Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy (ANAD) vs.

COMELEC
September 10, 2013
J. Perez
Carlos Pagdanganan
Topic: The Legislative Department The House of Representatives The Partylist Representatives
FACTS:
COMELEC En Banc issued a resolution on Nov 7, 2012, cancelling ANADs Certificate of
Registration and/or Accreditation on three grounds:
(a) ANAD did not belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors enumerated in RA 7941
(b) ANAD failed to comply with procedural requirements in Sec. 4, Rule 3 of Reso 9366. They only
submitted 3 nominees; 5 nominees were required. No proof showing that nominees Arthur
Tariman and Julius Labandria are actually nominated by ANAD itself, because their names
werent found in the Cert. of Nomination submitted by ANAD.
(c) ANAD failed to submit its Statement of Contributions and Expenses for the 2007 Elections as
required by RA 7166.
ANAD went to the SC and challenged said resolution. In the case of Atong Paglaum vs COMELEC,
the SC remanded the case to the COMELEC for re-evaluation in accordance with the parameters
set in that case.
COMELEC affirmed the cancellation and disqualified ANAD from participating in the 2013 Elections.
Yes, ANAD may be considered as a sectoral party lacking in well-defined constituencies, but it is
still disqualified for grounds B and C above.
ISSUE:
WON the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling ANADs certificate. NO.
Dispositive WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court Resolves to DISMISS the Petition, finding no
grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission on Elections.
RATIO:
ANADs claim:
COMELEC should have called for another summary hearing after the SC remanded it to the COMELEC
in the Atong Paglaum case.
COURT:
ANAD was already given an opportunity to prove its qualifications in a summary hearing in Aug 23,
2012. In re-evaluating ANADs qualifications pursuant to the Atong Paglaum case, the COMELEC
need not have called another hearing. COMELEC could easily resort to the docs previously
submitted by ANAD.
Factual findings of the COMELEC should be respected given its role as the specialized agency
tasked to supervise elections in the country. Thus, ANAD cant question COMELECs finding that
only 3 nominees were in the Certificate, and that ANAD failed to submit the Statement of
Contribution and Expenses for the 2007 Elections.
The exhibits submitted by ANAD consisted mainly of a list of total contributions from other
persons, a list of official receipts and amounts without corresponding receipts, and a list of
expenditures based on order slips and donations without distinction as to whether the amounts
listed were advanced subject to reimbursement or donated. Such exhibits did not meet the
prescribed form specified by the law and were thus considered as not filed.
In any case, the official tally of the COMELEC shows that ANAD garnered 200,972 votes. Thus, even
if it was declared qualified and the votes cast for it are canvassed, statistics show that it will still
fail to qualify for a seat in the House of Representatives.