Categories
Case Digest

CASE DIGEST: ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 190582, EN BANC, April 8, 2010

CASE DIGEST: ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 190582, EN BANC, April 8, 2010

FACTS:

“Ang Ladlad” is an organization of people who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals or trans- genders. The Comelec dismissed the petition on moral grounds as “the definition of the LGBT sector makes it crystal clear that it tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs.”

ISSUE:

Whether or not “Ang Ladlad” party-list application should be denied as the organizationallegedly tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs.

RULING:

No. The denial of accreditation, insofar as it justified the exclusion by using religious dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees against the establishment of religion; including its constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and equal protection of laws, as well as constituted violations of the Philippines’ international obligations against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Rather than relying on religious belief, the government must act for secular purposes and in ways that have primarily secular effects. “Ang Ladlad” has sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with the legal requirements for accreditation. Hence, its application as a party-list should be granted.

CASE DIGEST | SUPREME COURT | PHILIPPINES | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Categories
Case Digest

CASE DIGEST: ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007

CASE DIGEST: ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007

FACTS:

Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the change of his first name  to “Mely” and sex (gender) in his birth certificate be changed to female since he underwent sex reassignment surgery. The OSG alleges that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the live birth certificate by reason of sex reassignment surgery.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a person may successfully petition for a change of name and sex appearing in the live birth certificate to reflect the result of a sex reassignment surgery.

RULING:

No. It is the statutes that defines who may file petitions for change of first name and for correction or change of entries in the civil registry, where they may be filed, what grounds may be invoked, what proof must be presented and what procedures shall be observed. Presently, there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex alteration.

The birth certificate of petitioner contained no error. All entries, including those corresponding to his first name and sex, were all correct. No correction is necessary. A law has to be enacted by the legislative body laying down the guidelines governing the change of entries in birth certificate due to sex reassignment in order to enter the same in civil registry.

CASE DIGEST | SUPREME COURT | PHILIPPINES | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Categories
Case Digest

CASE DIGEST: KILUSANG MAYO UNO vs. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NEDA, G.R. No. 167798, APRIL 19, 2006

CASE DIGEST: KILUSANG MAYO UNO vs. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NEDA, G.R. No. 167798, APRIL 19, 2006

FACTS:

President Arroyo issued EO 420 directing a unified ID system among the various government agencies and GOCCs for the purpose of having a uniform ID for all government agencies. Kilusang Mayo Uno and others assailed this EO for being a “usurpation of legislative powers by the president” and it infringes the citizens’ right to privacy.

ISSUE:

Whether or not

EO 420 on Unified  ID System among government agencies infringes on the citizens right to privacy.

(Executive Order 420 of April 13, 2005 was issued for the adoption of a unified multi-purpose identification (ID) system for the government)

RULING:

No. All these years, the GSIS, SSS, LTO, Philhealth and other government entities have been issuing ID cards in the performance of their governmental functions. There have been no complaints from citizens that the ID cards of these government entities violate their right to privacy, and in the collection and recording of personal identification data.

Moreover, EO 420 applies only to government entities that already maintain ID systems and issue ID cards pursuant to their regular functions under existing laws. EO 420 does not grant such government entities any power that they do not already possess under existing laws.

CASE DIGEST | SUPREME COURT | PHILIPPINES | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Categories
Case Digest

Case Digest: KNIGHTS OF RIZAL vs. DMCI HOMES, INC

Case Digest:

KNIGHTS OF RIZAL vs. DMCI HOMES, INC., et.al.

G.R. No. 213948 EN BANC, April 18, 2017

FACTS:

A Resolution was issued to temporarily suspend the building permit of DMCI-PDI, citing that the Torre de Manila Condo will rise up high above the back of the national monument, to clearly dwarf the statue of our hero, Jose Rizal, and would certainly ruin the line of sight of the Rizal Shrine from the frontal Roxas Boulevard vantage point.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court can issue a writ of mandamus to stop the construction of DMCI-PDI’s Torre de Manila project.

(A writ of mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion.)

RULING:

No. There is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila. The Court has allowed or upheld actions that were not expressly prohibited by statutes when it determined that these acts were not contrary to morals, customs, and public order, or that upholding the same would lead to a more equitable solution to the controversy. 

There is no allegation or proof that the Torre de Manila project is “contrary to morals, customs, and public order” or that it brings harm, danger, or hazard to the community. There is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila due to its effect on the background “view, vista, sightline, or setting” of the Rizal Monument.

Case Digest | Supreme Court | Philippines | Constitutional Law