CASE: Akbayan-Youth v COMELEC
G.R. No. 147066 26 March 2001
AKBAYAN--
Youth,SCAP,UCSC,MASP,KOMPILII--
Youth,ALYANSA,KALIPI,PATRICIAQ.PICAR,
MYLA GAIL Z. TAMONDONG, EMMANUEL E.
OMBAO, JOHNNY ACOSTA, ARCHIE JOHN
TALAUE,
RYANDAPITAN,CHRISTOPHEROARDE,JOSE
MARIMODESTO,RICHARDM.VALENCIA,EDB
EN
TABUCOL, petitioners vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTION, respondents.
FACTS:
In Marchof2001,Akbayan--Youth requested that
the COMELEC conduct a special2--
dayregistrationperiodbeforetheMay14,
2001regularelections.AccordingtoAkbayan--
Youth,around4m youth failed to register on or
before the deadline under RA 8189 (Voters
Registration Act of1996).
The possibility of conducting this special
registration was discussed in public hearings.
The COMELEC also consulted its regional heads
as to the feasibility of such an undertaking.
In the end, the COMELEC issued the assailed
Resolution wherein they denied the request. The
basis for COMELECs denial was logistic
impossibility: that registration process would
take more than 3 weeks to complete from
printing the required forms to preparing the
required accomodations for the new registrants.
Furthermore, the COMELEC claimed, Section 8
of RA 8189 precludes the registration of voters
120 days before a regular election and 90 days
before a special election.
Akbayan then filed a petition for certioari and
mandamus, seeking to declare such provision
unconstitutional as it causes disenfranchisement
of voters. Petitions of mandamus were also filed
seeking to compel the COMELEC to conduct the
requested registration.
Akbayan claims that the COMELEC may still
hold the registration under Section 28 of 8346
where itstates:
SEC.28.DesignationofotherDatesforCertainPr
e--electionActs
-- if it should no longer be possible to observe
the periods and
datesprescribedbylawforcertainpre--
electionacts,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.
ISSUE: WON the COMELEC should conduct a
special registration of voters as requested. NO
WON such undertaking by the COMELEC may be
compelled by mandamus. NO
HELD:
Right to vote subject to procedural limitations
such as registration
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 oflaw.
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.
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 Akbayan's
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--
electionactivitiescouldbeperformedbytheduly
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
thetimes.
Sec 8, RA 8189 and Sec 28 of RA 8436
reconciled
RA 8189 explicitly provides that no
registration shall be conducted during the
period starting one hundred twenty (120)
days before a regular election. Thus it is
improper for Akbayan to request COMELEC
to conduct a special registration through RA
8346.
The provisions of Section 28, RA
8436 would come
intoplayincaseswherethepre--
electionactsaresusceptibleof performance
within the available period prior to
election day. In more categorical language,
Section 28 of R.A 8436 is, to our mind,
anchoredonthesoundpremisethatthesecertain"
pre--election
acts"arestillcapableofbeingreasonablyperform
edvis--a--visthe remaining period before the date
of election and the conduct of otherrelatedpre--
electionactivitiesrequiredunderthelaw.The
standby power of the COMELEC under RA
8436 presupposeS the possibility of its being
exercised or availed of, and not otherwise (as
in this case as it is prohibited by law).

On the contention of disenfranchisement:

those who failed to register also had fault
There is no showing that anyone of
herein petitioners has filed an application to
be registered as a voter which was denied by
the COMELEC or 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.

Determination of feasibility of conducting a

special registration involves discretion and is
therefore not subject to mandamus
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 thecourt.
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.