10 Righting Wrongs: Criminal Law Provisions in the Philippines related to National Security and their Impact on Human Rights Defenders instance, in the case Ang Ladlad v. Commission on Elections, the Court explicitly recognized the principle of non-discrimination in Article 26 of the ICCPR, as it relates to the right to electoral participation. The Court also referred to the Human Rights Committee’s decision in the case of Toonen v. Australia, wherein the Committee expressed the view that the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of “sex” in Article 26 should be construed to include a prohibition of discrimination on grounds of “sexual orientation”.47 By contrast, in Lumanog and Santos v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the Human Rights Committee’s finding that the eight-year delay in the disposition of the criminal defendants’ appeal violated the right “to be tried without undue delay” set out in Article 14(3)(c) of the ICCPR.48 The Human Rights Committee, in its Concluding Observations on the fourth periodic report on the implementation of the ICCPR by the Philippines in 2012, expressed concern “at the lack of clarity on the status of the [ICCPR] in domestic law.” It noted that although courts have on several occasions referred to provisions of the ICCPR in their decisions, it is often argued by State authorities before the Supreme Court that the ICCPR cannot be considered part of the law of the land without the need of a law enacted by legislature.49 47 Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190582, 8 April 2010. 48 Lumanog and Santos v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 182555, 7 September 2010. 49 Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on the fourth periodic report of the Philippines, UN Doc. CCPR/C/PHL/CO/4 (2012), para 5.