The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has appealed to the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to reconsider its decision to reject the application of Ang Ladlad for registration under the party-list system.

In its advisory issued dated Nov. 26, 2009, the CHR said “it is gravely concerned over the decision of the Comelec’s Second Division to reject the petition for registration filed by Ang Ladlad chairman Danton Remoto on moral grounds.”

CHR Chairwoman Leila M. de Lima said the commission is tasked by the 1987 Constitution to promote and protect human rights in the Philippines, “and this compels us to take cognizance and assist Ang Ladlad to claim its rightful space in our democracy and be enabled to directly participate in governance through the prompt and impartial implementation of the Party List System Act.”

The decision, the advisory added, runs afoul of the “human rights principles of non-discrimination and equality as it relates to the Right to Electoral Participation.”

CHR stressed that the “Right to Electoral Participation is found in the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and restated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

“It said that “the obligation to ensure non-discrimination calls for a positive duty of the state to prevent discrimination and a negative duty to desist from discriminating in the context of the right to electoral participation, particularly the right to be voted through reasonable and objective criteria.”

De Lima noted that Republic Act 7941, otherwise known as the Party List System Act, “intended to promote equal opportunity by broadening the access to electoral participation, in this case, the right to be elected of marginalized or historically disadvantaged sectors of society.

Indeed, this law is a vital piece of legislation that exemplifies the essence of democracy as not simply a rule of the majority but giving value to diversity and to ensure a space for all sectors of society to be heard through their direct participation in governance.”

The principle of equality is closely intertwined with the right against discrimination, CHR argued, and Article 26 of the ICCPR provides that “all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

CHR added: “Article 26 of the ICCPR does not expressly enumerate sexual orientation or gender identity as any of the grounds upon which discrimination is proscribed. As already pointed out, there exists no statute that discriminates on the ground of sexual orientation. However, even if there were any, the absence of sexual orientation or gender identity in the enumeration of Article 26 does not place the discriminatory laws or policies beyond the ambit of equal protection and non-discrimination statute.”

De Lima also stressed: “The UN Human Rights Treaty bodies have identified sexual orientation as a specific category that is subject to the protection against discrimination and equal protection. Many human rights advocates decry the decision of the Comelec's Second Division. Is 'morality' a reasonable requirement for the exercise of the right of access to elective public office? Whose morality is reasonable?”

The CHR said the Comelec would be violating international covenants if it persists on the ban on Ang Ladlad, which represents a distinct social sector that must be protected from discrimination and unequal treatment, and denied the right to participate in the electoral process.

Apart from De Lima, Commissioners Cecila Rachel V. Quisumbing, Ma. Victoria V. Cardona, Norberto de la Cruz and Jose S. Mamauag signed the advisory.