Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

New Civil Code Article 39 The following circumstanes, among others, modify of limit capacity to act: age, insanity,

imbecility, the state of being deaf-mute, penalty, prodigality, family relations, alienage, absene, insolvency and trusteeship. The consequences of these cirumstanes are governed in this Code, other codes, the Rules of the Court, and in special laws. Capacity to act is not limited on account of religous belief or political opinion. A married woman, twenty-one years of age or over, is qualified for all acts of civil life, except in cases specified by law. 1987 Constitution on SUFFRAGE Article V Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year, and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage. G.R. No. 190582 April 8, 2010 Ang LADLAD Party - petitioner vs COMELEC - respondent FACTS: Ang LADAD is an organization of lesbians, gays, bisexuals or trans-gendered individuals. Ang LADLAD filed a petition for registration as a sectoral party in the party-list system with the COMELEC in 2006. COMELEC refused to accredit Ang LADLAD Party as a party-list organization under Republic Act 7941 ( Party List System Article 4 ). The basis: no substantial membership base. Ang LADLAD filed a petition for registration again with the COMELEC on 2009. COMELEC refused anew. The basis:immorality. COMELEC cites biblical accounts to account for immorality due to one's sexual orientation. COMELEC also cites Article 1306 NCC, Article 695, all claiming that Ang LADLAD, due to its sexual orientation, is contrary to public morals and good customs and does not reflect the moral interest of the nation, and and therefore cannot be recognized. Ang LADLAD argues that there were being denied accreditation due to exclusion by using religous dogma ( article 39 NCC ), and constitutional rights to equal protetion of laws, among the basic rights, simply because of sexual orientation. HELD: Supreme Court rules that: 1. It is wrong for COMELEC to use bible/koran to claim what covers morality and immorality and therefore govt needs to be neutral in religous matters. 2. COMELEC failed to identify specific immoral acts performed and is currently being performed by Ang LADLAD. 3. COMELEC failed to prove that Ang LADLAD is harmful to the moral fabric of society. 4. COMELEC failed to prove that the majority of Philippine population considers homosexuality as immoral and unacceptable. 5. Without a specific and concrete argument against Ang LADLAD, then it becomes a mere case of disapproving homesexuals. In closing, the supreme court says that the court's role is not for imposing its view of acceptable

behavior. Rather, it is to apply the Consitution and laws as best as it can, uninfluenced by public opinion or religous beliefs. Thus the petition was granted.