|
 Ang Ladlad will hold the National Consultation Meeting on February 27, 2010 (Saturday) at 9:00AM to 5:00PM in the University Hotel of UP Diliman to elect our new set of officers and party list representatives. We might be able to run for Party List elections in May 2010, let us show the power of the Pink Vote.As per Chair Danton Remoto, we need all hands on deck. The campaign season begins on February 9. Please help us in your respective towns, cities, provinces and regions. Online campaigning will certainly help. And also provide us with leads on people and companies we can tap for our fund-raising. We will need money, food for the campaign, office supplies, volunteers and endorsements. In line with this, we are calling all existing members to renew their membership and interested individuals/ parties/groups to sign up as new members not later than February 20, 2010 to be eligible to nominate and vote. The Membership Committee will collect an annual fee of Php100 for professionals and Php50 for students/nonworking individuals upon signing up. Email brazen_yannigan@yahoo.com to receive the online application form. We will reply with the details of membership fee payment upon receipt of your application form. Refer to contact details below for inquiries. Please pass/forward this message.Thank you for your support. Mabuhay tayo'ng lahat. Edmond B. Osorio #013 Membership Committee Member Email: brazen_yannigan@yahoo.com Mobile: 09164741994
 By Professor Danton RemotoChairman Ang Ladlad Party-list Now that the Senate has shown itself for the circus that it really is, ain't I glad I did not file an appeal with the Comelec when it disqualified me from running for senator because I did not have a party. I could have had a party. One presidential candidate included me in his list, but slid down to vice-presidential candidate and was heard, as the writer of macabre tales Edgar Allan Poe would put it, nevermore. I tried contacting his party, but you have to talk to 10,000 layers of the hierarchy before you could get a clear word in. Chaos is the name of their game. I could have had a party. Another presidential candidate sent an emissary and I kinda liked the candidate, but they were offering ten percent of what a senatorial campaign needs. A senatorial campaign needs PhP 200 million. What will I do with PhP 20 million? It won't even pay for everything when the gun starts to bark on February 9 -- the start of the official campaign season. I could have had a party. I kinda liked the vice presidential candidate of another party, but I did not like the presidential candidate. All bluster, all talk, nothing, nada, zilch, wala. I could have had a party. But one of the senatorial candidates of this controversial party disliked me to high heavens for placing higher than him/her in the unpolluted senatorial surveys in the past year. Is it my fault if the people like me and not you, Super Brat? Thus, I have enumerated the top four presidential candidates and what they offered or had in store for me before December 1, the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy for senator of this beautiful but poor country. But since the money offered was not enough or I did not like the party or I loathed the presidential candidate or one senatorial itsy bitsy yellow polka dot bikini hated me, I did not run under any of the so-called mainstream parties. And so I filed as an independent candidate, to go solo, banking only on the LGUs and youth groups and NGOs and teachers' associations and LGBT groups I have allied with since 2007, when I criss-crossed the country quietly, every two weeks. And yet Comelec -- that fountain of Infinite Intelligence -- said we do not have a national network. Really? Then why, oh why, now that Ang Ladlad might run for party-list elections, am I getting phone calls and e-mail letters every day from governors and congressmen and mayors -- both incumbent and opposition -- asking me to form an alliance with them in their provinces and cities and towns? They said that Ang Ladlad is very strong in their localities, and please naman, Professor Remoto, visit our localities and we will host you and we will meet, please consider this urgent request for an alliance. Our people, Professor Remoto, they really want to see you because you are funny and brave and bright. (Really? But the Comelec does not think so). If all politics is local, then what do all these urgent phone calls and e-mails mean? If I do not have a national network, then why, oh why, do people running now for senators have asked Ang Ladlad and I to please, kindly, sige na naman, bring home to our respective regions, provinces, bailiwicks their tarpaulins and posters now that the campaign season is just a breath away? Because you do not bring home a tarp or poster. You hang or post them in junctions, in residences of important people in a town, and you need permission and local clout to do that, kapatid, so 1,000 tarps and posters will bloom in a particular street corner or wall or gate. Kung ito ang grupo ng walang national constituency, bakit nagkakandarapa sila na makipagtulungan sa amin? And many of the senators in yesterday's circus at the Senate will run for re-election and will certainly win. So tuloy ang kabalbalan even after May 2010. That is why I hope the Supreme Court will allow us to run, finally, and this country will see what running as an independent senator would have been -- mirrored in the impending landslide victory of Ang Ladlad Party List.
