Akbayan

Akbayan-Youth (AY), a political party representing the youth, petitioned COMELEC to conduct a special two-day
registration of new voters ages 18 to 21 before the May 14, 2001 General Elections. According to AY, around four
million youth failed to register on or before the December 27, 2000 deadline set by the respondent COMELEC
under Republic Act No. 8189, the Voters Registration Act of 1996.

COMELEC held a consultation meeting and, based on the consensus that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 explicitly
provides that no registration shall be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before
a regular election and that COMELEC has no more time left to accomplish all pre-election activities, issued a
resolution denying AYs petition.

AY, along with other organization, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus at the Supreme Court to set aside
and nullify respondent COMELECs Resolution and/or to declare Section 8 of R. A. 8189 unconstitutional insofar
as said provision effectively causes the disenfranchisement of petitioners and others similarly situated. They
also prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent COMELEC to conduct a special
registration of new voters and to admit for registration petitioners and other similarly situated young Filipinos.

ISSUES:

1. WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing COMELEC Resolution denying petitioners
request for a special registration of new voters

b) WON the Court can compel the COMELEC, through the extraordinary writ of mandamus, to conduct a
special registration of new voters during the period between the COMELECs imposed December 27, 2000
deadline and the May 14, 2001 general elections.

HELD: Petitions denied.The right of suffrage is not at all absolute, and, as in the enjoyment of all other rights, is
subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements embodied in our Constitution, statute books and
other repositories of law such as RA 8189, the Voters Registration Act of 1996.

The act of registration is an indispensable precondition to the right of suffrage as a means to conduct honest,
orderly and peaceful elections. The timely and orderly conduct of pre-election activities is an important
operational consideration in our exercise of right to suffrage.

In this regard, Section 8 of the R.A. 8189, which provides a system of continuing registration, states thatNo
registration shall, however, be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a
regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election.

Likewise, Section 35 of R.A. 8189, which among others, speaks of a prohibitive period within which to file a
sworn petition for the exclusion of voters from the permanent voters list, SEC. 35. Petition for Exclusion of

Voters from the List Any registered voter, representative of a political party x x x may file x x x except one
hundred (100) days prior to a regular election xxx.

The periods provided for by the legislature in RA 8189 ensures sufficient time for COMELEC to prepare the
necessary materials and mechanisms for the elections despite potential unforeseeable events. Given the
number of activities that COMELEC needs to conduct in order to ensure the integrity of the registration process
as well as the elections itself and their own evaluation that there would not be sufficient time for these activities
should they grant the petition for special registration, their resolution to deny AYs petition which was in
accordance with Section 8 of RA 8189 is valid. Moreover, the determination of whether or not the conduct of a
special registration of voters is feasible, possible or practical within the remaining period before the actual date of
election, involves the exercise of the COMELECs discretion and the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus
since it lies only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one.

Lastly, the petitioners were not totally denied the opportunity to avail of continuing registration under R.A. 8189
and thus their right to suffrage since they admit that they failed to register, for whatever reason, within the period
of registration when they had the opportunity to do so. The law aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on
their rights.
VERA vs.
Facts:
1.
On May 25, 1946, a pendum resolution was submitted ordering the following candidates: Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E.
Romero to their seats as members of chamber. Furthermore, they should not swear into office for their success on the elections was
proposed to be invalid. The resolution was passed by their constituents who questioned the validity of the votes they garnered.
2.It was reported that during the National Elections, provinces Nueva Ecija ,Pampanga, Tarlac and Bulacan was under terrorism.
Moreover, the election returns of the said provinces were null or void for they believe that the greatmajority of voters were coerced or
intimidated suffered from the paralysis of judgment, the people were deprived of their right to suffrage.
3.The ballot boxes from Nueva Ecija were stolen by armed bands in the barriosof municipalities of Bongabon, Gapan,
Sta. Rosa and Guimba.
4.Many residents of the four provinces have voluntarily banished themselvesfrom their home towns to avoid being
victimized or losing their lives. Moreover, bodies were found with notes attached to their necks Bumoto kami kay Roxas after the
election.
Issues:
1.Whether or not the Supreme Court has the powers to intervene with the petition
2.Whether or not the petitioners Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Vera should be deferred to seat as
members of the chamber.
HELD:
1.
NO. The Supreme court refused to intervene with the petition. According to the constitution, there should be separation of
powers with the three branches namely, the EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE and JUDICIARY. Each is independent from each other and
each has specific roles to perform. The role of judiciary is to foresee that the laws are properly delivered to the society and that these
laws are constitutional. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the case was not a contest and affirmed the inherent right of the
legislature to determine who shall be admitted.

2. YES. The Supreme Court dismissed the case as mentioned above, the legislative has the power to determine who shall be admitted
to its membership. Also, no man or group of men be permitted to profit from the results of an election held under coercion, in violation of
law and contrary to the principle of freedom of choice.