G.R. No.
147066 26 March 2001
AKBAYAN - Youth, SCAP, UCSC, MASP, KOMPIL II -
Youth, ALYANSA, KALIPI, PATRICIA Q. PICAR, MYLA
GAIL Z. TAMONDONG, EMMANUEL E. OMBAO,
JOHNNY ACOSTA, ARCHIE JOHN TALAUE, RYAN
DAPITAN, CHRISTOPHER OARDE, JOSE MARI
MODESTO, RICHARD M. VALENCIA, EDBEN
TABUCOL, petitioners
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTION, respondents.
G.R. No. 147179 26 March 2001
MICHELLE D. BETITO, petitioner,
vs.
CHAIRMAN ALFREDO BENIPAYO, COMMISSIONER
MEHOL SADAIN, RUFINO JAVIER, LUZVIMINDA
TANCANGCO, RALPH LANTION, FLORENTINO
TUASON and RESURRECCION BORRA, all of the
Commission on Election (COMELEC), respondents.
BUENA, J.:
At the helm of controversy in the instant consolidated
petitions (G.R. No. 147066 and G.R. 147179.) before us is the
exercise of a right so indubitably cherished and accorded
primacy, if not utmost reverence, no less than by the
fundamental law - the right of suffrage.
Invoking this right, herein petitioners - representing the
youth sector - seek to direct the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) to conduct a special registration before the May
14, 2001 General Elections, of new voters ages 18 to 21.
According to petitioners, 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
(Voter's Registration Act of 1996).
Acting on the clamor of the students and civic leaders,
Senator Raul Roco, Chairman if the Committee on Electoral
Reforms, Suffrage, and People's Participation, through a
Letter dated January 25, 2001, invited the COMELEC to a
public hearing for the purpose of discussing the extension of
the registration of voters to accommodate those who were not
able to register before the COMELEC deadline.1âwphi1.nêt
Commissioner Luzviminda G. Tancangco and Ralph C.
Lantion, together with Consultant Resurreccion Z. Borra
(now Commissioner) attended the public hearing called by
the Senate Committee headed by Senator Roco, held at the
Senate, New GSIS Headquarters Bldg., Pasay City.
On January 29, 2001, Commissioners Tancangco and Lantion
submitted Memorandum No. 2001-027 on the Report on the
Request for a Two-day Additional Registration of New
Voters Only, excerpts of which are hereto quoted:
"Please be advised that the undersigned
attended the public hearing called by the Senate
Committee on Electoral Reforms, Suffrage and
People's Participation presided by the Hon. Sen.
Raul Roco, its Committee Chairman to date at
the Senate, new GSIS Headquarters Building,
Pasay City. The main agenda item is the request
by youth organizations to hold additional two
1
 days of registration. Thus, participating
students and civic leaders along with Comelec
Representatives were in agreement that is
legally feasible to have a two-day additional
registration of voters to be conducted preferably
on February 17 and 18, 2001 nationwide. The
deadline for the continuing voters registration
under R.A. 8189 is December 27, 2000.
"To address the concern that this may open the
flood parts for 'hakot system,' certain restrictive
parameters were discussed. The following
guidelines to serve as safeguard against
fraudulent applicants:
1. The applicants for the registration shall be 25
years of age or less and will be registering for
the first time on May 14, 2001;
2. The applicants shall register in their places of
residences; and,
3. The applicants shall present valid identification
documents, like school records
"Preparatory to the registration days, the
following activities are likewise agreed:
1. Submission of the list of students and their
addresses immediately prior to the actual
registration of the applicants;
2. The Comelec filed officers will be given the
opportunity to verify the voters enumerator's
list or conduct ocular inspection;
3. Availability of funds for the purpose; and,
2
4. Meetings with student groups to ensure orderly
and honest political awareness and interest to
participate in the political process generated by
the recent political events in the country among
our youth. considering that they failed to
register on December 27, 2000 deadline, they
approved for special registration days.
