is not among the sectors enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941 

4.that petitioner made untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged its national existence contrary to actual verification reports by COMELEC’s field personnel.

Okay so..

ANG CHORVA (Issue) :) (jok lang)

W/N Respondent erred in denying Petitioners application on moral and legal grounds.

ANG CHUK CHAK CHENES NG KORTE (ahahaha) (Ruling):

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 party-list system. As we explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, “the enumeration of marginalized and under-represented 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.

Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At bottom, what our non-establishment clause calls for is “government neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly, “governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.” We thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. Be it noted that government action must have a secular purpose.

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 petitioner’s admission into the party-list system would be so harmful as to irreparably damage the moral fabric of society.

We also find the COMELEC’s 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. 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 party-list system. THE DENIAL OF ANG LADLAD’S 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.

Ang Ladlad wins this case. Finally. A breath of fresh air for our LGBT brothers/sisters. 

Although ewan ko kung anu na nangyari dito.. I've never seen Danton sitting in Congress. Didn't they make it through the ballot count?....  Matanung ko nga si Proffessor Danton pag nakita ko. LOL.