This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-06-26 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In the 2010 case Atienza v. Commission on Elections,[29] it was expressly settled that the COMELEC possessed the authority to resolve intra-party disputes as a necessary tributary of its constitutionally mandated power to enforce election laws and register political parties. The Court therein cited Kalaw v. Commission on Elections and Palmares v. Commission on Elections, which uniformly upheld the COMELEC's jurisdiction over intra-party disputes: The COMELEC's jurisdiction over intra-party leadership disputes has already been settled by the Court. The Court ruled in Kalaw v. Commission on Elections that the COMELEC's powers and functions under Section 2, Article 1X-C of the Constitution, "include the ascertainment of the identity of the political party and its legitimate officers responsible for its acts." The Court also declared in another case that the COMELEC's power to register political parties necessarily involved the determination of the persons who must act on its behalf Thus, the COMELEC may resolve an intra-party leadership dispute, in a proper case brought before it, as an incident of its power to register political parties.[30] | |||||