THE SUPREME COURT (SC) today stopped the Commission on Elections (Comelec) from disqualifying the group Ang Ladlad as a contender in the party-list elections. The tribunal issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) stopping Comelec from delisting the controversial group of lesbians, gays..., bisexuals, and transgenders (LGBTs) for the May 2010 elections.The merits of the case have yet to be tackled by the High Court. abs-cbnnews.com
CLICK: PDI SUNDAY ISSUE (Editor’s Note: This is a shortened version of the petition filed by Ang Ladlad with the Supreme Court on Dec. 5 to reverse a Comelec ruling denying the group accreditation for the party-list elections. The group’s counsels are Nicolas Pichay, Clara Rita Padilla, Ibarra Gutierrez and Carlo Alcala.)
MANILA, Philippines—Suddenly, we are back in the middle Ages! The resolution of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) denying Ang Ladlad accreditation to run under the party-list system is an example of society’s marginalization of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender (LGBT). The resolution demonizes the LBGT community by accusing us of indulging in imaginary acts of immorality that the poll body deems “a threat to the youth.” More importantly, the resolution violates rights guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of universal application.Thus, Ang Ladlad filed a petition for certiorari with application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, with the Supreme Court last Dec. 5. We are asking the high court to annul the Comelec resolution dated Nov. 11 denying the accreditation of Ang Ladlad and the resolution dated Dec. 17 denying our motion for reconsideration. The issues, especially on the application for an injunction, must also be settled soon, given the Jan. 25 deadline for the printing of ballots. Second division ruling Ang Ladlad is an organization of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgendered individuals. Last year, on Aug. 17, the group applied for party-list accreditation with the Comelec. In a hearing on Sept. 24, before the Comelec second division, I presented evidence to prove Ang Ladlad’s SEC registration, number of members and their location, its being a marginalized group and all other qualifications. In its resolution, the second division said that although the group had complied with all the requirements for accreditation under the party-list system, Ang Ladlad was being denied accreditation because it tolerates immorality. Proof? The division cited passages from the Bible and the Koran, adding that Ang Ladlad offended religious beliefs. As if sharing the outrage of the LGBT community, local and foreign institutions and corporate entities, and public figures issued separate expressions of support for Ang Ladlad. Grave abuse The group maintains that its petition to the Supreme Court should be granted based on the following: The Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack, or excess of jurisdiction, when it made conclusions unsupported by records. Its resolution violates the following provisions of the Constitution: —Article III, Section 5: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.” —Article II, Section 6: “The separation of the Church and State shall be inviolable.” —Article III, Section 1: “No person xxx (shall be) be denied the equal protection of the laws. —Article III, Section 4: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” The Comelec violated international law which the Philippines is bound to observe. Unsupported by evidence The resolution capitalized on our definitions of LGBT on the one hand, and sexual orientation on the other, in refusing Ang Ladlad’s registration on moral grounds. It said Ang Ladlad tolerates same-sex relations, which allegedly go against the teachings of certain religions. Citing the Comelec law department’s comment, the resolution added that advocates of the group were promoting sexual immorality. A cursory perusal of the Comelec’s point reveals that the commission equated Ang Ladlad’s tolerance of the beliefs of those “differently oriented” with the group’s supposed acts or practice of immorality. The Comelec invoked Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, which deals with the glorification of criminals, violence in shows, obscene publications and lustful or pornographic exhibitions. It used the article to support its point that Ang Ladlad was espousing doctrines contrary to public morals. Affections It may not be something amiss to say that the principle of ejusdem generis (of the same kind) is enough to declare that homosexuality per se does not fall within the ambit of the penal law. That one’s affections toward people of the same sex easily translate into lust and immorality is a non sequitur. On a deeper analysis, Ang Ladlad may not be charged with the felony because first, the element of publicity in its purported adherence to the doctrines is lacking. It must be remembered that I gave the definitions in the context of the questions posed to me at the hearing. Moreover, the resolutions failed to see the focal point of the group’s