Akbayan Vs Comelec

9/3/2015 AkbayanvsComelec:147066:March26,2001:J.
Buena:EnBanc
ENBANC
[G.R.No.147066.March26,2001]
AKBAYANYouth,SCAP,UCSC,MASP,KOMPILIIYouth,ALYANSA,KALIPI,
PATRICIA O. PICAR, MYLA GAIL Z. TAMONDONG, EMMANUEL E.
OMBAO,JOHNNYACOSTA,ARCHIEJOHNTALAUE,RYANDAPITAN,
CHRISTOPHER OARDE, JOSE MARI MODESTO, RICHARD M.
VALENCIA, EDBEN TABUCOL, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS,respondents.
[G.R.No.147179.March26,2001]
MICHELLE D. BETITO, petitioner, vs. CHAIRMAN ALFREDO BENIPAYO,

COMMISSIONERS MEHOL SADAIN, RUFINO JAVIER, LUZVIMINDA
TANCANGCO, RALPH LANTION, FLORENTINO TUASON and
RESURRECCIONBORRA,alloftheCommissiononElection(COMELEC),
respondents.
DECISION
BUENA,J.:
Atthehelmofcontroversyintheinstantconsolidatedpetitions[1]beforeusistheexerciseofaright
soindubitablycherishedandaccordedprimacy,ifnotutmostreverence,nolessthanbythefundamental
lawtherightofsuffrage.
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
GeneralElections,ofnewvotersages18to21.Accordingtopetitioners,aroundfourmillionyouthfailed
to register on or before the December 27, 2000 deadline set by the respondent COMELEC under
RepublicActNo.8189.[2]
Acting on the clamor of the students and civic leaders, Senator Raul Roco, Chairman of the
CommitteeonElectoralReforms,Suffrage,andPeoplesParticipation,throughaLetterdatedJanuary25,
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.[3]
Commissioners Luzviminda G. Tancangco and Ralph C. Lantion, together with Consultant
ResurreccionZ.Borra(nowCommissioner)attendedthepublichearingcalledbytheSenateCommittee
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/147066.htm 1/11
9/3/2015 AkbayanvsComelec:147066:March26,2001:J.Buena:EnBanc
headedbySenatorRoco,heldattheSenate,NewGSISHeadquartersBldg.,PasayCity.
On January 29, 2001, Commissioners Tancangco and Lantion submitted Memorandum No. 2001
027ontheReportontheRequestforaTwodayAdditionalRegistrationofNewVotersOnly,excerpts
ofwhichareheretoquoted:
PleasebeadvisedthattheundersignedattendedthepublichearingcalledbytheSenateCommitteeon
electoralReforms,SuffrageandPeoplesParticipationpresidedoverbytheHon.Sen.RaulRoco,its
CommitteeChairmantodateattheSenate,NewGSISHeadquartersBuilding,PasayCity.Themain
agendaitemistherequestbyyouthorganizationstoholdadditionaltwodaysofregistration.Thus,
participatingstudentsandcivicleadersalongwithComelecRepresentativeswereinagreementthatis
legallyfeasibletohaveatwodayadditionalregistrationofvoterstobeconductedpreferablyon
February17and18,2001nationwide.ThedeadlineforthecontinuingvotersregistrationunderR.A.
8189isDecember27,2000.
Toaddresstheconcernthatthismayopenthefloodpartsforhakotsystem,certainrestrictiveparameters
werediscussed.Thefollowingguidelinestoserveassafeguardsagainstfraudulentapplicants:
1.Theapplicantsfortheregistrationshallbe25yearsofageorlessandwillberegisteringforthefirst
timeonMay14,2001
2.Theapplicantsshallregisterintheirplacesofresidencesand
3.Theapplicantsshallpresentvalididentificationdocuments,likeschoolrecords.
Preparatorytotheregistrationdays,thefollowingactivitiesarelikewiseagreed:
1.Submission of the list of students and their addresses immediately prior to the actual registration of
theapplicants
2. The Comelec field officers will be given the opportunity to verify the voters enumerators list or
conductocularinspection
3.Availabilityoffundsforthepurposeand
4.Meetings with student groups to ensure orderly and honest conduct of the registration and drum up
interesttoregisteramongthenewvoters.
