The COMELEC cannot disqualify a party-list applicant based on religious or moral grounds lacking a clear secular justification, as doing so violates the non-establishment clause, the equal protection clause, and the rights to freedom of expression and association; moral disapproval alone is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing upon these fundamental rights.

The case arose from the COMELEC's refusal to accredit Ang Ladlad, an organization representing the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, as a party-list organization eligible to participate in the Philippine legislative elections under Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act).

• Ang Ladlad LGBT Party (Ang Ladlad), an organization composed of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs), filed a petition for registration with the COMELEC on August 17, 2009, seeking accreditation as a party-list organization for the May 2010 elections.
• Ang Ladlad argued before the COMELEC that the LGBT community is a marginalized and under-represented sector, victims of discrimination and violence, and that the organization complied with the requirements of RA 7941 and the guidelines in Ang Bagong Bayani.
• On November 11, 2009, the COMELEC Second Division dismissed Ang Ladlad's petition, primarily citing moral grounds based on interpretations of the Bible (Romans 1:26, 27) and the Koran (7:81, 7:84, 29:30).
• The COMELEC resolution also cited alleged violations of the Civil Code (defining nuisance under Art. 695, contract stipulations under Art. 1306, void contracts under Art. 1409) and the Revised Penal Code (Art. 201 on immoral doctrines) as bases for denial.
• Ang Ladlad filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the COMELEC En Banc in its resolution dated December 16, 2009, with the Chairman breaking a 3-3 tie.
• The COMELEC En Banc upheld the denial, reiterating the moral grounds and adding that Ang Ladlad's sexual orientations were not beneficial to the nation, that LGBTs were not substantially differentiated from other citizens protected by the Bill of Rights, and that public morals, influenced by religious upbringing, opposed Ang Ladlad's advocacy.
• In its Comment to the Supreme Court, COMELEC argued for the first time that Ang Ladlad made untruthful statements regarding its nationwide existence based on field verification reports, a ground not mentioned in the assailed resolutions.

• The denial of accreditation based on religious dogma violated the constitutional guarantee against the establishment of religion (non-establishment clause).
• The COMELEC's resolutions infringed upon Ang Ladlad's constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and equal protection under the laws.
• The denial constituted a violation of the Philippines' international obligations against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
• The LGBT sector is marginalized and under-represented, qualifying it for party-list representation under RA 7941, and the enumeration of sectors in the law is not exclusive.
• COMELEC's reliance on alleged violations of the Civil Code and Revised Penal Code was baseless, as no specific immoral acts were identified or proven.
• COMELEC's late introduction of the ground of "untruthful statements" regarding national existence violated procedural due process.

• Ang Ladlad's petition was dismissible on moral grounds as it tolerated immorality offensive to religious beliefs (Christian and Muslim) and advocated immoral doctrines contrary to the Civil Code and Revised Penal Code.
• Granting the petition would expose the youth to moral and spiritual degradation, contrary to the State's duty under the Constitution.
• Ang Ladlad's expressed sexual orientations per se would not benefit the nation as a whole, a requirement under the party-list system's purpose.
• LGBT individuals are not a "special class" requiring distinct treatment and are already protected as males and females under the existing Bill of Rights (no substantial differentiation).
• The denial was based on generally accepted public morals derived from the Philippines' religious upbringing, which have become part of the law.
• The LGBT sector is not among the sectors enumerated in the Constitution or RA 7941.
• Ang Ladlad made untruthful statements in its petition regarding its nationwide existence.

• Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in denying Ang Ladlad's petition for party-list accreditation based on moral and religious objections?
• Does the denial of Ang Ladlad's accreditation violate the constitutional principles of non-establishment of religion, equal protection of laws, and freedom of expression and association?
• Is the enumeration of marginalized and under-represented sectors in RA 7941 exclusive, thereby disqualifying the LGBT sector?
• Did the COMELEC violate procedural due process by raising the issue of Ang Ladlad's alleged non-existence for the first time in its Comment to the Supreme Court?