"In viewing of the foregoing, the Commission
en banc has to discuss all aspects regarding this
request with directives to the Finance Services
Department (FSD) to submit certified available
funds for the purpose, and for the Deputy
Executive Director for Operations (DEDO) for
estimated costs of additional two days of
registration.
The presence of REDs on January 30 can be used partly for
consultation on the practical side and logistical requirements
of such additional registration days. The meeting will be set
at 1:30 p.m. at the Office of ED.
Immediately, Commissioner Borra called a consultation
meeting among regional heads and representatives, and a
number of senior staff headed by Executive Director
Mamasapunod Aguam. It was the consensus of the group,
with the exception of Director Jose Tolentino, Jr., of the ASD,
to disapproved the request for additional registration of
voters on the ground 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 the Commission has no more time
left to accomplish all pre-election activities.
On February 8, 2001, the COMELEC issued Resolution N.
3584, the decretal portion:
"Deliberating on the foregoing memoranda, the
Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby
RESOLVES, to deny the request to conduct a
two-day additional registration of new voters
on February 17, and 18 2001."
Commissioners Rufino S.B. Javier and Mehol K. Sadain voted
to deny the request while Commissioners Luzviminda
Tancangco and Ralph Lantion voted to accommodate the
students' request. With this impasse, the Commission
construed its Resolution as having taken effect.
Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners AKBAYAN-Youth,
SCAP, UCSC, MASP, KOMPIL II (YOUTH) et. al. filed before
this Court the instant Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus,
docketed as G.R. NO. 147066, which seeks to set aside and
nullify respondent COMELEC's 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. Likewise, petitioners
pray 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 to qualify them to vote in
the May 14, 2001 General Elections.
On March 09, 2001, herein petitioner Michelle Betito, a
student of the University of the Philippines, likewise filed a
Petition for Mandamus, docketed as G.R. No. 147179, praying
that this Court direct the COMELEC to provide for another
3
special registration day under the continuing registration
provision under the Election code.
On March 13, 2001, this court resolved to consolidate the two
petitions and further required respondents to file their
Comment thereon within a non-extendible period expiring at
10:00 A.M. of March 16, 2001. Moreover, this Court resolved
to set the consolidated cases for oral arguments on March 16,
2001.
On March 16, 2001, the Solicitor General, in its Manifestation
and Motion in lieu of Comment, recommended that an
additional continuing registration of voters be conducted at
the soonest possible time "in order to accommodate the
disfranchised voters for purposes of the May 14, 2001
elections."
In effect, the Court in passing upon the merits of the present
petitions, is tasked to resolve a two-pronged issue focusing
on respondent COMELEC's issuance of the assailed
Resolution dated February 8, 2001, which Resolution,
petitioners, by and large, argue to have undermined their
constitutional right to vote on the May 14, 2001 general
elections and caused the disenfranchisement of around for
four million Filipinos of voting age who failed to register
before the registration deadline set by the COMELEC.
Thus, this Court shall determine:
a. Whether or not respondent COMELEC committed
grave abuse of discretion in issuing COMELEC
Resolution dated February 8, 2001.
b. Whether or not this Court can compel respondent
COMELEC, through the extraordinary writ of
mandamus, to conduct a special registration of new
 voters during the period between the COMELEC's
imposed December 27, 2000 deadline and the May 14,
2001 general elections.
The petitions are bereft of merit.
In a representative democracy such as ours, the right of
suffrage, although accorded a prime niche in the hierarchy of
rights embodied in the fundamental law, ought to be
exercised within the proper bounds and framework of the
Constitutions and must properly yield to pertinent laws
skillfully enacted by the Legislature, which statutes for all
intents and purposes, are crafted to effectively insulate such
so cherished right from ravishment and preserve the
democratic institutions our people have, for so long, guarded
against the spoils of opportunism, debauchery and abuse.