Therationalefortheadditionaltwodayregistrationistherenewedpoliticalawarenessandinterestto
participateinthepoliticalprocessgeneratedbytherecentpoliticaleventsinthecountryamongour
youth.ConsideringthattheyfailedtoregisteronDecember27,2000deadline,theyapprovedforspecial
registrationdays.
Inviewoftheforegoing,theCommissionenbanchastodiscussallaspectsregardingthisrequest
withdirectivestotheFinanceServicesDepartment(FSD)tosubmitcertifiedavailablefundsfor
thepurpose,andfortheDeputyExecutiveDirectorforOperations(DEDO)fortheestimatedcosts
ofadditionaltwodaysofregistration.
ThepresenceofREDsonJanuary30canbeusedpartlyforconsultationonthepracticalsideand
logisticalrequirementsofsuchadditionalregistrationdays.Themeetingwillbesetat1:30p.m.atthe
OfficeofED.[4]
Immediately, Commissioner Borra called a consultation meeting among regional heads and
representativesandanumberofseniorstaffheadedbyExecutiveDirectorMamasapunodAguam.Itwas
theconsensusofthegroup,withtheexceptionofDirectorJoseTolentino,Jr.oftheASD,todisapprove
the request for additional registration of voters on the ground that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 explicitly
providesthatnoregistrationshallbeconductedduringtheperiodstartingonehundredtwenty(120)days
beforearegularelectionandthattheCommissionhasnomoretimelefttoaccomplishallpreelection
activities.[5]
On February 8, 2001, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 3584, the decretal portion of which
reads:
Deliberatingontheforegoingmemoranda,theCommissionRESOLVED,asitherebyRESOLVES,to
denytherequesttoconductatwodayadditionalregistrationofnewvotersonFebruary17and18,2001.
Commissioners Rufino S. B. Javier and Mehol K. Sadain voted to deny the request while
CommissionersLuzvimindaTancangcoandRalphLantionvotedtoaccommodatethestudentsrequest.
Withthisimpasse,theCommissionconstrueditsResolutionashavingtakeneffect.
Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners AKBAYANYouth, 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 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. Likewise, petitioners pray for the
issuanceofawritofmandamusdirectingrespondentCOMELECtoconductaspecialregistrationofnew
voters and to admit for registration petitioners and other similarly situated young Filipinos to qualify
themtovoteintheMay14,2001GeneralElections.
OnMarch09,2001,hereinpetitionerMichelleBetito,astudentoftheUniversityofthePhilippines,
likewisefiledaPetitionforMandamus,docketedasG.R.No.147179,prayingthatthisCourtdirectthe
COMELEC to provide for another special registration day under the continuing registration provision
undertheElectionCode.
On March 13, 2001, this Court resolved to consolidate the two petitions and further required
respondents to file their Comment thereon within a nonextendible period expiring at 10:00 A.M. of
March16,2001.Moreover,thisCourtresolvedtosettheconsolidatedcasesfororalargumentsonMarch
16,2001.[6]
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
timeinordertoaccommodatethatdisenfranchisedvotersforpurposesoftheMay14,2001elections.
In effect, the Court in passing upon the merits of the present petitions, is tasked to resolve a two
prongedissuefocusingonrespondentCOMELECsissuanceoftheassailedResolutiondatedFebruary8,
2001,whichResolution,petitioners,byandlarge,arguetohaveunderminedtheirconstitutionalrightto
voteontheMay14,2001generalelectionsandcausedthedisenfranchisementofaroundfour(4)million
FilipinosofvotingagewhofailedtoregisterbeforetheregistrationdeadlinesetbytheCOMELEC.
Thus,thisCourtshalldetermine:
a)Whether or not respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing COMELEC
ResolutiondatedFebruary8,2001
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
COMELECsimposedDecember27,2000deadlineandtheMay14,2001generalelections.
Thepetitionsarebereftofmerit.