• Yes, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Ang Ladlad's petition based on moral and religious objections, violating fundamental constitutional rights.
• The Court ruled that the COMELEC's reliance on religious texts (Bible and Koran) and notions of morality derived from specific religions violated the non-establishment clause, which mandates government neutrality in religious matters and requires state actions to have a secular purpose.
• The denial violated the equal protection clause; moral disapproval of a group, without more, is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify discriminatory classification under the rational basis test. LGBTs deserve the same right to participate in the party-list system as other marginalized groups.
• The denial infringed upon Ang Ladlad's freedom of expression and association, as the state cannot suppress speech or association merely because it finds the message disagreeable or unpopular, especially when the conduct involved (homosexuality) is not illegal.
• The enumeration of sectors in RA 7941 is not exclusive, as established in Ang Bagong Bayani; the crucial element is compliance with the Constitution and RA 7941, not specific enumeration.
• The COMELEC violated procedural due process by raising the ground of Ang Ladlad's alleged non-existence belatedly; furthermore, the Court found no misrepresentation regarding Ang Ladlad's claimed network of affiliates.
• The Court granted the petition, set aside the COMELEC resolutions, and directed the COMELEC to grant Ang Ladlad's application for party-list accreditation.

• Non-Establishment Clause (Art. III, Sec. 5, Constitution): Defined as requiring "government neutrality in religious matters." Applied here to invalidate COMELEC's reliance on the Bible and Koran and religious morality to deny accreditation, emphasizing that government action must have a discernible secular purpose.
• Benevolent Neutrality: Defined as the approach where government pursues secular goals but strives to uphold religious liberty within constitutional limits, allowing accommodation of religious morality only if it doesn't offend compelling state interests. The Court found COMELEC's actions inconsistent with this, as it imposed specific religious morals without secular justification.
• Secular Purpose Test: A principle derived from the non-establishment clause requiring government actions and laws proscribing conduct to have an articulable secular purpose and justification, not merely conformity to religious doctrine. Applied to reject COMELEC's moral objections lacking such secular basis.
• Equal Protection Clause (Art. III, Sec. 1, Constitution): Guarantees that similar persons or classes are treated similarly under the law. Applied using the rational basis test, the Court held that differentiating LGBTs for exclusion from the party-list system based solely on moral disapproval lacked a legitimate state interest.
• Rational Basis Test: The standard used for equal protection analysis when no fundamental right or suspect class is involved, requiring only that the classification be rationally related to a legitimate government end. The Court found COMELEC's exclusion of Ang Ladlad failed even this deferential test.
• Freedom of Expression and Association (Art. III, Sec. 4, Constitution): Protects the right to promote agendas and persuade society through democratic means, applying even to unpopular, offensive, or shocking ideas. Applied to rule that COMELEC could not restrict Ang Ladlad's participation simply because it disapproved of their views or association, absent illegal activity or incitement to violence.
• Party-List System (RA 7941): The law governing party-list representation. Interpreted here to confirm that the enumeration of marginalized sectors in Section 5 is not exclusive, and qualification depends on meeting the law's requirements, not specific listing.
• Procedural Due Process: The right to fair procedure. Invoked to criticize COMELEC for raising a new ground (alleged non-existence) for denial only in its Supreme Court comment, depriving Ang Ladlad of the opportunity to address it earlier.
• Non-Discrimination (International Law - ICCPR Art. 26, UDHR Art. 21): The principle that laws, including those relating to electoral participation, should apply equally without discrimination, including based on sexual orientation (as interpreted by the ICCPR Human Rights Committee). The Court cited this as consistent with its ruling.

• "[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." (Quoting Justice Robert Jackson)
• "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."
• "The morality referred to in the law is public and necessarily secular, not religious... 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." (Citing Estrada v. Escritor)
• "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."
• "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."
• "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."

