Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 13 times or more.

	GR No. 202242 2013-04-16	FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL MENDOZA, J.
In 1994, the seven-member composition of the JBC was substantially altered. An eighth member was added to the JBC as the two (2) representatives from Congress began sitting simultaneously in the JBC, with each having one-half (1/2) of a vote.[17]
	GR No. 203766 2013-04-02	ATONG PAGLAUM v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
- The nominees do not belong to the sector that the party claims to represent. Resolution dated 23 October 2012[29] 11 204174 12-232 (PLM) Aangat Tayo Party-List Party (AT) Cancelled registration and accreditation
	GR No. 190529 2011-03-22	PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD v. COMELEC BRION, J.
Although we have recognized the validity of the automation of the May 10, 2010 elections in Roque, Jr. v. Comelec,[23] we stress that automation is not the end-all and be-all of an electoral process. An equally important aspect of a democratic electoral exercise is the right of free choice of the electorates on who shall govern them; the party-list system, in the words of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Comelec,[24] affords them this choice, as it gives the marginalized and underrepresented sectors the opportunity to participate in governance. Wittingly or unwittingly, the Comelec took this freedom of choice away and effectively disenfranchised the members of the sector that PGBI sought to represent when it did not include PGBI in the list of qualified parties vying for a seat under the party-list system of representation. This is a consideration no less weighty than the automation of the election and cannot be simply disregarded on mere generalized allegations of automation difficulties.
	GR No. 191998 2010-12-07	WALDEN F. BELLO v. COMELEC BRION, J.
The certiorari petitioners argued that not only must the party-list organization factually and truly represent the marginalized and the underrepresented; the nominee must as well be a Filipino citizen belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, citing in this regard the case of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC[14] . On this basis, the certiorari petitioners concluded that Arroyo cannot be considered a member of the marginalized and underrepresented sector, particularly, the sector which the AGPP represents - tricycle drivers and security guards - because he is not only a member of the First Family, but is also (a) an incumbent member of the House of Representatives; (b) the Chairman of the House's Energy Committee; and, (c) a member of key committees in the House, namely: Natural Resources, Aquaculture, Fisheries Resources, Ethics and Privileges, Justice, National Defense and Security, Public Works and Highways, Transportation and Ways and Means.[15]
	GR No. 190582 2010-04-08	ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIR v. COMELEC DEL CASTILLO, J.
FOURTH. It has been suggested that the LGBT community cannot participate in the party-list system because it is not a "marginalized and underrepresented sector" enumerated either in the Constitution[80] or Republic Act No. (RA) 7941.[81] However, this position is belied by our ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC,[82] where we clearly held that the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors in RA 7941 is not exclusive.
	GR No. 179271 2009-04-21	ARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
Petitioners in G.R. No. 179295 Bayan Muna, Abono, and Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony Towards Educational Reforms (A Teacher) in a petition for certiorari with mandamus and prohibition,[3] assails NBC Resolution No. 07-60[4] promulgated on 9 July 2007. NBC No. 07-60 made a partial proclamation of parties, organizations and coalitions that obtained at least two percent of the total votes cast under the Party-List System. The COMELEC announced that, upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results, it would determine the total number of seats of each winning party, organization, or coalition in accordance with Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC[5] (Veterans).
	GR No. 156208 2008-09-17	NPC DRIVERS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We leave the computation of the actual amounts due the petitioners and the enforcement of payment thereof by execution to the proper forum in appropriate proceedings, for this Court is not a trier of facts. It is not equipped to receive evidence and determine the truth of the factual allegations of the parties on this matter.[42] But even prior to the determination of the exact amounts to be paid to petitioners by respondent NPC pursuant to our Decision dated 26 September 2006, we may already allow herein the recording of the charging lien of Atty. Aldon and Atty. Orocio to establish their right to 10% of such awards.[43]
	GR No. 162203 2004-04-14	AKLAT-ASOSASYON PARA SA KAUNLARAN NG LIPUNAN AT ADHIKAIN PARA SA TAO v. COMELEC TINGA, J,
On November 20, 2003, Aklat filed a Petition for declaration of re-qualification as a party-list organization for purposes of the May 2004 elections. It alleged in its petition that it participated in the 2001 elections but was disqualified by the Comelec as it was found not to have complied with the guidelines set by the Court in the case of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Comelec (Bagong Bayani case)[6] for party-list organizations to qualify and participate as such in the party-list elections. Accordingly, Aklat "re-organized itself in order that it will comply with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by the Supreme Court"[7] in the said case.