Inarepresentativedemocracysuchasours,therightofsuffrage,althoughaccordedaprimenichein
thehierarchyofrightsembodiedinthefundamentallaw,oughttobeexercisedwithintheproperbounds
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,
guardedagainstthespoilsofopportunism,debaucheryandabuse.
To be sure, the right of suffrage ardently invoked by herein petitioners, is not at all absolute.
Needlesstosay,theexerciseoftherightofsuffrage,asintheenjoymentofallotherrights,issubjectto
existingsubstantiveandproceduralrequirementsembodiedinourConstitution,statutebooksandother
repositoriesoflaw.Thus,astothesubstantiveaspect,Section1,ArticleVoftheConstitutionprovides:
SECTION1.SUFFRAGEMAYBEEXERCISEDBYALLCITIZENSOFTHEPHILIPPINESNOT
OTHERWISEDISQUALIFIEDBYLAW,WHOAREATLEASTEIGHTEENYEARSOFAGE,
ANDWHOSHALLHAVERESIDEDINTHEPHILIPPINESFORATLEASTONEYEARANDIN
THEPLACEWHEREINTHEYPROPOSETOVOTEFORATLEASTSIXMONTHS
IMMEDIATELYPRECEDINGTHEELECTIONS.NOLITERACY,PROPERTY,OROTHER
SUBSTANTIVEREQUIREMENTSHALLBEIMPOSEDONTHEEXERCISEOFSUFFRAGE.
Astotheprocedurallimitation,therightofacitizentovoteisnecessarilyconditioneduponcertain
procedural requirements he must undergo: among others, the process of registration. Specifically, a
citizeninordertobequalifiedtoexercisehisrighttovote,inadditiontotheminimumrequirementsset
bythefundamentalcharter,isobligedbylawtoregister,atpresent,undertheprovisionsofRepublicAct
No.8189,otherwiseknownastheVotersRegistrationActof1996.
Stateddifferently,theactofregistrationisanindispensablepreconditiontotherightofsuffrage.For
registrationispartandparceloftherighttovoteandanindispensableelementintheelectionprocess.
Thus, contrary to petitioners argument, registration cannot and should not be denigrated to the lowly
statureofamerestatutoryrequirement.Proceedingfromthesignificanceofregistrationasanecessary
requisitetotherighttovote,theStateundoubtedly,intheexerciseofitsinherentpolicepower,maythen
enactlawstosafeguardandregulatetheactofvotersregistrationfortheultimatepurposeofconducting
honest,orderlyandpeacefulelection,totheincidentalyetgenerallyimportantend,thatevenpreelection
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
circumstancesofthetimes.
Viewed broadly, existing legal proscription and pragmatic operational considerations bear great
weightintheadjudicationoftheissuesraisedintheinstantpetitions.
Onthelegalscore,Section8,oftheR.A.8189,whichprovidesasystemofcontinuingregistration,
isexplicit,towit:
SEC.8.SystemofContinuingRegistrationofVoters.ThePersonalfilingofapplicationofregistrationof
votersshallbeconducteddailyintheofficeoftheElectionOfficerduringregularofficehours.No
registrationshall,however,beconductedduringtheperiodstartingonehundredtwenty(120)days
beforearegularelectionandninety(90)daysbeforeaspecialelection.(EmphasisOurs)
Likewise,Section35ofR.A.8189,whichamongothers,speaksofaprohibitiveperiodwithinwhich
tofileaswornpetitionfortheexclusionofvotersfromthepermanentvoterslist,provides:
SEC.35.PetitionforExclusionofVotersfromtheListAnyregisteredvoter,representativeofa
politicalpartyxxxmayfilexxxexceptonehundred(100)dayspriortoaregularelectionxxx.
AsaptlyobservedandsuccinctlywordedbyrespondentCOMELECinitsComment:
xxxThepetitionforexclusionisanecessarycomponenttoregistrationsinceitisasafetymechanism
thatgivesameasureofprotectionagainstflyingvoters,nonqualifiedregistrants,andthelike.The
prohibitiveperiod,ontheotherhandservesthepurposeofsecuringthevoterssubstantiverighttobe
includedinthelistofvoters.