objective to represent a marginalized sector of society, disadvantaged merely because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. In other words, I defined homosexuality or sexual orientation within the protected zone of the constitutional right to privacy. Even the Vatican has publicly condemned violence and discrimination against homosexuals, including penal legislation against them. In a statement last Dec. 10 and read before a United Nations General Assembly meeting, the Vatican said it “opposes all forms of violence and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons, including penal legislation which undermines the inherent dignity of the human person ... The murder and abuse of homosexual persons are to be confronted on all levels, especially when such violence is perpetrated by the State.” Delisted as aberration Furthermore, 30 years ago, homosexuality was already delisted from the books as a medical/psychological aberration. Homosexuality is neither a conscious choice nor a contagious illness that is transmitted as in the leprosy of old, or in HIV/AIDS now (although the stigma and discrimination are present in these conditions as well). To put it mildly, the view asserted by the biblical scholar Lehman Strauss that the Comelec cited was obsolete. Strauss was a scholar whose heyday was in the 1950s. He lived at the start of the past century and his pronouncements could not have been backed up by scientific evidence. As I succinctly remarked, “How would I have taught in one of the country’s exclusive Catholic schools (Ateneo de Manila University) for 22 years if I were a threat to the youth?” No deceit or falsification Quite preposterously, too, the Comelec said: “Petitioner should be denied accreditation not only for advocating immoral doctrines but likewise for not being truthful when it said that it or any of its nominees/party-list representatives have not violated or failed to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to the elections.” How the poll body drew its inference that Ang Ladlad made untruthful statements of fact is a fathomless mystery. It seems to be trapped in a whimsical world where it is acceptable for one to conjure up evidence simply from thin air. Be that as it may, assuming that the Comelec was referring to the Penal Code provision that it cited, Ang Ladlad may not be faulted for saying it had not violated such law. Neither I nor the other officers of Ang Ladlad have been indicted for violating the provisions, much less convicted in any court of law. Significantly, the law allegedly violated should specifically pertain to elections, which the Revised Penal Code is not. Secular state The Constitution declares that the Philippines is a secular state by stating in Article II, Section 6 that the “separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” The rationale behind the principle of separation of church and state is to protect the government from the influence of a dominant religious group or institution. Under this principle, the Constitution prohibits the religious tyranny of the majority being exercised to suppress the rights of the few. Under the same principle, Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution was included to ensure that the government may not force anyone to support or participate in a religion. The denial of the accreditation of Ang Ladlad, insofar as it justifies the exclusion by using a religious dogma or belief, violates these constitutional guarantees against the establishment of religion. Making references to passages from the Bible and the Koran indicates the religious bias that the Comelec applied in determining the merit and subsequent denial of Ang Ladlad’s application. Incidentally, the poll body is also forcing a segment of the population to abide by the religious beliefs of the majority belonging to the Roman Catholic and Muslim faiths. Validity of love This violates the freedom-of-exercise clause, assuming of course that that segment has a wholly distinct belief in the biblical validity of love regardless of whether or not it is directed toward another of similar gender or sexual orientation. But then again, even the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church through the Vatican Council, is averse to employing religious coercion. In 1965, the Council said: “[T]he human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men [and women] are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such [ways] that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his [or her] own beliefs xxx.” Speaking through then Associate Justice Reynato Puno the Supreme Court held in the case of Estrada v. Escritor that “morality” must be understood in its secular conception. In the case, the high court alluded to the nexus between religious morality and the establishment of a state religion or the effective decimation of the individual’s freedom to exercise his own religion, thus: The Comelec makes the most hostile of discrimination as it deprives Ang Ladlad accreditation using a standard of measure that makes a classification not justified by the circumstances at