• West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624): Cited for the opening quote on the substance of freedom to differ.
• Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections (412 Phil. 308): Cited extensively regarding the requirements and purpose of the party-list system under RA 7941, particularly that the enumeration of sectors is not exclusive. COMELEC's interpretation was found inconsistent with this ruling.
• Estrada v. Escritor (455 Phil. 411): Cited as primary authority for the principle that public morality under the law must be secular, not religious, and that government action requires a secular purpose to comply with the non-establishment clause and benevolent neutrality.
• Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas (487 Phil. 531): Cited regarding the application of the rational basis test in equal protection challenges in Philippine jurisprudence.
• Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558): Cited as persuasive jurisprudence (US Supreme Court) holding that moral disapproval of homosexual conduct is not a legitimate state interest to justify intrusions into liberty/privacy (overruling Bowers v. Hardwick).
• Bowers v. Hardwick (478 U.S. 186): Mentioned as the US case initially upholding a sodomy law, which was later overruled by Lawrence v. Texas.
• Norris v. Ireland (ECHR, 1988): Cited as persuasive European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence ruling that criminalizing private, consensual same-sex acts violated the right to privacy, even if intended to protect public morals.
• Toonen v. Australia (UN HRC, 1994): Cited as persuasive UN Human Rights Committee jurisprudence finding that laws criminalizing consensual adult same-sex activity violated privacy rights under the ICCPR and that "sex" in non-discrimination clauses includes "sexual orientation."
• Anonymous v. Radam (541 SCRA 12): Cited to support the idea that immorality cannot be judged based on personal bias or cultural values not recognized in public policy/law.
• Case of the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (ECHR, 2006); Baczkowski and Others v. Poland (ECHR, 2007); Case of Freedom & Democracy Party (OZDEP) v. Turkey (ECHR, 1999): Cited as ECHR jurisprudence emphasizing protection for political association and expression, even for groups challenging the existing order or debating controversial issues, as long as peaceful means are used.

• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 1 (Equal Protection Clause): Basis for challenging the discriminatory denial of accreditation.
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 4 (Freedom of Speech, Expression, Assembly): Basis for arguing the denial infringed Ang Ladlad's right to express its views and associate as a political party.
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 5 (Non-Establishment Clause & Free Exercise Clause): Central provision violated by COMELEC's reliance on religious doctrine and morality.
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article II, Section 13 (Protection of Youth): Cited by COMELEC as justification for denial, rejected by the Court as unsubstantiated.
• Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act), Section 2 (Declaration of Policy): Outlines the purpose of the party-list system to enable marginalized sectors to gain representation.
• Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act), Section 5 (Registration): Enumerates specific sectors (labor, peasant, etc.) but interpreted by the Court as non-exclusive.
• Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act), Section 6 (Refusal/Cancellation): Lists grounds for denial, none of which were found applicable based on the moral grounds cited by COMELEC.
• Civil Code, Article 694 & 695 (Nuisance): Cited by COMELEC, but the Court found the reference flimsy and insufficient proof of any nuisance caused by Ang Ladlad.
• Civil Code, Article 1306 (Autonomy of Contracts): Cited by COMELEC regarding stipulations contrary to morals, deemed irrelevant by the Court.
• Civil Code, Article 1409 (Void Contracts): Cited by COMELEC regarding contracts contrary to morals, deemed irrelevant by the Court.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 201 (Immoral doctrines, obscene publications, etc.): Cited by COMELEC, but the Court emphasized that mere allegation does not substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt required for criminal conviction.
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 21: Cited regarding the right to participate in government, relevant to non-discrimination.
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 25: Cited regarding the right to participate in public affairs and elections without unreasonable restrictions.
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 26: Cited regarding equality before the law and non-discrimination, interpreted by the HRC to include sexual orientation.
• Yogyakarta Principles: Mentioned by petitioner but deemed non-binding "soft law" by the Court at the time.
• Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 38(1): Referenced regarding the sources of international law, used to assess the status of the Yogyakarta Principles.