Inrealworldterms,thismeansthatifaspecialvotersregistrationisconducted,thentheprohibitive
periodforfilingpetitionsforexclusionmustlikewisebeadjustedtoalaterdate.Ifwedonot,thenno
onecanchallengetheVoterslistsincewewouldalreadybewellintothe100dayprohibitiveperiod.
Asidefrombeingaflagrantbreachoftheprinciplesofdueprocess,thiswouldopentheregistration
processtoabuseandseriouslycompromisetheintegrityofthevoterslist,andconsequently,thatofthe
entireelection.
xxxItmustberememberedthattheperiodserveavitalroleinprotectingtheintegrityoftheregistration
process.Withouttheprohibitiveperiods,theCOMELECwouldbedeprivedofanytimetoevaluatethe
evidenceontheapplication.Wewouldbeobligedtosimplytakethematfacevalue.Ifwecompromise
onthesesafetynets,wemayverywellendupwithavoterslistfullofflyingvoters,overflowingwith
unqualifiedregistrants,populatedwithshadowsandghostsxxx.
xxxTheshortcutsthatwillhavetobeadoptedinordertofittheentireprocessofregistrationwithinthe
last60dayswillgiverisetohaphazardlistofvoters,someofwhommightnotevenbequalifiedtovote.
xxxtheverypossibilitythatweshallbeconductingelectionsonthebasisofaninaccuratelistisenough
tocastacloudofdoubtovertheresultsofthepolls.Ifthathappens,theunforgivingpublicwilldisown
theresultsoftheelections,regardlessofwhowins,andregardlessofhowmanycourtsvalidateourown
results.xxx
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[7]andadoptedverbatiminSection28ofRepublicActNo.8436,[8]thus:
SEC.28.DesignationofotherDatesforCertainPreelectionActsIfitshouldnolongerbepossibleto
observetheperiodsanddatesprescribedbylawforcertainpreelectionacts,theCommissionshallfix
otherperiodsanddatesinordertoensureaccomplishmentsoftheactivitiessovotersshallnotbe
deprivedoftheirrighttosuffrage.
On this matter, the act of registration is concededly, by its very nature, a preelection act. Under
Section3(a)ofR.A.8189,registration,asaprocess,hasitsownspecificdefinition,precisemeaningand
coverage,thus:
a)Registrationreferstotheactofaccomplishingandfilingofaswornapplicationforregistrationbya
qualifiedvoterbeforetheelectionofficerofthecityormunicipalitywhereinheresidesandincludingthe
sameinthebookofregisteredvotersuponapprovalbytheElectionRegistrationBoard
At this point, it bears emphasis that the provisions of Section 29 of R.A. 8436 invoked by herein
petitioners and Section 8 of R.A. 8189 volunteered by respondent COMELEC, far from contradicting
eachother,actuallysharesomecommonground.Trueenough,bothprovisions,althoughatfirstglance
mayseemtobeatwarinrelationtotheother,areinamorecircumspectperusal,necessarilycapableof
beingharmonizedandreconciled.
Rudimentaryistheprincipleinlegalhermeneuticsthatchangesmadebythelegislatureintheform
ofamendmentstoastatuteshouldbegiveneffect,togetherwithotherpartsoftheamendedact.Itisnot
tobepresumedthatthelegislature,inmakingsuchchanges,wasindulginginmeresemanticexercise.
Theremustbesomepurposeinmakingthem,whichshouldbeascertainedandgiveneffect.[9]
Similarly,everynewstatuteshouldbeconstruedinconnectionwiththosealreadyexistinginrelation
tothesamesubjectmatterandallshouldbemadetoharmonizeandstandtogether,iftheycanbedone
by any fair and reasonable interpretation.[10] 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 toreconcile them insteadofdeclaringoutright theinvalidity of oneagainsttheother.
Courtsshouldharmonizethem,ifthisispossible,becausetheyareequallythehandiworkofthesame
legislature.[11]
Inlightoftheforegoingdoctrine,weholdthatSection8ofR.A.8189appliesinthepresentcase,for
the purpose of upholding the assailed COMELEC Resolution and denying the instant petitions,
consideringthattheaforesaidlawexplicitlyprovidesthatnoregistrationshallbeconductedduringthe
periodstartingonehundredtwenty(120)daysbeforearegularelection.