To be sure, the right of suffrage ardently invoked by herein
petitioners, is not at all absolute. Needles to say, the exercise
of the right of suffrage, 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. Thus, as to the substantive
aspect, Section 1, Article V of the Constitutions provides:
"SECTION 1. SUFFRAGE MAY BE EXERCISED
BY ALL CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES NOT
OTHERWISE DISQUALIFIED BY LAW, WHO
ARE AT LEAST EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE,
AND WHO SHALL HAVE RESIDED IN THE
PHILIPPINES FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR
AND IN THE PLACE WHEREIN THEY
PROPOSE TO VOTE FOR AT LEAST SIX
MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE
4
ELECTION. NO LITERACY, PROPERTY, OR
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENT
SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THE EXERCISE OF
SUFFRAGE."
As to the procedural limitation, the right of a citizen to vote is
necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural
requirements he must undergo: among others, the process of
registration. Specifically, a citizen in order to be qualified to
exercise his right to vote, in addition to the minimum
requirements set by fundamental charter, is obliged by law to
register, at present, under the provisions of Republic Act No.
8189, otherwise known as the "Voter's Registration Act of
1996."
Stated differently, the act of registration is an indispensable
precondition to the right of suffrage. For registration is part
and parcel of the right to vote and an indispensable element
in the election process. Thus, contrary to petitioners'
argument, registration cannot and should not be denigrated
to the lowly stature of a mere statutory requirement.
Proceeding from the significance of registration as a
necessary requisite to the right to vote, the State undoubtedly,
in the exercise of its inherent police power, may then enact
laws to safeguard and regulate the act of voter's registration
for the ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly and
peaceful election, to the incidental yet generally important
end, that even pre-election activities could be performed by
the duly constituted authorities in a realistic and orderly
manner - one which is not indifferent and so far removed
from the pressing order of the day and the prevalent
circumstances of the times.
Viewed broadly, existing legal proscription and pragmatic
operational considerations bear great weight in the
adjudication of the issues raised in the instant petitions.
On the legal score, Section 8 or R.A. 8189, which provides a
system of continuing registration, is explicit, to wit:
"SEC. 8. System of Continuing Registration of
Voters. - The Personal filing of application of
registration of voters shall be conducted daily in
the office of the Election Officer during regular
office hours. No 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," (Emphasis Ours)
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
voter's list, provides:
"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 x
x x."
As aptly observed and succinctly worded by respondent
COMELEC in its Comment:
"x x x. The petition for exclusion is a necessary
component to registration since it is a safety
mechanism that gives a measure of protection
against flying voters, non-qualified registrants,
5
and the like. The prohibitive period, on the
other hand serves the purpose of securing the
voter's substantive right to be included in the
list of voters.
"In real-world terms, this means that if a special
voter's registration is conducted, then the
prohibitive period for filing petitions for
exclusion must likewise be adjusted to a later
date. If we do not, then no one can challenge the
Voter's list since we would already be well into
the 100-day prohibitive period. Aside from
being a flagrant breach of the principles of due
process, this would open the registration
process to abuse and seriously compromise the
integrity of the voter's list, and consequently,
that of the entire election.
"x x x. The short cuts that will have to be
adopted in order to fit the entire process of
registration within the last 60 days will give rise
to haphazard list of voters, some of whom
might not even be qualified to vote, x x x the
very possibility that we shall be conducting
elections on the basis of an inaccurate list is
enough to cast a cloud of doubt over the results
of the polls. If that happens, the unforgiving
public will disown the results of the elections,
regardless of who wins, and regardless of how
many courts validate our own results. x x x"
Perhaps undaunted by such scenario, petitioners invoke the
so called "standby" powers or "residual" powers of the
COMELEC, as provided under the relevant provisions of
Section 29, Republic Act No. 6646 (An act introducing
additional reforms in the electoral system and for other
purposes) and adopted verbatim in Section 28 of Republic
Act No. 8436 (An act authorizing the COMELEC to use an
automated election system in the May 11, 1998 national or
local electoral exercises, providing funds therefore and for
other purposes), thus:
"SEC. 28. Designation of other Dates for Certain
Pre-election Acts - if it should no longer be
possible to observe the periods and dates
prescribed by law for certain pre-election acts,
the Commission shall fix other periods and
dates in order to ensure accomplishments of the
activities so voters shall not be deprived of their
right to suffrage."
