ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY (ANAD) vs COMELEC

G.R. No. 206987. September 10, 2013

Facts:

Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari with Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and Writ of Mandamus, seeking to compel the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to
canvass the votes cast for petitioner Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy (ANAD) in the recently held
2013 Party-List Elections.

On November 7, 2012, the COMELEC En Banc promulgated a Resolution cancelling petitioner’s

Certification of Registration and/or Accreditation on three grounds, to wit:

I. Petitioner ANAD does not belong to, or come within the ambit of, the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors enumerated in Section 5 of R.A. Petitioner 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 espoused in the cases of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v.
Commission on Elections and Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections.

II. There is no proof showing that nominees Arthur J. Tariman and Julius D. Labandria are actually
nominated by ANAD itself. The Certificate of Nomination, subscribed and sworn to by Mr.
Domingo M. Balang, shows that ANAD submitted only the names of Pastor Montero Alcover, Jr.,
Baltaire Q. Balangauan and Atty. Pedro Leslie B. Salva. It necessarily follows, that having only
three (3) nominees, ANAD failed to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in
Section 4, Rule 3 of Resolution No. 9366.

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 ("R.A. No. 7166").

Issue:

Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in promulgating the assailed Resolution
without the benefit evidentiary hearing mandated by the due process clause.

Ruling:

For a petition for certiorari to prosper, there must be a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the
exercise of discretion.

It is to be noted, that ANAD was already afforded a summary hearing on August 23, 2013, during which
Mr. Domingo M. Balang, ANAD’s president, authenticated documents and answered question from the
members of the COMELEC pertinent to ANAD’s qualifications.
ANAD was already given the opportunity to prove its qualifications during the summary hearing on
August 23, 2012, during which ANAD submitted documents and other pieces of evidence to establish
said qualifications.

The COMELEC, being a specialized agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country,
its factual finding, conclusions, ruling and decisions rendered on matters falling within its competence
shall not be interfered with by this Court in the absence of grave abuse of discretion or any jurisdictional
infirmity or error of law.

As found by the COMELEC:

1. ANAD violated Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 7941 (An Act Providing for the Election of Party-List
Representatives through the Party-List System, and Appropriating Funds Therefor). Thus, the
abovementioned provision is essential to safeguard against arbitrariness. It rods a party-list
organization of the prerogative to substitute and replace its nominees, or even to switch the
order of the nominees, after submission of the list to the COMELEC.

2. ANAD failed to submit a proper Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2007
Elections which violated COMELEC Resolution no. 9476. Thus, the factual finding was neither
contested nor rebutted by ANAD.

As empowered by law, the COMELEC may motu proprio cancel, after due notice and hearing, the
registration of any party-list organization if it violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or reguualtions
relating to elections. Thus, the Court dismiss the petition.