Corollarily,itisspeciousforhereinpetitionerstoarguethatrespondentCOMELECmayvalidlyand
legallyconductatwodayspecialregistration,throughtheexpedientoftheletterofSection28ofR.A.
8436.Tothisend,theprovisionsofSection28,R.A.8436wouldcomeintoplayincaseswherethepre
election acts are susceptible of performance within the available period prior to election day. In more
categoricallanguage,Section28ofR.A.8436is,toourmind,anchoredonthesoundpremisethatthese
certain preelection acts are still capable of being reasonably performed visavis the remaining period
beforethedateofelectionandtheconductofotherrelatedpreelectionactivitiesrequiredunderthelaw.
InitsComment,respondentCOMELECwhichistheconstitutionalbodytaskedbynolessthanthe
fundamentalcharter(Sec.2,par.3,ArticleIXCoftheConstitution)todecide,exceptthoseinvolving
the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including registration of voterspainstakingly and
thoroughlyemphasizedtheoperationalimpossibility[12]ofconductingaspecialregistration,whichinits
onlanguage,cannolongerbeaccomplishedwithinthetimeleftto(us)theCommission.[13]
Hence:
xxxxxxxxx.
19)Inanycase,evenwithoutthelegalobstacles,thelast60dayswillnotbeawalkintheparkforthe
Comelec.AllowustooutlinewhattheCommissionhasyettodo,andthetimetodoitin:
20)FirstwehavetocompletetheProjectofPrecinctsbythe19thofMarch.TheProjectsofPrecincts
Indicatethetotalnumberofestablishedprecinctsandthenumberofregisteredvotersperprecincts
inacityormunicipality.WithoutthefinalProjectofPrecincts,wecannotevendeterminetheproper
allocation of official ballots, election returns and other election forms and paraphernalia. More
succinctly said, without the Project of Precincts, we wont know how many forms to print and so
wereliabletocomeupshort.
21)More Importantly, without a completed Projectof Precincts, it will be impossible to complete the
restofthetasksthatmustbeaccomplishedpriortotheelections.
22)Second, the Board of Elections Inspectors must be constituted on or before the 4th of March. In
addition,thelistofthemembersoftheBEIincludingtheprecinctwheretheyareassignedandthe
barangay where that precinct is located must be furnished by the Election Officer to all the
candidatesandpoliticalcandidatesnotlaterthanthe26thofMarch.
23)Third, the Book of Voters, which contains the approved Voter Registration Records of registered
votersinparticularprecinct,mustbeinspected,verified,andsealedbeginningMarch30,untilApril
15.
24)Fourth,theComputerizedVotersListmustbefinalizedandprintedoutofuseonelectiondayand
finally
25)Fifth, the preparation, bidding, printing, and distribution of the Voters Information Sheet must be
completedonorbeforeApril15.
26)With this rigorous schedule of preelection 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 120day prohibitive period.After all, preparing
foranelectionisnoeasytask.
27)Toholdspecialregistrationsnowwould,asidefrombeingIllegal,whittlethatapproximately30day
marginawaytonothing.
28)Whenwesayregistrationofvoters,wedonotcontrarytopopularopinionreferonlytotheactof
going to the Election Officer and writing our names down. Registration is, In fact, a long process
thattakesaboutthreeweekstocompletenotevencountinghowlongitwouldtaketoprepareforthe
registrationinthefirstplace.
29)Inordertoconcretize,theseniorStaffoftheComelec,theotherCommissioners,preparedatime
table in order to see exactly how the superimposition of special registration would affect the on
goingpreparationfortheMay14elections.
30)WeassumedforthesakeofargumentthatweweretoholdthespecialregistrationonApril16and
17.Thesearenotarbitrarynumbers,bythewayittakesinaccountthefactthatweonlyhaveabout
800,000 Voters Registration Forms available, as against an estimated 4.5 million potential
registrants,anditwouldtakeabout14daysIfweweretodeclarespecialregistrationstodaytoprint
up the difference and to verify these accountable forms.After printing and verification, the forms
wouldhavetobepackedandshippedroughlytakingupafurthertwoandahalfweeks.Onlythen
canwegetonwithregistration.
