Ang Ladlad vs. Comelec

Abayon v.
Comelec
GR 189466 February 11, 2011
FACTS
Respondents Lucaban, Jr. et al. filed a
petition for quo warranto with respondent
HRET against Aangat Tayo and its nominee,
petitioner Abayon, in HRET Case 07-041.
They claimed that Aangat Tayo was not
eligible for a party-list seat in the House of
Representatives, since it did not represent
the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors. Further, they pointed out that
petitioner Abayon herself was not qualified
to sit in the House as a party-list nominee
since she did not belong to the
marginalized and underrepresented
sectors, she being the wife of an incumbent
congressional district representative. She
moreover lost her bid as party-list
representative of the party-list organization
called An Waray in the immediately
preceding elections of May 10, 2004.
Petitioner Abayon pointed out that
respondent HRET had no jurisdiction over
the petition for quo warranto since the
registration of Aangat Tayo as a party-list
organization was a matter that fell within
the jurisdiction of the COMELEC. It was
Aangat Tayo that was taking a seat in the
House of Representatives, and not Abayon
who was just its nominee. All questions
involving her eligibility as first nominee,
said Abayon, were internal concerns of
Aangat Tayo.
On July 16, 2009 respondent HRET issued
an order, dismissing the petition as against
Aangat Tayo but upholding its jurisdiction
over the qualifications of petitioner Abayon.
She moved for reconsideration but the
HRET denied the same on September 17,
2009, prompting Abayon to file the present
petition for special civil action of certiorari.
ISSUES
Whether or not respondent HRET has
jurisdiction over the question of
qualifications of petitioner Abayon as
nominee of Aangat Tayo party-list
organization, who took the seat at the
House of Representatives.
HELD
RA 7941, the Party-List System Act, vests in
the COMELEC the authority to determine
which parties or organizations have the

qualifications to seek party-list seats in the
House of Representatives during the
elections. Indeed, the HRET dismissed the
petitions for quo warranto filed with it
insofar as they sought the disqualifications
of Aangat Tayo. Since petitioner Abayon
was not elected into office but was chosen
by its organization under its internal rules,
the HRET has no jurisdiction to inquire into
and adjudicate her qualifications as
nominee.
But, although it is the party-list
organization that is voted for in the
elections, it is not the organization that sits
and becomes a member of the House of
Representatives. Section 5, Article VI of the
Constitution clearly shows the
Constitutions point of view that it is the
party-list representatives who are "elected"
into office, not their parties or
organizations.
Petitioners Abayon points out that the
authority to determine the qualifications of
a party-list nominee belongs to the party or
organization that nominated him. This is
true, initially. But where an allegation is
made that the party or organization had
chosen and allowed a disqualified nominee
to become its party-list representative in
the lower House and enjoy the secured
tenure that goes with the position, the
resolution of the dispute is taken out of its
hand. Section 17, Article VI of the
Constitution provides that the HRET shall
be the sole judge of all contests relating to,
among other things, the qualifications of
the members of the House of
Representatives. Since, as pointed out
above, party-list nominees are "elected
members" of the House of Representatives
no less than the district representatives
are, the HRET has jurisdiction to hear and
pass upon their qualifications.
The Court holds that respondent HRET did
not gravely abuse its discretion when it
dismissed the petition for quo
warranto against Aangat Tayo party-list but
upheld its jurisdiction over the question of
the qualifications of petitioners Abayon and
Palparan.
ANG LADLAD VS. COMELEC
Facts:
against discrimination based on sexual
Petitioner is a national organization
orientation.
which represents the lesbians, gays,

bisexuals, and trans-genders. It filed a
In its Comment, the COMELEC reiterated
petition for accreditation as a party-list
that petitioner does not have a concrete
organization to public respondent.
and genuine national political agenda to
However, due to moral grounds, the latter
benefit the nation and that the petition
denied the said petition. To buttress their
was validly dismissed on moral grounds.
denial, COMELEC cited certain biblical
It also argued for the first time that the
and quranic passages in their decision. It
LGBT sector is not among the sectors
also stated that since their ways are
enumerated by the Constitution and RA
immoral and contrary to public policy,
7941, and that petitioner made untruthful
they are considered nuissance. In fact,
statements in its petition when it alleged
their acts are even punishable under the
its national existence contrary to actual
Revised Penal Code in its Article 201.
verification reports by COMELECs field

