University of the Philippines College of Law

Law on Public Officers | [JBVG]

Case Name AKBAYAN-YOUTH VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Topic Requirements Before Election - Registration of Voters
Case No. | Date G.R No. 147066 | 26 March 2001
Ponente Buena, J.
Youth groups requested COMELEC for a two-day additional registration of voters for the 14 May 2001
General Election claiming that 4 million youth were not able to register before the 27 December 2000
deadline that was set by the latter in accordance with R.A. 8189. COMELEC issued a Resolution denying their
request on the basis that R.A. 8189 explicitly provides that no registration shall be conducted 120 days
Case Summary
before a regular election and that the Commission has no more time left to accomplish all pre-election
activities. Petitioners filed a petition for Certiorari and Mandamus praying that the Resolution be nullified
and/or Section 8 of R.A. 8189 be declared unconstitutional as well as for the Court to direct COMELEC to
provide for another special registration day for new voters. The court found the petitions bereft of merit.
Registration is an indispensable precondition to the right of suffrage. Registration is not a mere statutory
Doctrine requirement. The State, in its exercise of police power, may enact laws to safeguard and regulate voter
registration for the ultimate purpose of honest, orderly and peaceful elections.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petitions for certiorari and mandamus are hereby DENIED.
Ruling
SO ORDERED.

RELEVANT FACTS
● 27 December 2000 - Deadline for voter’s registration for the 14 May 2001 General Elections
● 25 January 2001 - Senator Roco, Chairman of the Committee on Electoral Reforms, Suffrage, and People’s Participation, 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
○ Acting upon the clamor of student and civic leaders who claimed that around 4 million youth failed to register on or
before the deadline set by COMELEC under R.A. 8189
● 29 January 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 which discussed the legal feasibility of the two-day additional registration
of voters to be held on 17 and 18 February 2001 as well as guidelines to avoid fraudulent applicants and other election activities
● 8 February 2001 - COMELEC issued Resolution No. 3584 denying the request to conduct a two-day additional registration of new
voters on February 17 and 18 on the grounds that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 explicitly provides that no registration shall be conducted
120 days before a regular election and that the Commission has no more time left to accomplish all pre-election activities
● Petitions were filed by youth groups (AKBAYAN-YOUTH, SCAP, UCSC, MASP, KOMPIL II (YOUTH) et al.) and an individual petitioner
seeking to set aside and nullify COMELEC’s Resolution and/or declare Section 8 of R.A. 8189 unconstitutional insofar as said
provision effectively causes the disenfranchisement of petitioner and others similarly situated as well as a writ of Mandamus to
compel the COMELEC to hold said special elections
● 16 March 2001 - the Solicitor General recommended that an additional continuing registration of voters be conducted at the
soonest possible time “in order to accommodate the disenfranchised voters for purposes of the 14 May 2001 elections”
RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
Whether or not NO, the COMELEC in denying the request of petitioners to hold a special registration, acted within
respondent COMELEC the bounds and confines of the applicable law on the matter—Section 8 of RA 8189 (see NOTES).
committed grave abuse The court is of the firm view that respondent COMELEC did not commit an abuse of discretion, much
of discretion in issuing less be adjudged to have committed the same in some patent, whimsical and arbitrary manner, in
COMELEC Resolution issuing Resolution No. 3584.
dated February 8, 2001 – ○ On the applicable laws regarding the matter the court held that interpretare et concordare
NO legibus est optimus interpretandi, which means that the best method of interpretation is that
which makes laws consistent with other laws.
 Section 1 Art V of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right to suffrage, wit procedural
limitations. The right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural
requirements. In order to be qualified to exercise his right to vote, he is obliged to register under
RA 8189 or the Voter’s Registration Act of 1996.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Law on Public Officers | [JBVG]
 Registration is an indispensable precondition to the right of suffrage. Registration is not a mere
statutory requirement. The State, in its exercise of police power, may enact laws to safeguard and
regulate voter registration for the ultimate purpose of honest, orderly and peaceful elections.
○ Petitioners argue that Section 28 of R.A. 8436 allows respondent to validly and legally conduct
a two-day special registration via its “standby power:”
...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.
o However, the Court interpreted Section 28 of R.A. 8436 in conjunction with Section 8 of R.A.
8189:
...No registration shall, however, be conducted during the period starting 120 days before a
regular election and 90 days before a special election
o 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:
"SECTION 35. Petition for Exclusion of Voters from the List. — Any registered
voter, representative of a political party . . . may file . . . except one hundred
(100) days prior to a regular election . . . ."
o Section 28 of R.A. 8436 is still anchored on the 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 pre-election activities required under law.
○ Respondent COMELEC emphasized the “operational impossibility” of conducting a special
registration, which in its own language “can no longer be accomplished within the time left
to the Commission.”
■ 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 possibly do or not do, under prevailing circumstances.
■ Nemo tenetur ad impossible, no one is bound to perform the impossible
■ Impossibilium nulla obligatio est, there is no obligation to do an impossible thing.
○ Further, petitioners’ bare allegation that they were disenfranchised when respondent COMELEC
pegged the registration deadline on 27 December 2000 instead of 13 January 2001 (a day
before the prohibitive 120-day period before the General Elections) is not sufficient.
■ 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
28 December 2000 to 13 January 2001, and that he or she was disallowed or barred by respondent
COMELEC from filing his application for registration.
■ The Court is of the view that petitioners were not totally denied the opportunity to avail of the
continuing registration under R.A. 8189.
■ The petitioners 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. Vigilantis sed non dormientibus jura in re subveniunt.
Whether or not this The Court cannot, in view of the very nature of such extraordinary write, issue the same without
Court can compel transgressing the time-honored principles in this jurisdiction.
respondent COMELEC, ○ As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies only to compel an officer to perform a
through the ministerial duty, not a discretionary one; mandamus will not issue to control the exercise of
extraordinary writ of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his
mandamus, to judgment in reference to any manner in which he is required to act , because it is his
conduct a special judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court.
registration of new
voters during the period
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Law on Public Officers | [JBVG]
between the COMELEC’s ○ For the determination of whether or not the conduct of a special registration of voters is
imposed December 27, feasible, possible or practical within the remaining period before the actual date of election,
2000 deadline and the involves the exercise of discretion and thus, cannot be controlled by mandamus.
May 14, 2001 general ○ Certain actions by the Legislative and Executive branches were taken notice of by the Court to
elections -- NO mean that a legal obstacle does stand in the way of the conduct by the Commission on
Elections of a special registration before the May General Elections.
■ PGMA issued Proclamation No. 15 calling Congress to a Special Session on March 19, 2001, to
allow the conduct of Special Registration of new voters.
■ House Bill No. 12930 has been filed before the Lower House, which bill seeks to amend R.A. 8189
as to the 120-day prohibitive period provided for under said law.
■ 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 14 May 2001 General
Elections.

