[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

Abang Lingkod Party-List v. Comelec

The Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) cancellation of ABANG LINGKOD Party-List's registration. The COMELEC cancelled ABANG LINGKOD's registration citing its failure to establish a track record in representing peasant farmers and fisherfolk, and that its nominees were not themselves marginalized. The Supreme Court found that while COMELEC afforded ABANG LINGKOD due process, cancellation was not valid as sectoral parties are no longer required to prove a track record - it is enough that their advocacy is for their sector's interests and concerns, and their ideals aim to uplift the sector. The Court reinstated ABANG LING

Uploaded by

Man2x Salomon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

Abang Lingkod Party-List v. Comelec

The Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) cancellation of ABANG LINGKOD Party-List's registration. The COMELEC cancelled ABANG LINGKOD's registration citing its failure to establish a track record in representing peasant farmers and fisherfolk, and that its nominees were not themselves marginalized. The Supreme Court found that while COMELEC afforded ABANG LINGKOD due process, cancellation was not valid as sectoral parties are no longer required to prove a track record - it is enough that their advocacy is for their sector's interests and concerns, and their ideals aim to uplift the sector. The Court reinstated ABANG LING

Uploaded by

Man2x Salomon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST (ABANG LINGKOD) V.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
[G.R. No. 206952; October 22, 2013]
Facts:
• ABANG LINGKOD is a sectoral organization that represents the interests of peasant farmers and fisher
folks, and was registered under the party-list system on December 22, 2009.
o It participated in the May 2010 elections, but failed to obtain the number of votes needed for a seat in the
House of Representatives.
• After due proceedings, the COMELEC En Banc cancelled ABANG LINGKOD’s registration as a party-list
group.
• The COMELEC pointed out that ABANG LINGKOD: failed to establish its track record in uplifting the
cause of marginalized and underrepresented and failed to show that its nominees are themselves marginalized
and underrepresented or that they have been involved in activities aimed at improving the plight of the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors it claims to represent.
Issues:
1.) Whether or not COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it affirmed the cancellation of
ABANG LINGKOD’s registration sans a summary evidentiary hearing for that purpose
2.) Whether or not there was no valid justification for the COMELEC to cancel its registration considering that
it complied with the six-point parameters in screening party-list groups laid down in Atong Paglaum
Held:
1) NO. Court finds that the COMELEC had afforded ABANG LINGKOD sufficient opportunity to present
evidence establishing its qualification as a party-list group. ABANG LINGKOD was able to file its
Manifestation of Intent and other pertinent documents to prove its continuing compliance with the
requirements under R.A. No. 7941, which the COMELEC set for summary hearing on three separate dates
belies its claim that it was denied due process. Atong Paglaum did not require the COMELEC to conduct a
hearing de novo in reassessing the qualifications of said party-list groups. The Court only gave the COMELEC
the option to conduct further summary evidentiary hearing should it deem appropriate to do so.
2) YES. The flaw in COMELEC’s disposition lies in the fact that it insists on requiring party-list groups to
present evidence showing that they have a track record in representing the marginalized and
underrepresented. As a requirement imposed by Ang Bagong Bayani for groups intending to participate in
the party-list elections, track record pertains to the actual activities undertaken by groups to uplift the cause
of the sector/s, which they represent. The track record requirement was only imposed where the Court held
that national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations seeking registration under the party-list system
must prove through their track record that they truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented.
Sectoral parties or organizations are no longer required to adduce evidence showing their track record. It is
enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. It is
sufficient that the ideals represented by the sectoral organizations are geared towards the cause of the
sector/s, which they represent.

You might also like