ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the denial of accreditation by COMELEC, violated the constitutional guaranteesagainst the establishment of religion. insofar as it justified the exclusion by using religious dogma. 2. Whether or not the Assailed Resolutions contravened
FACTS: The COMELEC (Second Division)dismissed the Petition for registration of the petitioner on moral grounds that petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs, and advocates sexual immorality. Petitioner should likewise be denied accreditation not only for advocating immoral doctrines but likewise for not being truthful when it said that it ³ or any of itsnominees/party-list representatives have not violated or failed to comply with laws, rules, or regulationsrelating to the elections. Furthermore, states COMELEC, Ang Ladlad will be exposing our youth to anenvironment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith.
RATIO DECIDENDI: Comelec’s citation of the Bible and the Koran in denying petitioner’s application was a violation of the non-establishment clause laid down in Article 3 section 5 of the Constitution. The proscription by law relative to acts against morality must be for a secular purpose (that is, the conduct prohibited or sought to be repressed is “detrimental or dangerous to those conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society"), rather than out of religious conformity. The Comelec failed to substantiate their allegation that allowing registration to Ladlad would be detrimental to society. The LGBT community is not exempted from the exercise of its constitutionally vested rights on the basis of their sexual orientation. Laws of general application should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to participate in the party-list system on the same basis as other marginalized and under-represented sectors. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not tolerated ---not by our own laws nor by any international laws to which we adhere.