ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST ABANG LINGKOD, Petitioner, vs.

COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 206952, October 22, 2013

ABANG LINGKOD Party-list filed a petition for certiorari assailing the Resolution dated May 10, 2013 issued by the
Commissions on Elections cancelling their registration as a party-list.

FACTS:

ABANG LINGKOD is a sectoral organization registered under the party-list system on December 22, 2009.
COMELEC En Bane in a Resolution dated November 7 2012, cancelled ABANG LINGKOD's registration as a party-
list group. The COMELEC En Bane pointed out that ABANG LINGKOD failed to establish its track record in uplifting
the cause of the marginalized and underrepresented; that it merely offered photographs of some alleged activities
it conducted after the May 2010 elections. The COMELEC En Bane further said that it is not enough that the party-
list organization claim representation of the marginalized and underrepresented because representation is easy to
claim and to feign. It is but reasonable to require from groups and organizations consistent participation and
advocacy in the sector it seeks to represent, and not just seasonal and sporadic programs which are unrelated to
its sector. ABANG LINGKOD even submitted photographs that appear to have been edited to show in the banners
that ABANG LINGKOD participated in the activities.

ABANG LINGKOD claims that there was no valid justification for the COMELEC’s grave abuse in its discretion
when it affirmed the cancellation of their registration.

ISSUE(S):

1. Whether or not ABANG LINGKOD was denied due process when the COMELEC affirmed the cancellation
of its registration;
2. Whether the Commission on Elections gravely abused its discretion in cancelling ABANG LINGKOD’s
registration under the party-list system.

HELD:

The Court finds that the COMELEC had afforded ABANG LINGKOD sufficient opportunity to present evidence
establishing its qualification as a party-list group. The records even disclose that ABANG LINGKOD was able to file
with the COMELEC a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 10, 2013, negating its claim that it
was denied due process. As it has been held, deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a
party was given a chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration.

The Court finds that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling the registration of ABANG LINGKOD
under the party-list system. Essentially, ABANG LINGKOD's registration was cancelled on the ground that it failed
to adduce evidence showing its track record in representing the marginalized and underrepresented. R.A. No. 7941
did not require groups intending to register under the party-list system to submit proof of their track record as a
group. The track record requirement was only imposed in Ang Bagong Bayani where the Court held that national,
regional, and sectoral parties or organizations seeking registration under the party-list system must prove through
their, inter alia, track record that they truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented. Contrary to the
COMELEC's claim, sectoral parties or organizations, such as ABANG LINGKOD, are no longer required to adduce
evidence showing their track record, i.e. proof of activities that they have undertaken to further the cause of the
sector they represent. Indeed, it is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns
of their sector.

Petition GRANTED. Resolution dated May 10, 2013 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC., Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 207026, August 6, 2013

FACTS:

COCOFED manifested with the COMELEC its intent to participate in the party-list elections of May 13, 2013 and
submitted the names of only two nominees – Atty. Emerito S. Calderon (first nominee) and Atty. Domingo P. Espina.
On November 7, 2012 resolution, the COMELEC cancelled COCOFED’s registration and accreditation as a party-
list organization on several grounds. On May 10, 2013, the COMELEC issued its assailed resolution, maintaining
its earlier ruling cancelling COCOFED’s registration and accreditation for its failure to comply with the requirement
of Section 8 of RA No. 7941, i.e., to submit a list of not less than five nominees.

ISSUE:

Whether or not COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling COCOFED's registration.

HELD:

The Court negate a finding that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling COCOFED's registration
and dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Failure to submit, despite ample opportunity to do so before the elections,
the list of five nominees, where the law expressly requires the submission of a list containing at least five qualified
nominees before the election, warrants the cancellation of a party-list’s registration. The Court cannot leave to the
party the discretion to determine the number of nominees it would submit. The requirement of submission of a list
of five nominees is primarily a statutory requirement for the registration of party-list groups and the submission of
this list is part of a registered party’s continuing compliance with the law to maintain its registration. The Court
approved the COMELEC’s observation that if the party cannot even come up with a complete list of five names out
of a purported more than one million members, then it is highly doubtful that COCOFED will meet this expectation
to contribute to the formulation and enactment of legislation that is beneficial for the nation as a whole.
ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its President, Mr. Alan Igot, Petitioner vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013

54 Petitions for Certiorari and Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by 52 party-list groups and organizations
assailing the Resolutions issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) disqualifying them from participating
in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections, either by denial of their petitions for registration under the party-list system,
or cancellation of their registration and accreditation as party-list organizations.

