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,
G.R. No. 147066
March 26, 2001
-versus-
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
MICHELLE D. BETITO, Petitioner,
G.R. No. 147179
March 26, 2001
-versus-
CHAIRMAN ALFREDO
BENIPAYO,
COMMISSIONERS MEHOL SADAIN,
RUFINO JAVIER,
LUZVIMINDA
TANCANGCO, RALPH LANTION,
FLORENTINO TUASON and
RESURRECCION
BORRA, all of the
Commission on Election
(COMELEC),
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
BUENA, J.:
At
the helm of controversy in the
instant consolidated petitions
[1]
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.
[2]
Acting
on the clamor of the students
and civic leaders, Senator Raul Roco, Chairman of 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.
[3]
Commissioners 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.cralaw 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 over 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 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
safeguards
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 field 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 “4. Meetings with student groups to ensure orderly and honest conduct of the registration and drum up interest to register among the new voters. “The rationale for the
additional
two-day registration is the renewed 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 view 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 the 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.” [4] 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 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 one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular
election
and that the Commission has no more time left to accomplish all
pre-election
activities.
[5]
On
February 8, 2001, the COMELEC
issued Resolution
No. 3584, the decretal portion of which reads:
“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 special registration day under the continuing registration provision under the Election Code.cralaw 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. [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 time “in order to accommodate that disenfranchised 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 four (4) 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 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.
To be sure, the right of suffrage ardently invoked by herein petitioners, is not at all absolute. Needless 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 Constitution 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 ELECTIONS. 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 the 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 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 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, of the 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 xxx.”
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 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 It must be remembered that the period serves a vital role in protecting the integrity of the registration process. 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 voter’s list full of flying voters, overflowing with unqualified registrants, populated with shadows and ghosts x x x. “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
[7]
and adopted verbatim in
Section 28 of Republic
Act No. 8436,
[
8]
thus:
“SEC. 28. Designation of
Other
Dates for Certain Pre-election Acts - Ifit should no
longer
bepossible 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 accomplishment of the activities so voters shall not
be deprived of their right to suffrage.”
Onthis 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 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 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.
Rudimentary
is the principle in
legal hermeneutics that changes made by the legislature in the form of
amendments to a statute should be given effect, together with other
parts
of the amended 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.
[9]
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. [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 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. [11] 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.cralaw 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 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.cralaw In its Comment, respondent COMELEC - which 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 voters - painstakingly and thoroughly emphasized the “operational impossibility” [12] of conducting a special registration, which in its own language, “can no longer be accomplished within the time left to (us) the Commission.” [13] Hence: “x x x.
“(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:
“(20) First we have to
complete
the Project of Precincts by the 19th of March. The Project of Precincts
indicate the total number of established precincts and the number of
registered
voters per precinct 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 that precinct is located - must be furnished by the Election Officer to all the candidates and political candidates not later than the 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 for 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 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 into 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 registration 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 no 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 registered political parties. “(33) Only at this point can our Election Officers once again 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 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 should 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 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. “x x x.”
[14]
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.
Beyond
this, it is likewise well-settled
that the law does not require that the impossible be done.
[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 obligato est. Hence, a statute may not be so construed as to
require compliance with what it prescribes cannot, at the time, be
legally
done.
[17]
Coincidentally,
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, in 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 the “stand-by power”
of
the respondent COMELEC under Section 28 of R.A.
8436, presupposes the possibility of its being exercised or availed
of, and not otherwise.
Further, petitioners’ bare allegation that they were disenfranchised when respondent COMELEC pegged the registration deadline on December 27, 2000 instead of January 13, 2001 – the day before the 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 [18] 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.cralaw 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. Applying the foregoing, this Court is of the firm view that respondent COMELEC did not commit an abuse of 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. [19] 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, [20] 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 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 accorded by no less than the fundamental law with independence.cralaw As to 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.cralaw 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. [21] 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.cralaw In Bayan vs. Executive Secretary Zamora and related cases, [22] wW 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 constitutional 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.” [23] 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 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. Similarly, Senate Bill No. 2276 [24] 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 the May 14, 2001 General Elections.cralaw WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petitions for certiorari and mandamus are hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur. Davide,
Jr., C.J., Vitug,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., joined
Mr.
Justice Pardo in his dissenting opinion.
Bellosillo,
Melo, and
Mendoza, JJ., concur in the majority opinion as well as
in
the Separate Opinion of J. Kapunan.
Puno,
J., on official
business abroad.
Kapunan,
J., see
concurring opinion.
Pardo,
J., see dissenting
opinion.
[1]
G.R.
No. 147066 and G.R. No. 147179.
[3]
Letter
of Senator Raul Roco.
[4]
G.R.
No. 147066 Rollo, p. 24.
[6]
Resolution
dated March 13, 2001.
[8]
An
Act Authorizing the Comelec to Use an Automated Election System in the
May 11, 1998 National or Local Elections and in Subsequent National and
Local Electoral Exercises, Providing Funds Therefor and for Other
Purposes.
[9]
Agpalo,
Statutory Construction, pp. 265-266, Fourth Edition, 1998; Tan Kim Kee
vs. Court of Appeals, 7 SCRA 670 (1963); Collector of Internal
Revenue,
7 SCRA 872 (1963).
[10]
Agpalo,
Ibid., p. 271; City of Naga vs. Agna, 71 SCRA 176 (1976).
[11]
Ibid.,
p. 271; Gordon vs. Veridaino II, 167 SCRA 51 (1988).
[12]
Comment
of respondent COMELEC, p. 14.
[13]
Ibid.,
p. 9.
[14]
G.R.
No. 147179 Rollo, pp. 98-102.
[15]
Reyes
vs. Republic, 104 Phil. 889 (1958).
[16]
Province
of Cebu vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 147 SCRA 447 (1987).
[17]
Agpalo,
Statutory Construction, pp. 157-158, Fourth Edition, 1998.
[18]
Paragraphs
4 and 5 in G.R. No. 147066 and Paragraph 9 in G.R. No. 147179.
[19]
Cuison
vs. Court of Appeals, 289 SCRA 159 (1998); Jardine vs. NLRC, G.R. No.
119268,
February 23, 2000 citing Arroyo vs. de Venecia, 277 SCRA 268 (1997).
[20]
Article
IX-C, Section 2.
[21]
Sy
Ha vs. Gulang 7 SCRA 797 [1963]; Aprueba vs. Ganzon, 18 SCRA 8 [1966].
[22]
G.R.
No. 138570, promulgated on October 10, 2000.
[23]
Co
vs. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representative, 199 SCRA 692
(1991);
Llamas vs. Orbos, 202 SCRA 849, 857 (1991); Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA
480-481 (1971).
[24]
An
Act Providing for the Conduct of Special Registration of Voters before
the May 14, 2001, National and Local Elections.
|
|
|