31)The first step in registration is, of course, filling the application for registration with the Election
Officer.Theapplication,accordingtoSection17ofR.A.8189,isthensetforhearing,withnoticeof
thathearingbeingpostedinthecityormunicipalbulletinboardforatleastoneweekprior.Thus,if
we held registrations on the 16thand 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
ElectionRegistrationBoardcanbeconvenedforhearingwouldbetheMay1stand2nd.
32)Assumingandthisisabigassumptionthattherearenitchallengestotheapplicantsrighttoregister,
theElectionregistrationBoardcanimmediatelyruleontheApplicantsregistration,andpostnotices
ofitsactionbythe2nduntilthe7thofMay.Bythe10th,copiesofthenoticeoftheactiontakenby
the Board will have already been furnished to the applicants and the heads of registered political
parties.
33)OnlyatthispointcanourElectionOfficersonceagainfocusonthebusinessofgettingreadyforthe
elections.Oncetheresultsofthespecialregistrationarefinalized,theycanbeencodedandanew
ComputerizedVotersListgeneratedattheearliest,byMay11,afterwhichthenewCVLwouldbe
posted.Incidentally,itweweretofollowtheletterofthelawstrictly,aMay11postingdateforthe
newCVLwouldbeimpropersincetheR.A.8189providesthattheCVLbepostedatleast90days
beforetheelection.
34)Assumingoptimisticallythatwecanthenfinishtheinspection,verification,andsealingoftheBook
if Voters by May 15, we will already have overshot the May 14, election date, and still not have
finishedourelectionpreparations.
35)Afterthispoint,wecouldhavetopreparetheallocationofOfficialBallots,ElectionReturns,and
otherNonAccountableFormsandSuppliestobeusedforthenewregistrants.Oncetheallocationis
ready, the contracts would be awarded, the various forms printed, delivered, verified, and finally
shippedouttothedifferentmunicipalities.Alltold,thisprocesswouldtakeapproximately26days,
fromthe15thofMayuntilJune10.
36)Onlythencanwetrulysaythatwearereadytoholdtheelections.
xxxxxxxxx.[14]
Itisanaccepteddoctrineinadministrativelawthatthedeterminationofadministrativeagencyasto
theoperation,implementationandapplicationofalawwouldbeaccordedgreatweightconsideringthat
thesespecializedgovernmentbodiesare,bytheirnatureandfunctions,inthebestpositiontoknowwhat
theycanpossiblydoornotdo,underprevailingcircumstances.
Beyondthis,itislikewisewellsettledthatthelawdoesnotrequirethattheimpossiblebedone.[15]
The law obliges no one to perform an impossibility, expressed in the maxim, nemo tenetur ad
impossible.[16] In other words, there is no obligation to do an impossible thing. Impossibilium nulla
obligatoest.Hence,astatutemaynotbesoconstruedastorequirecompliancewithwhatitprescribes
cannot,atthetime,belegally,coincidentally[17],itmustbepresumedthatthelegislaturedidnotatall
intend an interpretation or application of a law which is far removed from the realm of the possible.
Truly,intheinterpretationofstatutes,theinterpretationtobegivenmustbesuchthatitisinaccordance
withlogic,commonsense,reasonablenessandpracticality.Thus,weareoftheconsideredviewthatthe
standbypoweroftherespondentCOMELECunderSection28ofR.A.8436,presupposesthepossibility
ofitsbeingexercisedoravailedof,andnototherwise.