hand. The Constitution provides in Article III: Section 1. “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” Basis for disqualification At their core, the resolutions consider sexual preference—by itself—to be the basis for a disqualification from being voted for into office. There may be substantial distinctions between marginalized heterosexuals like straight women, on the one hand, and homosexual women or lesbians, on the other. Truly, not all women are created equal. Stated sardonically, “some men (or women) are more equal than others.” Nonetheless, the inevitable question becomes, “is the distinction between straights and gays essential to the intent of the law to encompass as many representatives who may potentially contribute to sound legislation?” Beyond creative arts Ang Ladlad believes the resounding “No” to the issue posed has oftentimes had a res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) feature to it. The chair of Ang Ladlad may himself exemplify the fact that gay men must not be confined by society to the creative arts, for he is at par with or perhaps even better than any other straight man in Congress when it comes to educational qualifications and intellectual discourse. Apart from violating the Constitution, the Comelec resolution is contrary to the principles in international human rights law. Moreover, it constitutes a serious breach of Philippine state obligations under international law. Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a treaty to which the Philippines is a state party, explicitly provides that “Each state party to the present covenant undertakes to respect and ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights in the present covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” Among these rights that must be respected and ensured, “without distinction of any kind” are the right “to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives” and the right “to vote and be elected at genuine periodic elections,” both of which are guaranteed under Article 25 of the ICCPR. It must be pointed out that for the purpose of applying Article 2(1) of the ICCPR, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), a body created under Article 28 of the ICCPR, has ruled, in a landmark decision involving a successful challenge to Australian laws criminalizing homosexual acts, that “sexual orientation” is included in reference to “sex” in the provision. In other words, sexual orientation cannot be used as a basis for denying rights under the ICCPR, which is precisely what the Comelec did in denying Ang Ladlad’s petition for registration. Discrimination Discrimination is anathema to the basic and general principles relating to the protection of human rights. The Comelec resolution contravenes the 2003 recommendations of the UNHRC on the Philippines when it urged the Philippine government “to pursue its efforts to counter all forms of discrimination” pertaining to sexual orientation and to “strengthen human rights education to forestall manifestations of intolerance and de facto discrimination.” A United Nations committee tasked with monitoring the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, a treaty to which the Philippines is a state party, has asked state parties to reconceptualize lesbianism as a sexual orientation and to abolish penalties for its practice. Equal representation In the same vein, the Yogyakarta Principles, a document developed and unanimously adopted in 2007 by a distinguished group of human rights experts from diverse regions and backgrounds, underscores that “everyone is entitled to enjoy all human rights without discrimination on the basis of sexual identity.” No idea is more powerful than one whose time has come, said the German writer Goethe. The idea of equal representation for all will find a voice and resonance if the Supreme Court reverses the Comelec decision that consigns Ang Ladlad and the group it represents to the very margins of the page. (Danton Remoto is the chair of Ang Ladlad. He was an associate professor of English at Ateneo de Manila University, and a scholar of the British Council and of the Fulbright Foundation.)
 UPDATE ON ANG LADLAD's ACCREDITATION:Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, the organization of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Filipinos received an en banc order from the Supreme Court (SC) asking the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to submit their explanation to the petition for certiorari not later than January 11, 2010, Monday before 12 noon. The Comelec had rejected the group's petition for party-list accreditation to particpate in May national elections, saying that it was "dismissible on moral grounds." The poll body said that, based on Bible and Koran teachings, homosexuality is allegedly immoral. The Comelec's en banc decision also stated that homosexuals posed a threat to Filipino youth. Ang Ladlad slammed the decision, saying that it constituted a violation of their human rights. Ang Ladlad filed a petition for certiorari last January 4, asking the SC to review the decision of the poll body.
