Case Title

Docket Number
Date
Digest by:

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. 147066
March 26, 2001
Ursulaine Grace C. Feliciano

Legal Maxim: Impossibilium nulla obligato est

Meaning of the Maxim: Nobody has any obligation to the impossible.
Relevant Facts of the Case
1. 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, as around four million youth failed to register
on or before the deadline set by the COMELEC under Republic Act No. 8189.
2. A public hearing was held, leading to the formulation of Memorandum No. 2001-027 on the Report on the Request for a Two-day
Additional Registration of New Voters Only, which states that 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.
3. COMELEC issued Resolution No. 3584, stating its denial of the request to conduct a two-day additional registration of new voters,
and construed its Resolution as having taken effect. It invoked Section 8 of Republic Act 8189 which provides that no registration
shall be conducted 120 days before the regular election.
4. AKBAYAN-Youth contends that under Section 28 of Republic Act 8436, the COMELEC in the exercise of its residual and stand-by
powers, can reset the periods of pre- election acts including voters registration if the original period is not observed, and pushes to
declare Section 8 of R. A. 8189 unconstitutional insofar as said provision effectively causes the disenfranchisement of petitioners
and others similarly situated.
5. 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
Ambiguity Needing Statutory Construction/Interpretation:
1. Whether or not this Court can compel respondent COMELEC 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
Held:
1. NO. The right of suffrage is not absolute. It is regulated by measures like voters registration which is not a mere statutory
requirement. 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. The 100-day prohibitive 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. The period serves a vital role in protecting the integrity of the registration process.
2. 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. 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.

3. 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 obligato est. Hence, a statute may not be so construed as to require
compliance with what it prescribes cannot, at the time, be legally, 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. 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.
4. 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."
5. Instant petitions for certiorari and mandamus are hereby DENIED