G.R. No. 206987 - Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 206987)

Petitioner

ANAD—a party-list organization that sought to participate in the 2013 party-list elections and whose Certificate of Registration/Accreditation was cancelled by COMELEC for noncompliance with statutory and regulatory requirements.

Respondent

COMELEC En Banc—the constitutionally created, independent electoral commission charged with supervising elections and enforcing election laws, which issued the resolutions cancelling ANAD’s registration and later affirmed that cancellation on re-evaluation.

Key Dates

COMELEC initial Resolution cancelling ANAD’s registration: 7 November 2012. Summary hearings and documentary submissions occurred in August 2012 (22–23 August 2012). COMELEC’s affirming resolution after remand: 11 May 2013. Final tally showing votes for ANAD: official tally reflected 200,972 votes; relevant proclamation of additional winning party-list groups: NBOC Resolution No. 0008-13 promulgated 28 May 2013. Court decision date: 10 September 2013 (therefore the 1987 Constitution governs the decision).

Applicable Law and Precedent

1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable as decision date is 2013).
Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System): Section 5 (enumerated marginalized sectors) and Section 8 (requirement to submit not less than five nominees).
Republic Act No. 7166, Section 14 (statement of contributions and expenditures requirement referenced).
COMELEC Resolution No. 9476 and its rules on form and contents of Statements of Contributions and Expenditures (including Annexes and required supporting documents).
Rules of Court: Section 2, Rule 64 (certiorari remedy) and Rule 65 (definition and standard for grave abuse of discretion).
Relevant jurisprudence cited by the Court: Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Comelec; Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Comelec; Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Comelec (remand parameters); Lokin, Jr. v. Comelec; Dela Cruz v. Comelec; Beluso v. Comelec; Mastura v. Comelec.

Factual and Procedural Background

COMELEC initially cancelled ANAD’s Certificate of Registration/Accreditation on three grounds: (1) ANAD did not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors enumerated under Section 5 of RA 7941 and related jurisprudence; (2) ANAD allegedly submitted only three nominees (raising noncompliance with the five-nominee requirement under RA 7941 and Resolution No. 9366 procedural rules), with certificates of nomination indicating different nominees than those later asserted; and (3) ANAD failed to submit a Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2007 national and local elections as required by law and COMELEC rules. ANAD sought relief before the Supreme Court. The Court remanded the case to COMELEC for re-evaluation consistent with Atong Paglaum. COMELEC re-affirmed its cancellation on 11 May 2013, holding that although ANAD could be classified as a sectoral party lacking well-defined constituencies, its disqualification endured due to procedural violations (insufficient nominees and absence of a proper Statement of Contributions and Expenditures).

Issues Presented

ANAD raised two principal issues before the Court: (1) whether COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by promulgating the assailed resolution without providing ANAD the benefit of a summary evidentiary hearing mandated by due process; and (2) whether COMELEC erred in finding that ANAD had submitted only three nominees and had failed to file the required Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2007 elections.

Standard for Certiorari and Grave Abuse of Discretion

The Court reiterated that certiorari under Section 2, Rule 64 addresses whether the administrative agency acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse under Rule 65 is defined as the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, or whimsical, capricious action amounting to evasion or refusal to perform a legal duty. To succeed, the petitioner must show patent and gross abuse—essentially caprice and arbitrariness.

Due Process Claim and Summary Hearing

The Court found that ANAD had been afforded a summary hearing (documented during hearings on 22 and 23 August 2012) at which ANAD’s president authenticated documents and answered questions about ANAD’s qualifications. After the Supreme Court’s remand in Atong Paglaum for re-evaluation under prescribed parameters, ANAD contended that a new summary evidentiary hearing was required. The Court rejected that contention as superfluous because COMELEC could and did re-appraise ANAD’s qualifications based on the evidence already presented in those prior summary hearings. The Court noted that it was permissible for COMELEC to rely on previously submitted documents when re-evaluating qualifications, presuming that the established facts continued through election day.

COMELEC’s Finding on Nominee Submission (Section 8 RA 7941)

COMELEC found that ANAD submitted only three nominees instead of the statutorily required minimum of five nominees as mandated by Section 8 of RA 7941. This finding was based on the Certificate of Nomination presented and marked during the August summary hearings. The Court emphasized the importance of Section 8 as a safeguard against arbitrariness: submission of the nominee list is treated as reflecting the party-list’s true will, and the provision prevents substitution or reordering of nominees after submission. The Court cited Lokin, Jr. v. Comelec to explain that the prohibition on post-submission changes protects voters’ right to know who the nominees are and ensures transparency.

