 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
9 April 2010
The Commission on Human Rights salutes the Supreme Court in allowing Ang Ladlad Party List to join the May 2010 elections.
The Commission issues this press statement as it greatly welcomes the Supreme Court’s Decision and appreciates the generous quotations from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the General Comment No. 25 of the Human Rights Committee.
Going beyond satisfaction of the legal requirement is the elaboration of human rights and obligations in court decisions
Beyond the satisfaction of the legal requirement, the Ang Ladlad case paved a broad way for LGBT groups to claim their space in the democratic process of our country through a decision that represents quite a significant stride in the interpretation of the human rights by the Philippine Courts.
At the very least, three reasons make this decision a concrete human rights jurisprudence initiative:
Firstly , the SC decision included the language of the UDHR and ICCPR and invoked the principle of non-discrimination.
Second , it recognized the Commission as amicus curiae as it granted its motion for intervention.
And third, it effectively delivered its decision to fulfill the claim of Ang Ladlad to the human right to participate in the electoral process, in accordance with laws.
As a National Human Rights Institution, the Commission is humbled by the Supreme Court’s recognition to intervene in the petition filed by the party list organization. At the same time, the Commission is affirmed in its role as amicus curiae, bringing before the courts the obligations arising from international human rights law and the elaboration of the “normative content” of rights. As the SC recalled:
“Also, on January 13, 2010 , the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) filed a Motion to Intervene or to Appear as Amicus Curiae, attaching thereto its Comment-in-Intervention. The CHR opined that the denial of Ang Ladlad’s petition on moral grounds violated the standards and principles of the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). On January 19, 2010 , we granted the CHR’s motion to intervene.” (Decision, p.9)
“It is the Commission’s role to be part of Ang Ladlad‘s struggle to claim their right to stand for elections. To not be involved will not augur well for our integrity in the pursuit of promoting and protecting human rights in the country,” stated Chairperson Leila M. de Lima upon receiving the good news.
Chair de Lima represented the CHR in its Motion for Intervention. The main arguments presented focused on the role of the judiciary to invoke human rights obligations vis-a-vis the fulfillment of Ang Ladlad’s right to stand for elections. In the said decision, the Supreme Court quoted:
“As stated by the CHR in its Comment-in-Intervention, the scope of the right to electoral participation is elaborated by the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 25 (Participation in Public Affairs and the Right to Vote) as follows:
‘1. Article 25 of the Covenant recognizes and protects the right of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs, the right to vote and to be elected and the right to have access to public service. Whatever form of constitution or government is in force, the Covenant requires States to adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure that citizens have an effective opportunity to enjoy the rights it protects. Article 25 lies at the core of democratic government based on the consent of the people and in conformity with the principles of the Covenant.
x x x x
‘15. The effective implementation of the right and the opportunity to stand for elective office ensures that persons entitled to vote have a free choice of candidates. Any restrictions on the right to stand for election, such as minimum age, must be justifiable on objective and reasonable criteria. Persons who are otherwise eligible to stand for election should not be excluded by unreasonable or discriminatory requirements such as education, residence or descent, or by reason of political affiliation. No person should suffer discrimination or disadvantage of any kind because of that person's candidacy. States parties should indicate and explain the legislative provisions which exclude any group or category of persons from elective office.’” (at pp. 24-25)
While the said SC decision demonstrated its role in directly invoking human rights obligations, it is not prepared to rule on the Yogyakarta Principles, as raised by Ang Ladlad:
“We stress, however, that although this Court stands willing to assume the responsibility of giving effect to the Philippines ’ international law obligations , the blanket invocation of international law is not the panacea for all social ills. We refer now to the petitioner’s invocation of the Yogyakarta Principles (the Application of International Human Rights Law In Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity), which petitioner declares to reflect binding principles of international law.
“At this time, we are not prepared to declare that these Yogyakarta Principles contain norms that are obligatory on the Philippines . There are declarations and obligations outlined in said Principles which are not reflective of the current state of international law, and do not find basis in any of the sources of international law enumerated under Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Petitioner has not undertaken any objective and rigorous analysis of these alleged principles of international law to ascertain their true status.” (at pp, 25-26; emphasis supplied)
The aforequoted pronouncements of the Court should serve as a challenge to the human rights community to step up discourse of, and advocacy for non-discrimination, in general, and LGBT rights, in particular, for better awareness of people in our society.
COMELEC’s Enlightened Minority
When Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration for the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division’s denial of its application for party list accreditation, three (3) Commissioners voted to overturn the First Assailed Resolution. The Commission on Human Rights honors the enlightened minority in the COMELEC en banc, namely, Commissioners Rene V. Sarmiento, Gregorio Y. Larrazabal and Armando Velasco.
At the COMELEC level, the CHR had previously issued a Human Rights Advisory, CHR (IV) A2009-012, dated 26 November 2009 , entitled “Urging the COMELEC to Re-examine Ang Ladlad’s Right to Stand for Elections.”
The CHR must join hands with human rights champions in all state institutions, such as the COMELEC, for the greater respect, protection and fulfillment of all human rights in the country.