ABANG LINGKOD v.

COMELEC
GR No. 206952; October 22, 2013

Doctrine: 1987 Consti Sec 5: Party-Lists: Meaning of National, Regional, & Sectoral
Organization

Facts: ABANG LINGKOD (AL for brevity in this digest) is a sectoral organization that
represents peasant farmers and fisherfolk. On August 12, 2012, COMELEC required
registered party-list groups to undergo summary evidentiary hearing to determine their
compliance with requirements in RA 7941 and the guidelines in Bagong Bayani v
COMELEC. In 2013, the Court in Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC prescribed additional
parameters for screening for party-lists. Prior to the hearing, COMELEC cancelled AL’s
registration as party for failing to establish its track record in uplifting the cause of the
marginalized and underrepresented and for misrepresentation. According to COMELEC,
proof of consistent participation and advocacy was required but AL only showed proof of
projects (via pictures of the projects) that are sporadic and seasonal; furthermore,
COMELEC reveals that there was misrepresentation as AL “photoshopped” pictures of two
of their projects to include the name of the same party-list in the banners. According to AL,
COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it cancelled AL’s registration. AL files petition
to reverse COMELEC’s cancellation of AL’s registration as a party-list.

Issues:
1. WON AL was denied due process when COMELEC cancelled its registration.
2. WON COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling AL’s registration under
the party-list system.

Held: The petition is meritorious. Court rules for the reversal of cancellation.
1. Yes. AL was denied due process. The essence of due process is simply an
opportunity to be heard and explain oneself. The Supreme Court granted the
petition of AL and 54 other petitions by other party-lists.
2. Yes. The flaw in COMELEC’s disposition lies is that it insists on requiring party-list
groups to present track record evidence in representing the marginalized. The
guidelines and requirements for party-list registration, set in Sec 5 of RA 7941, Ang
Bagong Bayani, and Atong Paglaum did not require track record proof, but rather
only documents in terms of their constitution, by-laws, platform, coalition
agreement, and other relevant information. Track records are not required with
national and regional organizations and there is no logic in treating sectoral
organizations differently. Also, while the Court does not condone misrepresentation
of proof vis-à-vis photoshopping, since track records is not required, then the
misrepresentation is no longer grounds for cancellation of registration.
Furthermore, only the nominees of the party-lists are required to show proof of
track record of advocacy towards the sector, if such nominees do not belong to the
marginalized or underrepresented community themselves. But in the instance that
nominees are unable to prove track record, this would still not be ground for
cancellation of registration.

Irvin Christian D. San Pedro 1-E