On this matter, the act of registration is concededly, by its
very nature, a pre-election act. Under Section 3(a) of R. A.
8189, registration, as a process, has its own specific definition,
precise meaning and coverage, thus:
"a) Registration refers to the act of
accomplishing and filing of a sworn application
for registration by a qualified voter before the
election officer of the city or municipality
wherein he resides and including the same in
the book of registered voters upon approval by
the Election Registration Board."
At this point, it bears emphasis that the provision of Section
29 R.A. 8436 invoked by herein petitioners and Section 8 of
R.A. 8189 volunteered by respondent COMELEC, far from
contradicting each other, actually share some common
6
ground. True enough, both provisions, although at first
glance may seem to be at war in relation to the other, are in
more circumspect, perusal, necessarily capable of being
harmonized and reconciled.
Rudimentary is the principle in legal hermeneutics that
changes made by the legislature in the form of amendments
to a stature should be given effect, together with other parts
of the amendment act. It is not to be presumed that the
legislature, in making such changes, was indulging in mere
semantic exercise. There must be some purpose in making
them, which should be ascertained and given effect.
Similarly, every new statute should be construed in
connection with those already existing in relation to the same
subject matter and all should be made to harmonize and
stand together, if they can be done by any fair and reasonable
interpretation. Interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus
interpretandi, which means that the best method of
interpretation is that which makes laws consistent with other
laws. Accordingly, Courts of justice, when confronted with
apparently conflicting statutes, should endeavor to reconcile
them instead of declaring outright the invalidity of one
against the other. Courts should harmonize them, if this is
possible, because they are equally the handiwork of the same
legislature.
In light of the foregoing doctrine, we hold that Section 8 of
R.A. 8189 applies in the present case, for the purpose of
upholding the assailed COMELEC Resolution and denying
the instant petitions, considering that the aforesaid law
explicitly provides that no registration shall be conducted
during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days
before a regular election.
Corollarily, it is specious for herein petitioners to argue that
respondent COMELEC may validly and legally conduct a
two-day special registration, through the expedient of the
letter of Section 28 of RA 8436. To this end, the provisions of
Section 28, RA 8436 would come into play in cases where the
pre-election acts are susceptible of performance within the
available period prior to election day. In more categorical
language, Section 28 of R.A 8436 is, to our mind, anchored on
the sound premise that these certain "pre-election acts" are
still capable of being reasonably performed vis-a-vis the
remaining period before the date of election and the conduct
of other related pre-election activities required under the law.
In its Comment, respondent COMELEC- which is the
constitutional body tasked by no less that the fundamental
charter (Sec 2, par. 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution) to
decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions
affecting elections, including registration of voters
painstakingly and thoroughly emphasized the "operational
impossibility of conducting a special registration, which in its
own language, "can no longer be accomplished within the
time left to (us) the Commission."
Hence:
"xxx xxx xxx
19) In any case, even without the legal obstacles,
the last 60 days will not be a walk in the park
for the COMELEC. Allow us to outline what the
Commission has yet to do, and the time to do it
in:
7
20) First we have to complete the Project of
Precincts by the 19th of March. The Projects of
Precincts indicate the total number of
established precincts and the number of
registered voters per precincts in a city or
municipality. Without the final Project of
Precincts, we cannot even determine the proper
allocation of official ballots, election returns and
other election forms and paraphernalia. More
succinctly said, without the Project of Precincts,
we won't know how many forms to print and so
we're liable to come up short.
21) More importantly, without a completed
Project of Precincts, it will be impossible to
complete the rest of the tasks that must be
accomplished prior to the elections.
22) Second, the Board of Elections Inspectors
must be constituted on or before the 4th of
March. In addition, the list of the members of
the BEI - including the precinct where they are
assigned and the barangay where the precinct is
located must be furnished by the Election
Officer to all the candidates and political
candidates not later that 26th of March.