personnel.
A motion for reconsideration being

denied, Petitioner filed this instant
Issue:
Petition on Certiorari under Rule 65 of
WON Respondent violated the Non-
the ROC.
establishment clause of the Constitution;
Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of
WON Respondent erred in denying
accreditation, insofar as it justified the
Petitioners application on moral and legal
exclusion by using religious dogma,
grounds.
violated the constitutional guarantees
Held:
against the establishment of religion.
Respondent mistakenly opines that our
Petitioner also claimed that the Assailed
ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani stands for
Resolutions contravened its constitutional
the proposition that only those sectors
rights to privacy, freedom of speech and
specifically enumerated in the law or
assembly, and equal protection of laws, as
related to said sectors (labor, peasant,
well as constituted violations of the
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
Philippines international obligations
cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans,
Respondent has failed to explain what
overseas workers, and professionals) may
societal ills are sought to be prevented, or
be registered under the party-list system.
why special protection is required for the
As we explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong
youth. Neither has the COMELEC
Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission
condescended to justify its position that
on Elections, the enumeration of
petitioners admission into the party-list
marginalized and under-represented
system would be so harmful as to
sectors is not exclusive. The crucial
irreparably damage the moral fabric of
element is not whether a sector is
society.
specifically enumerated, but whether a

particular organization complies with the
We also find the COMELECs reference to
requirements of the Constitution and RA
purported violations of our penal and civil
7941.
laws flimsy, at best; disingenuous, at

worst. Article 694 of the Civil Code
Our Constitution provides in Article III,
defines a nuisance as any act, omission,
Section 5 that [n]o law shall be made
establishment, condition of property, or
respecting an establishment of religion, or
anything else which shocks, defies, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. At
disregards decency or morality, the
bottom, what our non-establishment
remedies for which are a prosecution
clause calls for is government neutrality
under the Revised Penal Code or any local
in religious matters. Clearly,
ordinance, a civil action, or abatement
governmental reliance on religious
without judicial proceedings. A violation
justification is inconsistent with this
of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code,
policy of neutrality. We thus find that it
on the other hand, requires proof beyond
was grave violation of the non-
reasonable doubt to support a criminal
establishment clause for the COMELEC to
conviction. It hardly needs to be
utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify
emphasized that mere allegation of
the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. Be it noted
violation of laws is not proof, and a mere
that government action must have a
blanket invocation of public morals
secular purpose.
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
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.

Ang Ladlad vs. Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ang Ladlad vs. Comelec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Ang Ladlad vs. Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abayon v.

which parties or organizations have the

ANG LADLAD VS. COMELEC

against discrimination based on sexual

Petitioner is a national organization

which represents the lesbians, gays,

In its Comment, the COMELEC reiterated

petition for accreditation as a party-list

that petitioner does not have a concrete

organization to public respondent.

and genuine national political agenda to

However, due to moral grounds, the latter

benefit the nation and that the petition

denied the said petition. To buttress their

was validly dismissed on moral grounds.

denial, COMELEC cited certain biblical

It also argued for the first time that the

and quranic passages in their decision. It

LGBT sector is not among the sectors

also stated that since their ways are

enumerated by the Constitution and RA

immoral and contrary to public policy,

7941, and that petitioner made untruthful

they are considered nuissance. In fact,

statements in its petition when it alleged

their acts are even punishable under the

its national existence contrary to actual

Revised Penal Code in its Article 201.

verification reports by COMELECs field

A motion for reconsideration being

Petition on Certiorari under Rule 65 of

WON Respondent violated the Non-

establishment clause of the Constitution;

Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of

WON Respondent erred in denying

accreditation, insofar as it justified the

Petitioners application on moral and legal

exclusion by using religious dogma,

violated the constitutional guarantees

against the establishment of religion.

Respondent mistakenly opines that our

Petitioner also claimed that the Assailed

ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani stands for

Resolutions contravened its constitutional

the proposition that only those sectors

rights to privacy, freedom of speech and

specifically enumerated in the law or

assembly, and equal protection of laws, as

related to said sectors (labor, peasant,

well as constituted violations of the

fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous

Philippines international obligations

cultural communities, elderly,

handicapped, women, youth, veterans,

Respondent has failed to explain what

overseas workers, and professionals) may

societal ills are sought to be prevented, or

be registered under the party-list system.