This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-09-29 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The COMELEC justified its Resolution on the merits of the expulsion, by relying on the rule that it can decide intra-party matters as an incident of its constitutionally granted powers and functions. It cited Lokin v. COMELEC, where We held that when the resolution of an intra-party controversy is necessary or incidental to the performance of the constitutionally-granted functions of the COMELEC, the latter can step in and exercise jurisdiction over the intra-party matter.[36] The Lokin case, however, involved nominees and not incumbent members of Congress. In the present case, the fact that petitioner Lico was a member of Congress at the time of his expulsion from Ating Koop removes the matter from the jurisdiction of the COMELEC. | |||||
|
2013-04-02 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Lokin, Jr. v. COMELEC,[197] the Court enumerated the list of evidence which the party-list group and its nominees may present to establish their qualifications, to wit: The party-list group and the nominees must submit documentary evidence in consonance with the Constitution, R.A. 7941 and other laws to duly prove that the nominees truly belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector/s, the sectoral party, organization, political party or coalition they seek to represent, which may include but not limited to the following: | |||||