
The proclamation of the Duterte Youth Party-list was recently suspended due to a pending disqualification filed against it back in 2019. While the embattled partylist garnered over 2.3 million votes in the 2025 midterm elections, its fate still hangs in the balance due to glaring legal deficiencies in its registration. In response, Duterte Youth Partylist Chairman Ronald Cardema accused the Commission on Elections (Comelec) of bias, and threatened to “expose” the corruption inside the Commission.
Grounds for disqualification
At the center of the disqualification case filed by youth petitioners in 2019 is an indisputable fact — one that reflects what seems to be special treatment for the party-list bearing the former President’s name: Duterte Youth’s registration was granted without the mandatory publication and public hearing required under the 1987 Constitution and the Party-List System Act (Republic Act No. 7941), and has in many other instances committed misrepresentations, violating election laws and Comelec rules.
Duterte Youth’s petition to register as a “sectoral organization” representing “youth and young professional” sectors for the May 2019 national elections was initially dismissed by Comelec’s Second Division because of the following reasons:
- it is not verified;
- it failed to adduce proof that all of its officers and members are made aware of the petition and have given their consent thereto;
- the acronym the Petitioner exceeds 20 characters;
- petitioner’s intention or desire to participate in the partylist election is not stated;
- names and addresses of its chapters offices are not stated;
- it failed to state that it is not an adjunct or a project organized or an entity funded;
- or assisted by the government;
- a list of all its officers and members particularly showing that the majority of its membership and officers belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector/ s it seeks to represent is not attached; and,
- it failed to attach sworn proof/ s of existence in the areas where the organization is claiming representation.
However, despite these serious procedural lapses, the Comelec en banc reversed the Second Division’s dismissal and granted Duterte Youth’s Petition for Registration outright—without remanding the case for the constitutionally required publication and public hearing, effectively bypassing the only opportunity the public would have had to oppose it.
According to Article IX-C, Section 2(5) of the Constitution, political organizations must be registered “after sufficient publication.” This constitutional requirement is echoed in Republic Act 7941 and Comelec Resolution No. 9366, which explicitly mandate public notice and a hearing prior to registration. This makes its registration void ab initio, or void from the beginning.
Consistent willful neglect of election laws
Even if one were to argue that the registration issues could somehow be overlooked, Duterte Youth still faces cancellation on multiple other grounds based on the 2019 Petition:
- False statements about the eligibility of its nominees, including the substitution of overaged and unqualified individuals like Ronald Cardema, who was 34 years old during the 2019 elections, well beyond the 30-year limit for youth sector nominees.
- Lack of bona fide representation of the youth sector, as evidenced by the party’s shifting narrative between representing “youth” and “young professionals”—a classification that conveniently expands to include older, politically connected individuals.
- Use of government resources and position by Cardema, who served as chairman of the National Youth Commission while orchestrating his nomination, a potential election offense under the Omnibus Election Code.
- Advocates violence or unlawful means to achieve its goal when it published a public post calling to “exterminate” Kabataan Partylist (“uubusin namin kayo sa lansangan”) and proceeded to describe Kabataan Partylist as terrorists.
Aside from these, Duterte Youth now also faces another disqualification petition filed on May 8, 2025, for its red-tagging spree against progressive youth and student groups. Comelec Resolution No. 11116 considers the act of categorizing, classifying, labeling, branding, associating, naming, and accusing individuals, groups and/or organizations as “vocal dissenters” and activists or subversive group sympathizers or terrorists as an election offense. The resolution recognized the Supreme Court decision of Deduro v. Vinoya (2023), which held that red-tagging endangers lives and creates a chilling effect on legitimate dissent and activism.
A call for accountability
The Comelec bears the constitutional duty to safeguard the integrity of our electoral process. Anything less would be a betrayal of the marginalized sectors the party-list system was designed to empower. An organization that repeatedly disregards election laws and regulations has no rightful place in Congress, much less to represent the youth. Comelec must no longer tolerate impunity and the continued disrespect for its rules and mandate. (RVO)
The column gives additional context or subtext to the burning issues of the day. The title “Side(Bar)” draws on multiple meanings: in legal parlance, a sidebar is a private discussion between lawyers and judges during a trial; the bar commonly refers to the legal profession as a whole. In journalism, a sidebar is a complementary piece that accompanies a main article, often to give more context or highlight a case study. This column aims to do just that: to stand alongside the headlines to discuss the legal implications of social issues.
0 Comments