23) Third, the Book of Voters, which contains
the approved Voter Registration Records of
registered voters in particular precinct must be
inspected, verified, and sealed beginning March
30 until April 15.
24) Fourth, the Computerized Voters' List must
be finalized and printed out of use on election
day; and finally
25.) Fifth, the preparation, bidding, printing,
and distribution of the voters Information sheet
must be completed on or before April 15.
26.) With this rigorous schedule of pre-election
activities, the COMELEC will have roughly a
month that will act as a buffer against any
number of unforeseen occurrences that might
delay the elections. This is the logic and the
wisdom behind setting the 120-day prohibitive
period. After all , preparing for an election is no
easy task.
27) To hold special registrations now would,
aside from being illegal, whittle that
approximately 30-day margin away to nothing.
28) When we say registration of voters, we do
not- contrary to popular opinion- refer only to
the act of going to the Election Officer and
writing our names down. Registration is. In fact
a long process that takes about three weeks to
complete, not even counting how long it would
take to prepare for the registration in the first
place.
29) In order to concretize, the senior Staff of the
COMELEC, the other Commissioners, prepared
a time-table in order to see exactly how the
superimposition of special registration would
8
affect the on-going preparation for the May 14
elections.
30) We assumed for the sake of argument that
we were to hold the special registration on
April 16 and 17. These are not arbitrary
numbers, by the way it takes in account the fact
that we only have about 800,000 Voters
Registration Forms available, as against an
estimated 4.5 million potential registrants, and
it would take about 14 days - if we were to
declare special registrations today - to print up
the difference and to verify these accountable
forms. After printing and verification, the forms
would have to be packed and shipped - roughly
taking up a further two and a half weeks. Only
then can we get on with registration.
31) The first step in registration is, of course,
filling the application for registration with the
Election Officer. The application, according to
Section 17 of R.A. 8189, is then set for hearing,
with notice of that hearing being posted in the
city or municipal bulletin board for at least one
week prior. Thus, if we held registrations on the
16th and the 17th, the posting requirement
would be completed by the 24th. Considering
that time must be allowed for the filling of
oppositions, the earliest that the Election
Registration Board can be convened for hearing
would be the May 1st and 2nd.
32) Assuming - and this is a big assumption -
that there are rift challenges to the applicant's
right to register, the Election Registration Board
can immediately rule on the applicant's
registration, and post notices of its action by the
2nd until the 7th of May. By the 10th, copies of
the notice of the action taken by the board will
have already been furnished to the applicants
and the heads of the registered political parties.
33) Only at this point can our Election Officers
once against focus on the business of getting
ready for the elections. Once the results of the
special registration are finalized, they can be
encoded and a new Computerized Voters' List
generated - at the earliest, by May 11, after
which the new CVL would be posted.
Incidentally, if we were to follow the letter of
the law strictly, a May 11 posting date for the
new CVL would be improper since the R.A.
8189 provides that the CVL be posted at least 90
days before the election.
34) Assuming optimistically that we can then
finish the inspection, verification, and sealing of
the Book of Voters by May 15, we will already
have overshot the May 14 election date, and still
not have finished our election preparations.
35) After this point, we could have to prepare
the allocation of Official Ballots, Election
Returns, and other Non-Accountable Forms and
Supplies to be used for the new registrants.
Once the allocation is ready, the contracts
would be awarded, the various forms printed,
delivered, verified, and finally shipped out to
9
the different municipalities. All told, this
process would take approximately 26 days,
from the 15th of May until June 10.
36) Only then can we truly say that we are
ready to hold the elections.
XXX XXX XXX
It is an accepted doctrine in administrative law that the
determination of administrative agency as to the operation,
implementation and application of a law would be accorded
great weight considering that these specialized government
bodies are, by their nature and functions, in the best position
to know what they can possible do or not do, under
prevailing circumstances.
Beyond this, it is likewise well-settled that the law does not
require that the impossible be done. The law obliges no one
to perform an impossibility, expressed in the maxim, nemo
tenetur ad impossible. In other words, there is no obligation
to do an impossible thing. Impossibilium nulla obligatio est.