FACTS:

In line with the then upcoming national elections in May 2013, approximately 280 groups and organizations
manifested their desire to participate in the party-list elections. However, 52 of these groups were subsequently
disqualified by COMELEC, including some that were duly registered and accredited as political parties. The reasons
for their exclusion were based on the contention that said groups failed to establish they were representatives of
marginalized and underrepresented sectors and that their nominees were indeed members of the sectors they were
seeking to represent.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
disqualifying petitioners from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections.

HELD:

No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in following prevailing decisions in disqualifying
petitioners from participating in the coming elections. However, since the Court adopts new parameters in the
qualification of the party-list system, the Court abandoned the rulings applied by the COMELEC in disqualifying
petitioners. Instead, the Court remand to the COMELEC all the present petitions to determine who are qualified to
register under the party-list system, and to participate in the coming elections, under the new parameters prescribed
in this Decision.

All the present 54 petitions are GRANTED. The 13 petitions, which have been granted Status Quo Ante Orders but
without mandatory injunction to include the names of petitioners in the printing of ballots, are remanded to the
Commission on Elections only for determination whether petitioners are qualified to register under the party-list
system under the parameters prescribed in this Decision but they shall not participate in the 13 May 2013 part-list
elections. The 41 petitions, which have been granted mandatory injunctions to include the names of petitioners in
the printing of ballots, are remanded to the Commission on Elections for determination whether petitioners are
qualified to register under the party-list system and to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections under the
parameters prescribed in this Decision. The Commission on Elections may conduct summary evidentiary hearings
for this purpose.
BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT), Petitioner, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (sitting as the National Board of Canvassers), Respondent.

G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009

Petitioner filed for certiorari and mandamus assailing the Resolution promulgated on 3 August 2007 by the
Commission on Elections to deny the petition of BANAT to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives
Provided by the Constitution before the COMELEC En Banc, for being moot.

FACTS:

Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) filed before the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) a petition to proclaim the full number of party list representatives provided by the Constitution.
However, the recommendation of the National Board of Canvassers to declare the petition moot and academic was
approved by the COMELEC en banc and declared further in a resolution that the winning party list will be resolved
using the Veterans ruling. BANAT then filed a petition before the SC assailing said resolution of the COMELEC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives provided in Section 5(2), Article VI of the
Constitution mandatory or is it merely a ceiling.

HELD:

However, the 1987 Constitution expressly allows for an increase in the number of members of the House of
Representatives provided a law is enacted for the purpose. But the phrase "unless otherwise provided by law", the
Constitution gives option to choose whether the increase in the number of members of the House of Representatives
is done by piecemeal legislation or by enactment of a law authorizing a general increase. If only ten parties
participated in the 2007 party-list election, then, despite the availability of 54... seats, the maximum possible number
of occupied party-list seats would only be 30 because of the three-seat cap. In such a case, the three-seat cap
prevents the mandatory allocation of all the 54 available seats.

In the second round of allocation of additional seats, there is no minimum vote requirement to obtain a party-list seat
because the Court has struck down the application of the 2% threshold in the allocation of additional seats.
Otherwise, the 20 percent party-list seats in the total membership of the House of Representatives as provided in
the 1987 Constitution will mathematically be impossible to fill up.

The Court PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. The Court SET ASIDE the Resolution of the COMELEC dated 3 August
2007 in NBC No. 07-041 (PL) as well as the Resolution dated 9 July 2007 in NBC No. 07-60. The Court declare
unconstitutional the two percent threshold in the distribution of additional party-list seats. The allocation of additional
seats under the Party-List System shall be in accordance with the procedure used in Table 3 of this Decision. Major
political parties are disallowed from participating in party-list elections.