G.R No.
147066 | March 26, 2001 | ABALOS 8189 unconstitutional insofar as said provision effectively causes the
AKBAYAN-Youth, SCAP, UCSC, MASP, KOMPIL II-Youth, ALYANSA, KALIPI, PATRICIA O.
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
ELECTIONS, respondents.
G.R No. 147179. March 26, 2001.*
MICHELLE D. BETITO, petitioner, vs.CHAIRMAN ALFREDO BENIPAYO, COMMISSIONERS
MEHOL SADAIN, RUFINO JAVIER, LUZVIMINDA TANCANGCO, RALPH LANTIQN,
FLORENTINO TUASON and RESURRECCION BORRA, all of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC), respondents.
At the helm of controversy in the instant consolidated petitions1 before us is the exercise of a
right so indubitably cherished and accorded primacy, if not utmost reverence, no less than by
the fundamental lawthe right of suffrage.
1. Invoking this right, petitioners, representing the youth sector, seek to direct the
COMELEC to conduct a special registration before the May 14, 2001 General
Elections, of new voters ages 18 to 21.
2. According to petitioners, around 4 million youth failed to register on or before the
December 27, 2000 deadline set by the respondent COMELEC under Republic Act
No. 8189.
3. Acting on the clamor of the students and civic leaders, SENATOR RAUL ROCO,
Chairman of the Committee on Electoral Reforms, Suffrage, and Peoples
Participation, through a Letter, invited the COMELEC to a public hearing for the
purpose of discussing the extension of the registration of voters
4. Commissioners LUZVIMINDA G. TANCANGCO and RALPH C. LANTION, together
with Consultant RESURRECCION Z. BORRA attended the public hearing called by the
Senate Committee headed by Senator Roco, held at the Senate
5. 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. Commissioner Borra called a consultation meeting among regional
heads and representatives, and a number of senior staff. It was the consensus of
the group to disapprove 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 120 days before a regular election and
that the Commission has no more time left to accomplish all pre-election activities.
6. February 8, 2001: COMELEC issued Resolution No. 3584, denying the request for an
additional registration of new voters on February 17 and 18.
7. COMMISSIONERS JAVIER and SADAIN voted to deny the request while
Commissioners TANCANGCO and LANTION voted to accommodate. With this
impasse, the Commission construed its Resolution as having taken effect.
8. Aggrieved by the denial, AKBAYAN-Youth, SCAP, UCSC, MASP, KOMPIL II (YOUTH),
et al. filed before this Court the instant Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus seeking
to set aside and nullify CQMELECs Resolution and/or to declare Section 8 of R.A.
disenfranchisement of petitioners and others similarly situated.
9. 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.
10. March 09, 2001: Petitioner MICHELLE BETITO, a student of the UP, filed a Petition
for Mandamus, prayed that this Court direct the COMELEC to provide for another
special registration day under the continuing registration provision under the Election
Code.
11. March 16, 2001: SolGen recommended that an additional continuing registration of
voters be conducted at the soonest possible time.
Issues:
(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 COMELECs imposed December 27, 2000 deadline and the May 14, 2001 general
elections.
Ruling:
The petitions are bereft of merit.
1. 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 Constitution 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.
2. To be sure, the right of suffrage is not at all absolute. The exercise of the right of
suffrage is subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements embodied
in our Constitution, statute books and other repositories of law.
3. SECTION 1, ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION1 states who may exercise the right
of suffrage.
4. 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
1SECTION 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 ELECTION. NO LITERACY, PROPERTY, OR OTHER SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENT SHALL BE IMPOSED ON
THE EXERCISE OF SUFFRAGE.
 of registration. Specifically, a citizen in order to be qualified to exercise his right to
vote, in addition to the minimum requirements set by the fundamental charter, is
obliged by law to register under the provisions of Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise
known as the VOTERS REGISTRATION ACT OF 1996.
5. Stated differently, the act of registration is an indispensable precondition to the
right of suffrage. Thus, 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 voters 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 mannerone which is not indifferent and so far removed from
the pressing order of the day and the prevalent circumstances of the times.
6. SECTION 8 OF R.A. 81892 explicitly provides a system of continuing registration of
voters.
7. SECTION 35 OF R.A. 81893, speaks of a prohibitive period within which to file a
sworn petition for the exclusion of voters from the permanent voters list.
8. 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, and the like. The prohibitive period, on the other hand serves
the purpose of securing the voters substantive right to be included in the list of
voters.
In real-world terms, this means that if a special voters 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 Voters 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 voters list, and consequently, that
of the entire election.
Without the prohibitive periods, the COMELEC would be deprived of any time to
evaluate the evidence on the application. We would be obliged to simply take them
at face value. If we compromise on these safety nets, we may very well end up with a
voters list full of flying voters, overflowing with unqualified registrants,
populated with shadows and ghosts 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
2 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.
3 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.
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
9. 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 now SECTION 28 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8436 4. The act of registration is
concededly by its very nature, a pre-election act.
