Tag Archives: kabataan partylist



MANILA – Multi-sectoral organizations on Friday urged anew the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to disqualify party-list groups Kabataan and Gabriela from the 2022 elections because of their links with the communist rebels.

COMELEC asked to cancel Red-linked party-list group

Petition to delist ‘CPP front’ Kabataan party-list filed

 June 26, 2021

MANILA – A petition to cancel the registration of the Kabataan Party-list for allegedly being a legal front-organization of communist terrorist groups that lures the youth into the communist armed conflict was filed before the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on Friday.

The move of the Legal… Read More


Administrative charges were filed Monday, December 7, before the Office of the Ombudsman against ranking executives of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict  (NTF-ECLAC) , a special body created by President Rodrigo Duterte strategizing efforts to end the communist insurgency.

Rep. Sarah Elago (Kabataan Party-list) filed the complaint against Lt. Gen. Antonio Parlade, Presidential Communications Undersecretary Lorraine Badoy, intelligence chief Alex Monteagudo, Interior Secretary Eduardo Año, and National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon, claiming that the NTF-ELCAC execs spread false quotations and blatantly vilified her.

Also included in the complaint was Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana. 

“The NTF-ELCAC has been using people’s money to maliciously attack progressive individuals and groups, including the youth,” said Elago in a statement .

She said the attacks were done through personal accounts of government officials, backed by state institutions as they are often signed with the government titles of the officials or accompanied by a logo of the police or the military.

“By red-tagging us, the government through the NTF-ELCAC not only discredits our legislative work and diverts attention away from pressing issues. It also puts at risk our lives, and the lives of those they work with,” the Jabataan representative said.

The Kabataan is the second partylist group under the Makabayan Bloc in the House of Representatives, to have filed charges against executives of the NTF-ELCAC. Earlier, the human righta group Karapatan also filed charges against the anti-communist body for alleged “persistent, relentless and malicious Red-tagging and vilification of the group.

Karapatan files “crime against humanity” raps vs anti-red task force


Statement of Kabataan Partylist on HB 6330

Kabataan Partylist is withdrawing House Bill 6330, or An Act Empowering Heads of Offices and Departments to Strictly Implement the Constitutional Provisions on Religious Freedom in Government Offices, in response to the appeal and clamor of our members, constituents, supporters, various groups, institutions and the general public to reconsider the filing of such measure.


PALATINO & LUCIFER – The Durian Beat

Kabataan Partylist seeks to clarify that the bill has no intention to “ban God”, suppress any religion or belief and prevent government employees from practicing their faith. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that government offices do not favor one religion over the other, or discriminate one against the other.

Kabataan Partylist sincerely apologizes for any offense the bill caused. We are sad that we hurt the religious sentiments of many, when our desire was to uphold and promote religious sensitivity and harmony.

We hope the conversations will continue about the need to respect different beliefs in society. We are encouraged by the fact that despite the misunderstandings, the bill initiated relevant discussions on freedom of religion as one of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Kabataan Partylist would rather bring to the public’s attention other pending and priority bills and advocacies that it had been promoting for the past three years and which need utmost attention at present. Among these are the need for education reforms, protection of workers’ rights, environment protection, good governance and cosumer rights empowerment. In particular, the passage of measures such as the Tuition Regulation Bill, review of the K+12 program, Students’ Rights Act, Anti-No Permit, No Exam Act, BPO Workers’ Welfare Act and Public Wi-Fi Bill. ###


        Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino wants to ban religious symbols and the holding of religious ceremonies in government offices, citing the provisions on freedom of religion in the Constitution.
He has proposed a bill titled “Religious Freedom in Government Offices Act.”
The bill seeks to empower heads of offices and departments to strictly follow the constitutional provision on the freedom of religion in the exercise of their official functions, and in the use of government facilities and property.
The constitutional provision asserts the republican and secular nature of the state, such that although laws could be religious in its deepest roots, it must have an articulable and discernible secular purpose and justification to pass scrutiny of the religion clauses.
Under Section 4 of the bill, religious ceremonies shall not be undertaken within the premises and perimeter of their offices, departments and bureaus, including publicly owned spaces and corridors within such offices, departments and bureaus.
Religious symbols shall not be displayed within the premises and perimeter of their offices, departments and bureaus, including publicly owned spaces and corridors within such offices, departments and bureaus.
Palatino cited Section 5 of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights that “the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.  No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”
Palatino says that despite the clear provisions and jurisprudence on the non-establishment and non-sponsorship of the state of any religion, it has been observed that religious ceremonies and symbols are prominently done or placed, respectively, in several government offices.
The state cannot be seen to favor one religion over the other, in allowing the prominent conduct and display of religious ceremonies and symbols, respectively, in public offices and property, according to Palatino.