Hence, a statute may not be so construed as to require
compliance with what it prescribes cannot, at the time, be
legally ..., it must be presumed that the legislature did not at
all intend an interpretation or application of a law which is
far removed from the realm of the possible. Truly, the
interpretation of statutes, the interpretation to be given must
be such that it is in accordance with logic, common sense,
reasonableness and practicality. Thus, we are of the
considered view that they "stand-by power" of the
respondent COMELEC under Section 28 of R.A. 8436,
presupposed the possibility of its being exercised or availed
of, and not otherwise.
Further, petitioners' bare allegation that they were
disfranchised when respondent COMELEC pegged the
registration deadline on December 27, 2000 instead of the day
before the prohibitive period before the May 14, 2001 regular
elections commences - is, to our mind, not sufficient. On this
matter, there is no allegation in the two consolidated petitions
and the records are bereft of any showing that anyone of
herein petitioners has filed an application to be registered as a
voter which was denied by the COMELEC nor filed a
complaint before the respondent COMELEC alleging that he
or she proceeded to the Office of the Election Officer to
register between the period starting from December 28, 2000
to January 13, 2001, and that he or she was disallowed or
barred by respondent COMELEC from filing his application
for registration. While it may be true that respondent
COMELEC set the registration deadline on December 27,
2000, this Court is of the firm view that petitioners were not
totally denied the opportunity to avail of the continuing
registration under R.A. 8189. Stated in a different manner, the
petitioners in the instant case are not without fault or blame.
They admit in their petition that they failed to register, for
whatever reason, within the period of registration and came
to this Court and invoked its protective mantle not realizing,
so to speak, the speck in their eyes. Impuris minibus nemo
accedat curiam. Let no one come to court with unclean
hands.
In a similar vein, well-entrenched is the rule in our
jurisdiction that the law aids the vigilant and not those who
slumber on their rights. Vigilanties sed non dormientibus
jura in re subveniunt.
Applying the foregoing, this Court is of the firm view that
respondent COMELEC did not commit an abuse of
10
discretion, much less be adjudged to have committed the
same in some patent, whimsical and arbitrary manner, in
issuing Resolution No, 3584 which, in respondent's own
terms, resolved "to deny the request to conduct a two-day
additional registration of new voters on February 17 and 18,
2001."
On this particular matter, grave abuse of discretion implies a
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, when the power is
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty enjoined or
to act at all in contemplation of laws.1âwphi1.nêt
Under these circumstances, we rule that the COMELEC in
denying the request of petitioners to hold a special
registration, acted within the bounds and confines of the
applicable law on the matter - Section 8 of R.A. 8189. In
issuing the assailed Resolution, respondent COMELEC
simply performed its constitutional task to enforce and
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of
an election, inter alia, questions relating to the registration of
voters; evidently, respondent COMELEC merely exercised a
prerogative that chiefly pertains to it and one which squarely
falls within the proper sphere of its constitutionally
mandated powers. Hence, whatever action respondent takes
in the exercise of its wide latitude of discretion, specifically
on matters involving voters' registration, pertains to the
wisdom rather than the legality of the act. Accordingly, in the
absence of clear showing of grave abuse of power or
discretion on the part of respondent COMELEC, this Court
may not validly conduct an incursion and meddle with
affairs exclusively within the province of respondent
COMELEC - a body accorded by no less than the
fundamental law with independence.
As to the petitioners' prayer for the issuance of the writ of
mandamus, we hold that this Court cannot, in view of the
very nature of such extraordinary writ, issue the same
without transgressing the time-honored principles in this
jurisdiction.
As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies only
to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a
discretionary one; mandamus will not issue to control the
exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law
imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in
reference to any manner in which he is required to act,
because it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that
of the court.
Considering the circumstances where the writ of mandamus
lies and the peculiarities of the present case, we are of the
firm belief that petitioners failed to establish, to the
satisfaction of this Court, that they are entitled to the issuance
of this extraordinary writ so as to effectively compel
respondent COMELEC to conduct a special registration of
voters. For 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 discretion and thus,
cannot be controlled by mandamus.