10. Under SECTION 3(A) OF R.A. 8189, registration, as a process, has its own specific
definition, precise meaning and coverage:
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;
11. At this point, it bears emphasis that the provisions of Section 29 of R.A. 8436 invoked
by petitioners and Section 8 of R.A. 8189 by COMELEC, far from contradicting each
other, actually share some common ground. True enough, both provisions, although
at first glance may seem to be at war in relation to the other, are in a more circumspect
perusal, necessarily capable of being harmonized and reconciled.
12. 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.
13. The Court held that SECTION 8 OF R.A. 8189 applies in the present case considering
that the said law explicitly provides that no registration shall be conducted during
the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election.
14. 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 R.A. 8436. To this end, the provisions of Section 28, R.A.
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 sum, section 28 is
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.
15. COMELECwhich is the constitutional body tasked by no less than 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 votersthoroughly emphasized the operational impossibility of conducting a
4SEC. 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.
 special registration, which in its own language, can no longer be accomplished
within the time left to (us) the Commission.
16. [DOCTRINE] 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. 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 accomplished.
17. To put it differently, 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. The stand-by power of the respondent COMELEC under Section 28 of
RA. 8436, presupposes the possibility of its being exercised or availed of, and not
otherwise.
18. Petitioners bare allegation that they were disenfranchised when respondent
COMELEC pegged the registration deadline on December 27, 2000 instead of January
13, 2001the-day before the prohibitive 120-day period before the May 14, 2001
regular elections commencesis, not sufficient. There is no allegation in the petitions
and the records are bereft of any showing that anyone of petitioners has filed an
application to be registered as a voter which was denied by the COMELEC nor
filed a complaint before the 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 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.
19. In sum: 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.
20. 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.
21. As for the issue that COMELEC committed GADALEJ, such 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. COMELEC had not
acted in such a manner in denying the request of petitioners as COMELEC merely
performed its constitutional task to enforce and administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of an election.
5 PGMA
22. Hence, whatever action COMELEC 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 COMELECa body accorded by no less than the fundamental law with
independence.
23. As to petitioners prayer for the issuance of the writ of mandamus, the 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.
24. Bayan vs. Executive Secretary Zamora: Th Courts function, as sanctioned by Article
VIII, Section 1, is merely to check whether or not the governmental branch or
agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it
erred or has a different view. In the absence of a showing . . . GADALEJ, 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 ,
Additional Notes:
25. Finally, the Court likewise takes judicial notice of the fact that the President5 has issued
PROCLAMATION NO. 15 calling Congress to a Special Session 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. Similarly, Senate Bill No. 2276 was filed
before the Senate, with the same intention to amend the said law and, in effect,
allow the conduct of special registration before the May 14, 2001 General
Elections.
26. 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 COMELEC of a special registration before the May 14,
2001 General Elections.
PARDO, J., Dissenting:
Election Law; Statutory Construction; It is a basic rule in statutory construction that laws are
to be harmonized rather than consider one repealed in favor of the otherthere is nothing
incongruous in R.A. No. 8189 with RA. No, 6646, Section 29, nor B.P. Blg. 881, Sec. 52 [m],
as to repeal the latter.It is a basic rule in statutory construction that laws are to be
harmonized rather than consider one repealed in favor of the other. Besides, there is
nothing incongruous in R.A. No. 8189 with R.A. No. 6646, Section 29, nor B.P. Blg. 881,
Sec. 52 [m], as to repeal the latter. Neither is there an express repeal of the same. It is a
well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of statutes by implication are not
favored. The presumption is against inconsistency or repugnancy and, accordingly, against
implied repeal.

Same: Same; Under the circumstances prevailing, the prohibition to conduct registration one
hundred twenty (120) days before regular election as set forth in R.A. No. 8189, Section 8,
is not an absolute prohibitionit is directory, not mandatory, and COMELEC is vested with
residual power to conduct pre-election activities, including the registration of voters beyond
the deadline prescribed by law,Under the circumstances prevailing, the prohibition to
conduct registration one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election as set forth in
R.A. No. 8189, Section 8, is not an absolute prohibition. It is directory, not mandatory, and
Comelec is vested with residual power to conduct pre-election activities, including
registration of voters beyond the deadline prescribed by law. This is not to defeat the right of
suffrage of the people as guaranteed by the Constitution. Millions of qualified voters in the
country were not able to register before the 120-day period provided by law because of the
failure of Comelec to conduct a nationwide public information campaign relative to the
period provided by law. The Comelec erroneously perceived that the number of voters, who
registered during the system of continuing registration is the barometer for the success or
effectiveness of their information campaign which was actually non-existent. Comelec must
bear the responsibility for this. Time and again, it has been said that every Filipinos right to
vote shall be respected and upheld. Preliminary as it is in the exercise of their right to vote,
the deprivation of their right to register is tantamount to the denial of their right to vote.

Same; Same; Words and Phrases; The term election, in the context of the Constitution,
may refer to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the
electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of votes.In this jurisdiction, an election
means the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote through the
use of the ballot, and the elected officials of which are determined through the will of the
electorate. An election is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the
sovereign power of the people. Specifically, the term election, in the context of the
Constitution, may refer to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding
of the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of votes.