 By Patricio Mangubatwww.filipinovoices.com Now, let me write about Danton Remoto. Remoto, as you know, is the chairman and founder of Ang Ladlad, a partylist organization. Remoto has just been dealt with two devastating blows—his partylist org was disqualified and just yesterday, he was also stricken out of the list of qualified senatorial candidates. The second division chaired by no less than Commissioner Nicodemo Ferrer handed a fatal blow to Ang Ladlad when he disqualified the organization for being “redundant“. Now, Remoto was also disqualified as a senatorial candidate because of his alleged lack of organization and resources. This is clearly a sign that the Comelec is suffering from homophobia. How in the world did they determined that Remoto does not have a machinery to use for a national campaign? Remoto’s name alone attracts millions of votes. Remoto, undeniably, has already established a name as a gay rights activist. His exposure is definitely beneficial for any campaign. His name has been published in most broadsheets and tabloids and people know him by name and by the cause he espouses. Why consider a name such as Yasmin Lao eligible when a Remoto is not? Lao, pardon me, is a relative unknown, though she is a Liberal party candidate. Remoto can actually launch a campaign all by himself, since he already established political stock. Do you mean to say that people will vote for a Lao or an Ocampo (a senatorial candidate of the Bangon Pilipinas) instead of a Remoto? I will definitely vote for Remoto rather than waste my time shading that box next to these two names: Lao and Ocampo. This surely is a justiciable question—whether or not the Comelec has the power to define what a “national campaign is” and what qualifications an individual must possess to be eligible to run for a national post like the Senate. This decision to strike out Remoto’s name is a clear case of political homophobia. People who love the law must contest it before the Supreme Court and allow Danton Remoto his day in court.
 News Editorwww.fridae.com The Philippines Commission on Elections (Comelec) has upheld a recent decision in which it barred Ang Ladlad, a LBGT political party, from running in the national elections next year. With a 3-3 vote between members of the first and second division en banc, Chairman Jose Melo cast the final dissenting vote against Ang Ladlad that had sought accreditation to join the 2010 elections as a party-list group. On November 11, Ang Ladlad representative and former Ateneo de Manila University professor Danton Remoto filed an appeal to the Commission seeking to reverse the decision that rejected their petition for accreditation due to the supposed immorality of the group that “offends religious beliefs” and for failure to prove the existence of their chapters nationwide as claimed during the hearing for accreditation. Melo was quoted by local media as saying that there is no “substantial differentiation” of LGBTs as a special class of individuals since under the Bill of Rights that applies to all citizens, LGBTs would remain male or female. “The opportunities are open to every Filipino – Ladlad members included – to aspire for public office,” Melo told the Inquirer, citing that party representative Danton Remoto filed his senatorial bid as proof. “Above morality and social norms, they have become part of the law of the land. Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code imposes penalty of prison mayor upon 'those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals' and penalises 'immoral doctrines, obscene publications and indecent shows. “Ang Ladlad falls under these legal provisions as seen in their petition that states: Consensual partnerships or relationships by gays and lesbians who are already of age... Moreover, Article 694 of the Civil Code defines nuisance as “any act, ommission or anything else which shocks defies or disregards decency and morality,'” wrote Melo. Comelec spokesman James Jimenez said the 4-3 decision was reached “following mandated processes of Comelec procedure” and is thus, “satisfying.” The 2009 petition was the second attempt by Ang Ladlad to join the party-list race. The Comelec rejected their first try in 2007 because of their lack of national presence.
 PROF. DANTON REMOTO filed his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for senator at the Commission on Elections this afternoon. He also filed Ang Ladlad Partylist's manifestation of intent to participate in the 2010 polls.