Further, petitioners bare allegation that they were disenfranchised when respondent COMELEC
peggedtheregistrationdeadlineonDecember27,2000insteadofJanuary13,2001thedaybeforethe
period before the May 14, 2001 regular elections commences is, to our mind, not sufficient. On this
matter,thereisnoallegationinthetwoconsolidatedpetitionsandtherecordsarebereftofanyshowing
thatanyoneofhereinpetitionershasfiledanapplicationtoberegisteredasavoterwhichwasdeniedby
theCOMELECnorfiledacomplaintbeforetherespondentCOMELECallegingthatheorsheproceeded
totheOfficeoftheElectionOfficertoregisterbetweentheperiodstartingfromDecember28,2000to
January13,2001,andthatheorshewasdisallowedorbarredbyrespondentCOMELECfromfilinghis
applicationforregistration.WhileitmaybetruethatrespondentCOMELECsettheregistrationdeadline
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[18] that they
failed to register, for whatever reason, within the period of registration and came to this Court and
invokeditsprotectivemantlenotrealizing,sotospeak,thespeckintheireyes.Impurisminibusnemo
accedatcuriam.Letnoonecometocourtwithuncleanhands.
Inasimilarvein,wellentrenchedistheruleinourjurisdictionthatthelawaidsthevigilantandnot
thosewhoslumberontheirrights.Vigilantissednondormientibusjurainresubveniunt.
Applyingtheforegoing,thiscourtisofthefirmviewthatrespondentCOMELECdidnotcommitan
abuseofdiscretion,muchlessbeadjudgedtohavecommittedthesameinsomepatent,whimsicaland
arbitrarymanner,inissuingResolutionNo.3584which,inrespondentsownterms,resolvedtodenythe
requesttoconductatwodayadditionalregistrationofnewvotersonFebruary17and18,2001.
Onthisparticularmatter,graveabuseofdiscretionimpliesacapriciousandwhimsicalexerciseof
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
amounttoanevasionofpositivedutyenjoinedortoactatallincontemplationoflaws.[19]
Underthesecircumstances,werulethattheCOMELEC,indenyingtherequestofpetitionerstohold
aspecialregistration,actedwithintheboundsandconfinesoftheapplicablelawonthematterSection
8 of RA 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,[20]interalia,questionsrelatingtotheregistrationofvotersevidently,respondentCOMELEC
merelyexercisedaprerogativethatchieflypertainstoitandonewhichsquarelyfallswithintheproper
sphereofitsconstitutionallymandatedpowers.Hence,whateveractionrespondenttakesintheexercise
of its wide latitude of discretion, specifically on matters involving voters registration, pertains to the
wisdomratherthanthelegalityoftheact.Accordingly,intheabsenceofclearshowingofgraveabuseof
power of 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
accordedbynolessthanthefundamentallawwithindependence.
Astopetitionersprayerfortheissuanceofthewritofmandamus,weholdthatthisCourtcannot,in
viewoftheverynatureofsuchextraordinarywrit,issuethesamewithouttransgressingthetimehonored
principlesinthisjurisdiction.
As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies only to compel an officer to perform a
ministerialduty,notadiscretionaryonemandamuswillnotissuetocontroltheexerciseofdiscretionof
apublicofficerwherethelawimposesuponhimthedutytoexercisehisjudgmentinreferencetoany
mannerinwhichheisrequiredtoact,becauseitishisjudgmentthatistobeexercisedandnotthatofthe
court.[21]
Consideringthecircumstanceswherethewritofmandamusliesandthepeculiaritiesofthepresent
case,weareofthefirmbeliefthatpetitionersfailedtoestablish,tothesatisfactionofthisCourt,thatthey
areentitledtotheissuanceofthisextraordinarywritsoastoeffectivelycompelrespondentCOMELEC
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
actualdateofelection,involvestheexerciseofdiscretionandthus,cannotbecontrolledbymandamus.
In Bayan vs. Executive Secretary Zamora and related cases,[22] we enunciated that the Courts
function,assanctionedbyArticleVIII,Section1,ismerely(to)checkwhetherornotthegovernmental
branchoragencyhasgonebeyondtheconstitutionallimitsofitsjurisdiction,notthatiterredorhasa
different view. In the absence of a showing...(of) grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction,thereisnooccasionfortheCourttoexerciseitscorrectivepower...Ithasnopowertolook
intowhatitthinksisapparenterror.[23]
Finally,theCourtlikewisetakesjudicialnoticeofthefactthatthePresidenthasissuedProclamation
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
seekstoamendR.A.8189astothe120dayprohibitiveperiodprovidedforundersaidlaw.Similarly,
SenateBillNo.2276[24]wasfiledbeforetheSenate,withthesameintentiontoamendtheaforesaidlaw
and,ineffect,allowtheconductofspecialregistrationbeforetheMay14,2001GeneralElections.This
Courtviewstheforegoingfactualcircumstancesasaclearintimationonthepartofboththeexecutive
and legislative departments that a legal obstacle indeed stands in the way of the conduct by the
CommissiononElectionsofaspecialregistrationbeforetheMay14,2001GeneralElections.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theinstantpetitionsforcertiorariandmandamusarehereby
DENIED.