COMELEC’s Finding on Statement of Contributions and Expenditures

COMELEC determined that ANAD failed to file a proper Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2007 elections in accordance with COMELEC Resolution No. 9476 and related rules. The required statement must include detailed schedules of contributions and expenditures, supported by certified true copies of official receipts, invoices, and similar documents; an incomplete statement or one not in the prescribed form is considered not filed and subject to penalties. COMELEC found ANAD’s exhibits deficient because they largely consisted of totals without corresponding receipts, unitemized receipts, order slips and donations without clarity on whether amounts were advances or donations, and other omissions. ANAD did not meaningfully contest or rebut these factual findings.

Deference to COMELEC’s Factual Findings and Administrative Competence

The Court reiterated the pr

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 206987)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Petition for Certiorari with Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Mandamus filed by petitioner Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy (ANAD) before the Supreme Court en banc.
Petition seeks to compel the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to canvass votes cast for ANAD in the 2013 Party-List Elections.
The Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by COMELEC.

Lower-Body Action: COMELEC Resolution of 7 November 2012

COMELEC En Banc promulgated a Resolution dated 7 November 2012 cancelling ANAD’s Certificate of Registration and/or Accreditation.
The cancellation was premised on three enumerated grounds set forth by COMELEC in that resolution.

Grounds for Cancellation as Stated by COMELEC

Ground I: COMELEC found that ANAD does not belong to or come within the ambit of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors enumerated in Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 and as construed in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC and Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC.
Ground II: COMELEC found no proof showing that nominees Arthur J. Tariman and Julius D. Labandria were actually nominated by ANAD itself; the Certificate of Nomination sworn by Mr. Domingo M. Balang listed only Pastor Montero Alcover, Jr., Baltaire Q. Balangauan and Atty. Pedro Leslie B. Salva, resulting in only three nominees and noncompliance with procedural requirements of Section 4, Rule 3 of Resolution No. 9366.
Ground III: ANAD failed to submit its Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2007 National and Local Elections as required by Section 14 of Republic Act No. 7166.

Remand and Re-evaluation: Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC

ANAD sought relief from the Supreme Court challenging the COMELEC’s resolution.
The Court, in Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC, remanded the case to COMELEC for re-evaluation in accordance with parameters prescribed in that decision.
On 11 May 2013, COMELEC issued an assailed Resolution affirming cancellation and disqualification of ANAD from participating in the 2013 Elections, finding that disqualification persisted for violations of election laws and regulations, specifically failure to submit at least five nominees and failure to submit the 2007 Statement of Contributions and Expenditures.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in promulgating the assailed Resolution without affording ANAD a summary evidentiary hearing mandated by due process.
Whether COMELEC erred in finding that ANAD submitted only three nominees.
Whether COMELEC erred in finding that ANAD failed to submit its Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2007 Elections.

Standard and Scope of Review — Certiorari and Grave Abuse of Discretion

Under Section 2, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, a petition for certiorari can only question whether COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
For certiorari to prosper, there must be a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion.
The Court clarified the meaning of "grave abuse of discretion" under Rule 65: an arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power amounting to evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law.
The abuse of discretion to be struck down must be patent and gross.

Due Process Claim and Summary Hearing History

ANAD claimed COMELEC promulgated the assailed Resolution without giving ANAD the benefit of a summary evidentiary hearing, alleging violation of due process.
The record shows ANAD was afforded a summary hearing on 23 August 2013, during which Mr. Domingo M. Balang, ANAD’s president, authenticated documents and answered questions from COMELEC members regarding ANAD’s qualifications.
The record also refers to summary hearings on 22 and 23 August 2012 during which a Certificate of Nomination was presented and marked by petitioner.
ANAD argued COMELEC should have called another summary hearing after remand pursuant to Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC; the Court characterized such demand as superfluous because ANAD had already been given opportunity to prove qualifications during the earlier summary hearing(s).

COMELEC’s Re-evaluation Methodology After Remand

COMELEC, upon re-evaluation in line with Atong Paglaum parameters, relied on documents and evidence previously submitted by ANAD during earlier summary hearings rather than convening a new summary hearing.
The Court accepted that COMELEC could pro