ANG LADLAD PROTESTS COMELEC DISCRIMINATION, PLANS SC APPEAL Sumugod sa Comelec ang mga sumusuporta sa Ang Ladlad na ipinuwera bilang partylist. Plano rin ng samahan na dalhin sa Korte Suprema ang paglaglag sa kanila. Download this and other original video files with Multiply Premium.
 I am inviting you to come and and join us tomorrow to show our repugnance against Comelec. We gays are not immoral. We gays are not threat to the youth!Let us protect our dignity! We are part of this society! We are human beings! NOV. 25, 2009, 9am, Plaza Roma - infront- Manila Cathedral and Comelec office http://buhaybayot.blogspot.com
 MANILA –The group Ang Ladlad has found an ally with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in its ongoing row with the Commission on Elections (Comelec).The CHR on Sunday released a statement in support of Ang Ladlad, whose petition with the Comelec to be included in the list of party-list groups accredited to run for the 2010 national elections was denied. The would-be party-list said it represents lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders. (LGBT) Comelec’s second division denied the group’s petition on grounds of "immorality." CHR said however that the poll body's decision "smacks of prejudice and discrimination." "Homosexuality is not a counterculture. It is part of the diversity of Philippine culture. Homosexuals are part of the Filipino family and unavoidably must be part of our politics," CHR chair Leila De Lima was quoted in the statement as saying. "There is no governmental policy which characterizes homosexuality as illegal nor immoral," De Lima said. "There is or can be no basis in law to deny the registration of the party, directly or indirectly, on the grounds of homosexuality, much less on homosexuality equated to immorality. To make assertions based on their homosexuality is patently discriminatory," she said. The statement highlighted as its basis the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which it said both focus on the equality of all peoples. "These two instruments are looked upon and provide the principle and standards that must be demonstrated by the COMELEC in its mandate under the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code and the Party List Law," the CHR said. "The UDHR and ICCPR also prescribe the normative direction that States must practice in line with the rights laid out in the instruments. The norm of non-discrimination of persons running for elections is at issue in this instance," the CHR added. 'Retrogressive way of thinking' The CHR chair explained that Ang Ladlad is discriminated against in their right to participate as an organization in the party list elections, thereby violating the right against discrimination and their right to be voted for. "We do not think that Ang Ladlad seeks accreditation to promote immorality in the country, but to give a voice to a marginalized sector to push for further protection of their rights. It is a fact that gays are often objects of discrimination through ridicule, contempt and various forms of violence, just as this decision clearly illustrates," De Lima remarked. "[The] COMELEC has exhibited, at the very least, a retrogressive, not progressive, way of thinking. Our views on homosexuality must be in accordance with progressive human rights thought. In an age of growing, rather than receding, tolerance and promotion of human rights, this Decision appears to be a misplaced edifice of arcane views on homosexuality,” she added. 'Clear breach of secular-religious divide' De Lima also said that the Comelec's choice of basis for its argument on immorality was a "clear breach of the secular-religious divide" enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. "Citing both Christian and Islamic doctrines [as the basis to justify the Decision] are certainly beyond the scope of authorities which the COMELEC may employ in resolving the petition," De Lima said. The CHR chairperson also explained that the reference to Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code as the only statutory ground to support the finding of immorality begs the question: is there in fact a secular, governmental policy against homosexuality? "And if this test were to be rightfully applied for ANG LADLAD, shouldn’t this be equally applied to each and every candidate running for public office?” De Lima added. "The CHR will support the ANG LADLAD Party’s plea for reconsideration most probably through a Motion for Intervention so that we can formally present our own views, insights and position on the issue as a premier national human rights institution in the country. The rights of LGBTs are a human rights issue," she added. Source: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com
