Title
Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 206987
Decision Date
Sep 10, 2013
ANAD challenged COMELEC's cancellation of its registration for failing to represent marginalized sectors, submit five nominees, and comply with financial reporting. SC upheld COMELEC's decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 206987)

Facts:

  • Background
    • Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy (ANAD), a party-list organization, sought to participate in the 2013 Party-List Elections.
    • The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc, on 7 November 2012, promulgated a Resolution cancelling ANAD’s Certificate of Registration and/or Accreditation on the following grounds:
      • ANAD does not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors as required by Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 and relevant cases (Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC; Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC).
      • Nominees Arthur J. Tariman and Julius D. Labandria were not nominated by ANAD; only three nominees were validly submitted (Pastor Montero Alcover, Jr., Baltaire Q. Balangauan, Atty. Pedro Leslie B. Salva), failing compliance with the requirement to submit at least five nominees under Section 4, Rule 3 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366.
      • ANAD failed to submit its Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2007 National and Local Elections, violating Section 14 of R.A. No. 7166.
  • Proceeding before the Supreme Court
    • ANAD challenged the cancellation before the Supreme Court.
    • In Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC, the Court remanded the case to COMELEC for re-evaluation of ANAD’s qualifications based on proper parameters.
    • On 11 May 2013, the COMELEC reaffirmed the cancellation of ANAD’s Certificate and disqualified it from participating in the 2013 elections, citing violations of election laws:
      • Failure to submit five nominees.
      • Failure to submit the required Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2007 elections.
  • ANAD filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging:
    • COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by issuing the assailed resolution without affording ANAD a summary evidentiary hearing as mandated by due process.
    • COMELEC erred in finding that ANAD submitted only three nominees and failed to submit the Statement of Contributions and Expenditures.

Issues:

  • Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in promulgating the resolution cancelling ANAD’s registration without holding a summary evidentiary hearing, thereby violating ANAD’s right to due process.
  • Whether or not the COMELEC erred in finding that ANAD submitted only three nominees instead of the mandated five.
  • Whether or not the COMELEC erred in finding that ANAD failed to comply with submission of the Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2007 elections.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.