In Bayan vs. Executive Secretary Zamora and related cases,
we enunciated that the Court's function, as sanctioned by
Article VIII, Section 1, is "merely [to] check, whether or not
the governmental branch or agency has gone beyond the
11
constitutionally limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or
has a different view. In the absence of a showing ...[of] grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, there is
no occasion for the Court to exercise its corrective power...It
has no power to look into what it thinks is apparent error.
Finally, the Court likewise takes judicial notice of the fact that
the President has issued Proclamation No. 15 calling
Congress to a Special Session on March 18, 2001, to allow the
conduct of Special Registration of new voters. House Bill No.,
12930 has been filed before the Lower House, which bills
seeks to amend R.A. 8189 as to the 120-day prohibitive period
provided for under said law. Similarly, Senate Bill No. 2276
was filed before the Senate, with the same intention to amend
the aforesaid law and, in effect, allow the conduct of special
registration before the May 14, 2001 General Elections.This
Court views the foregoing factual circumstances as a clear
intimation on the part of both the executive and legislative
departments that a legal obstacle indeed stands in the way of
the conduct by the Commission on Elections of a special
registration before May 14, 2001 General Elections.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petitions for
certiorari and mandamus are hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
DIGEST:
FACTS:
On January 25, 2001, AKBAYAN-Youth, together with other
youth movements sought the extension of the registration of
voters for the May 2001 elections. The voters registration has
already ended on December 27, 2000. AKBAYAN-Youth asks explicit as to the prohibition. Suffice it to say that it is a pre-
that persons aged 18-21 be allowed a special 2-day registration. election act that cannot be reset.
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied the Further, even if what is asked is a mere two-day special
petition. AKBAYAN-Youth the sued COMELEC for alleged registration, COMELEC has shown in its pleadings that if it is
grave abuse of discretion for denying the petition. AKBAYAN- allowed, it will substantially create a setback in the other pre-
Youth alleged that there are about 4 million youth who were election matters because the additional voters from the special
not able to register and are now disenfranchised. COMELEC two day registration will have to be screened, entered into the
invoked Section 8 of Republic Act 8189 which provides that no book of voters, have to be inspected again, verified, sealed,
registration shall be conducted 120 days before the regular then entered into the computerized voter’s list; and then they
election. AKBAYAN-Youth however counters that under
will have to reprint the voters information sheet for the update
Section 28 of Republic Act 8436, the COMELEC in the exercise and distribute it – by that time, the May 14, 2001 elections
of its residual and stand-by powers, can reset the periods of would have been overshot because of the lengthy processes
pre-election acts including voters registration if the original after the special registration. In short, it will cost more
period is not observed. inconvenience than good. Further still, the allegation that
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC exercised grave abuse youth voters are disenfranchised is not sufficient. Nowhere in
of discretion when it denied the extension of the voters AKBAYAN-Youth’s pleading was attached any actual
registration. complaint from an individual youth voter about any
inconvenience arising from the fact that the voters registration
HELD: No. The COMELEC was well within its right to do so
has ended on December 27, 2001. Also, AKBAYAN-Youth et al
pursuant to the clear provisions of Section 8, RA 8189 which
admitted in their pleading that they are asking an extension
provides that no voters registration shall be conducted within
because they failed to register on time for some reasons, which
120 days before the regular election. The right of suffrage is not
is not appealing to the court. The law aids the vigilant and not
absolute. It is regulated by measures like voters registration
those who slumber on their rights.
which is not a mere statutory requirement. The State, in the
exercise of its inherent police power, may then enact laws to
safeguard and regulate the act of voter’s registration for the
ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly and peaceful
election, to the incidental yet generally important end, that
even pre-election activities could be performed by the duly
constituted authorities in a realistic and orderly manner – one
which is not indifferent and so far removed from the pressing
order of the day and the prevalent circumstances of the times.
RA 8189 prevails over RA 8436 in that RA 8189’s provision is

12