RULING
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petitions for certiorari and mandamus are hereby DENIED. SO
ORDERED.

NOTES
SECTION 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."

OPINIONS
CONCURRING:
Kapunan, J.
○ The “standby power” of the COMELEC to fix additional dates and periods for registration under Section 29 of R.A. 6646 and
Section 28 of R.A. 8436 (latter is taken verbatim from the former) must be understood in the context of the inadequacy of the
registration period under the law then prevailing, Section 126 of B.P. 881. This provision states that the registration of voters was
held only on the seventh and sixth Saturdays before a regular election. It was in recognition of the insufficiency of the two-day
registration period under this provision that Section 29 of R.A. 6646 granted the COMELEC a “standby power” to fix additional dates
and times for pre-election activities, including registration .
○ Section 126 of B.P. 881 has, however, been impliedly repealed by R.A. No. 8189, which prescribes an entirely new system of
registration, and which in fact allows a prolonged period of registration for potential voters.
○ Moreover, Section 29 of R.A. 6646 and Section 28 of R.A. 8436 cannot prevail over R.A. 8189 with respect to the pre-election
activity of registration since the latter deals specifically with registration of voters. The rule is that a law which treats a subject in
general terms and which does not contradict the provisions of a special statute is not to be considered as intending to affect the
provisions of the latter, unless it is absolutely necessary to construe it in order to give its provisions any meaning at all.

MAIN DISSENTING:
Pardo, J.
○ COMELEC is thus vested by law with power to conduct registration beyond deadline prescribed by laws. This must be exercised
by COMELEC to allow the registration of additional voters. COMELEC should have set the deadline on 14 January 2001 because this
is the deadline allowed by law. This error on the part of the COMELEC led to disenfranchisement of voters. Even if extension would
be difficult, it is not impossible if done with proper planning, coordination and cooperation among its members.