Dear Human Rights Defenders and Protectors a.k.a Friends, The Motion for Reconsideration (MR) was filed today, Nov18 at the Comelec. We will wait for the Comelec's decision to reconsider LADLAD's accreditation to run for party list in the 2010 election. Comelec has the option to sit on this and let time pass until LADLAD, due to technicality, will not be able to register to run in the 2010 election because the Comelec has only a few days to finalize the list of party-list groups that would be included in the ballot. WE NEED TO PRESSURE THE COMELEC TO COME UP WITH A DECISION.  JOIN US IN SAYING WE ARE NOT IMMORAL AND ARE NOT A THREAT TO THE YOUTH. JOIN US FIGHT FOR OUR LGBT RIGHTS! As Amnesty International would say, ALL HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL!! WHAT YOU CAN DO: 1. JOIN THE PROTEST ACTION ON WED. NOV 25, 2009 Because of Manny Pacquiao's motorcade on Friday, Nov.20 around Manila, Ang LADLAD decided to move the rally to next week. TENTATIVE DATE: Wednesday, Nov. 25 ASSEMBLY TIME: 9:30AM VENUE: COMELEC Your group can send your message of solidarity & support to LADLAD at their FB page or email at darnalipad_2000@yahoo.com, Your group can bring placards, streamers, anything rainbow, be in costume on that protest. imMORAL white shirts are being sold at P250. I’ve attached the design to this email. Contact Mj Yap thru FB or email her @ mjoyap@yahoo.com - Send your name, contact info, number of orders, & t-shirt sizes. I think they have male & female sizes 2. LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN The Internationall Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), together with Ang LADLAD will have a letter-writing campaign to pressure Comelec to come up with a decision the soonest time possible. We will inform you once we have uploaded the letter at the www.iglhrc.org website. You can copy & paste the letter together with the email addresses included in the article and send to the Comelec Commissioners, Commission on Human Rights (CHR) who have been so supportive of LGBT rights especially Atty. De Lima. 3. REPOST THIS INFO Please inform us of your intentions/interest for proper coordination with LADLAD Again Thank You.
 By Aurea Calica(The Philippine Star) MANILA, Philippines - Sen. Joker Arroyo came to the defense of Ang Ladlad, a gay organization whose petition for party-list status was junked by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on grounds of “immorality.” Arroyo joined several organizations, including militant groups, in asking the Comelec to reconsider its decision. “The Comelec’s 2nd Division acted out of bounds when it denied accreditation to Ang Ladlad’s bid to participate in the party-list elections on grounds of ‘immorality’ and for ‘being inimical to the interest of the youth,’” Arroyo said. “The resolution reveals a deeply-entrenched prejudice against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders (LGBTs), the constituency of Ang Ladlad. So what if they are LGBTs? Precisely because of that, as a group which has been oppressed and marginalized in all spheres of their lives, they should be allowed to exercise their basic right to representation in the House of Representatives to protect and advance their interest, the very objective of party-list representation,” Arroyo added. According to Arroyo, the Comelec’s mandate is to ensure clean and honest elections, not to vent their ire and prejudice against gays. “All groups stand on equal footing to have party-list representation under the Constitution. The Comelec cannot, as their 2nd Division has done, discriminate against and whiplash gays, while they give party-list accreditation to cock fighters, etc.,” Arroyo said. “The decision violates their human rights, is utterly bereft of legal basis, grounded as it was on blighted notions of moral standards, even as it invoked the Bible and the Koran,” the senator stressed. The Second Division, composed of Commissioners Nicodemo Ferrer, Lucenito Tagle and Elias Yusoph, refused to accredit the organization as a party-list group because their sexuality “tolerates immorality.” Meantime, Migrante is poised to file a petition for temporary restraining order (TRO) before the Supreme Court next week if the Comelec fails to immediately resolve its motion for reconsideration of a resolution denying them a slot in the 2010 party-list polls.