SOORDERED.
YnaresSantiago,DeLeon,andSandovalGutierrez,JJ.,concur.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Vitug,Panganiban,Quisumbing,andGonzagaReyes,JJ.,joinedMr.JusticePardo
inhisdissentingopinion.
Bellosillo,Melo,andMendoza,JJ.,concurinthemajorityopinionaswellasintheSeparateOpinion
ofJ.Kapunan.
Puno,J.,onofficialbusinessabroad.
Kapunan,J.,seeconcurringopinion.
Pardo,J.,seedissentingopinion.
[1]G.R.No.147066andG.R.No.147179.
[2] AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A GENERAL REGISTRATION OF VOTERS, ADOPTING A SYSTEM OF

CONTINUING REGISTRATION, PRESCRIBING PROCEDURE THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING THE
APPROPRIATIONOFFUNDSTHEREFOR.
[3]LetterofSenatorRaulRoco.
[4]G.R.No.147066Rollo,p.24.
[5]SeeResolutionNo.3584.
[6]ResolutiondatedMarch13,2001.
[7] AN ACT INTRODUCING ADDITIONAL REFORMS IN THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
[8]ANACTAUTHORIZINGTHECOMELECTOUSEANAUTOMATEDELECTIONSYSTEMINTHEMAY11,1998
NATIONALORLOCALELECTIONSANDINSUBSEQUENTNATIONALANDLOCALELECTORALEXERCISES,
PROVIDINGFUNDSTHEREFORANDFOROTHERPURPOSES.
[9] Agpalo,StatutoryConstruction,pp.265266,FourthEdition,1998TanKimKeevs. Court of Appeals, 7 SCRA 670
(1963)CollectorofInternalRevenue,7SCRA872(1963).
[10]Agpalo,Ibid.,p.271CityofNagavs.Agna,71SCRA176(1976).
[11]Ibid.,p.271Gordonvs.VeridainoII,167SCRA51(1988).
[12]CommentofrespondentCOMELEC,p.14.
[13]Ibid.,p.9.
[14]G.R.No.147179Rollo,pp.98102.
[15]Reyesvs.Republic,104Phil.889(1958).
[16]ProvinceofCebuvs.IntermediateAppellateCourt,147SCRA447(1987).
[17]Agpalo,StatutoryConstruction,pp.157158,FourthEdition,1998.
[18]Paragraphs4and5inG.R.No.147066andParagraph9inG.R.No.147179.
[19] Cuisonvs.CourtofAppeals,289SCRA159(1998)Jardinevs.NLRC,G.R.No.119268,February23,2000citing
Arroyovs.deVenecia,277SCRA268(1997).
[20]ArticleIXC,Section2.
[21]SyHavs.Gulang7SCRA797[1963]Apruebavs.Ganzon,18SCRA8[1966].
[22]G.R.No.138570,promulgatedonOctober10,2000.
[23]Covs.ElectoralTribunaloftheHouseofRepresentative,199SCRA692(1991)Llamasvs.Orbos,202SCRA849,857
(1991)Lansangvs.Garcia,42SCRA480481(1971).
[24] An Act Providing for the Conduct of Special Registration of Voters before the May 14, 2001, National and Local
Elections.

Akbayan Vs Comelec

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Akbayan Vs Comelec

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

9/3/2015 AkbayanvsComelec:147066:March26,2001:J.

MICHELLE D. BETITO, petitioner, vs. CHAIRMAN ALFREDO BENIPAYO,

[2] AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A GENERAL REGISTRATION OF VOTERS, ADOPTING A SYSTEM OF

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen