G.R. No. L-4352 - Borovsky vs. Commissioner of Immigration

ABANG LINGKOD, a sectoral organization representing peasant farmers and fisherfolk, registered under RA 7941 on December 22, 2009; participated in May 2010 elections but failed to secure a seat.
On May 31, 2012, it filed its Manifestation of Intent to join the May 2013 party-list elections. COMELEC Resolution No. 9513 (Aug 2, 2012) required all previously registered party-list groups to undergo summary evidentiary hearings, set on August 17, 31 and September 3, 2012.

ABANG LINGKOD submitted documents on August 16, 2012 but did not present witnesses at the scheduled hearings.
By En Banc Resolution dated November 7, 2012, COMELEC cancelled its registration for failing to prove a track record in representing the marginalized and underrepresented and for allegedly submitting edited photographs.

In Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC (Apr 2, 2013), the Supreme Court granted status quo ante relief and remanded party-list cases to COMELEC to apply new screening parameters.
On May 10, 2013, COMELEC En Banc issued the assailed Resolution reaffirming the cancellation—without further hearings—citing proximity of elections and deeming the doctored photos unlawful statements under RA 7941.

Was ABANG LINGKOD denied due process when COMELEC affirmed cancellation without conducting a new summary evidentiary hearing?
Did COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in cancelling ABANG LINGKOD’s registration under the party-list system?