 As citizen and Senator of the Republic, I question the recent rejection of Ang Ladlad Party to be a duly registered sectoral party by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) because of allegations of ‘immorality.’ The Comelec invoked passages from the Holy Bible and the sacred Qu’ran to justify their decision on Ang Ladlad’s petition for party registration.The Republic of the Philippines is a secular state, and as such, we must ensure the clear separation of church and state in our civil and political affairs, as enshrined in the Philippine Constitution, Article II, Section 6. Invoking justifications from sacred texts should not stand in the way of our secular and liberal democratic principles and the rights for political representation of all well-meaning Filipino citizens. Every Filipino, regardless of sexual orientation, can exercise the fundamental right to be represented in the country’s political affairs, including the right to run for public office as political parties and individuals, and to present their platform to the Filipino electorate. There should be no room for discrimination and bigotry against any group representing gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation from within the ranks of our government. We are now at a historic time when nation after nation has begun to decisively dismantle the barriers of the past – such as those that denied groups and individuals from being rightfully considered as equals. Many of these barriers were premised on differences based on gender, race and sexual orientation. While more and more countries have been embracing deserving homosexuals as state leaders (e.g., Iceland), as ministers (e.g., France), and as regular members of their armed forces (e.g., USA), by its recent decision, our COMELEC is dangerously institutionalizing social exclusion and intolerance, and degrading a party like Ang Ladlad as political pariah. A fair and honest election, fundamentally presupposes that every legal individual and party group aspiring for public office should be treated with respect, without bias, and with equality, irrespective of their religion, race, ethnicity, class and sexual orientation.
 By Lilita Balane Newbreak Ang Ladlad's own petition indicating intimate same-sex relations, brought that decision upon itself The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has rejected the petition of a group representing the "third sex" to be accredited for the party list on the ground that it "tolerates immorality, which offends religious beliefs." In an 8-page resolution, the Comelec cited the Ang Ladlad LGBT's advocacy of sexual immorality with same-sex relationships. The group--which claims to represent lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans-genders--brought the unfavorable decision upon itself. In its petition for accreditation, it described itself as representative of a marginalized and under-represented sector that is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. Moreover, it defined the sexual orientation of the sector it is representing as capable of "profound emotional, affectional, and sexual orientation to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender, of the same gender, or more than one gender." Thus, the Comelec's resolution that "the definition of LGBT sector makes it crystal clear that petitioners tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs." The resolution quoted passages from the Bible and the Koran about God showing his wrath against people who engage in same sex relationship. Protecting the youth Although Republic Act 7941, the party list law, doesn't specifically list down immorality as a ground for banning a group from the party list, its Section 6.2 is indicative. It says that a group may be denied party-list participation if "it advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal." The Comelec's law department said that laws should be incorporated in all contracts, permits, license, including accreditations. In the case of Ang Ladlad, the group collides with the provision of the Civil Code and the Revised Penal Code. Comelec said that Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes immoral doctrines, among them publicly expounding or proclaiming doctrines openly contrary to public morality. While Article 1409 of the Civil Code considers as void contracts whose purpose is contrary to morals and good customs. "Should this Commission grant the petition, we will be exposing our youth to an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith.... As an agency of the government, ours too is the State's avowed duty to protect our youth from moral and spiritual degradation," the resolution said. Ang Ladlad, through its president Danton Remoto, called the Comelec's decision unfounded and based solely on religious beliefs. "This is a decision by a very old man with obsolete ideas on homosexuality. They quoted something from the Internet, and did not even visit the library to research. This is an evidence of intellectual bankruptcy," he said, adding that Comelec did not arbitrate based on evidence and documents, but just quoted verses from the Bible. Remoto belied that they are advocating immorality, but they are supporting human rights for all. He said Ang Ladlad is set to file a motion for reconsideration, but is expecting the Comelec to junk their appeal. Remoto said they will also bring their petition to the Supreme Court. If all else fails, Remoto said he will run for a senatorial seat next year to prove that Ang Ladlad has the support of the sector he represents. In 2007, the Comelec junked Ang Ladlad's petition for accreditation for its failure to disclose the scope of its membership. The group claimed to be a national party, but field offices of the Comelec said that the group didn't have chapters in most regions of the country. (Newsbreak) |
