Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

Manila

JAMES MARK TERRY L. RIDON,

VENCER MARI CRISOSTOMO,
VANESSA FAYE BOLIBOL,
ISABELLE THERESE BAGUISI,
CLEVE KEVIN ROBERT SC-G.R. SP. NO.
ARGUELLES, MARJOHARA (Petition for Certiorari and
TUCAY, leaders and members of Mandamus
Kabataan Partylist. with Application for Preliminary
Petitioners, Mandatory Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order)

- versus -

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------x

URGENT PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS

WITH APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY MANDATORY
INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Petitioners, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court,

respectfully state that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The right of suffrage lies at the heart of our constitutional democracy. The
right of every Filipino to choose the leaders who will lead the country and
participate, to the fullest extent possible, in every national and local election is so
zealously guarded by the fundamental law that it devoted an entire article solely
therefor:

ARTICLE V
SUFFRAGE
 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 election. No literacy, property or
other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the
exercise of suffrage.

SECTION 2. The Congress shall provide a system of

securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a
system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.

The Congress shall also design a procedure for the

disabled and the illiterates to vote without the assistance of
other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote
under existing laws and such rules as the Commission on
Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the
ballot.

Preserving the sanctity of the right of suffrage ensures that the State
derives its power from the consent of the governed. The paramount importance
of this right is also a function of the State policy of people empowerment
articulated in the constitutional declaration that sovereignty resides in the people
and all government authority emanates from them, bolstered by the recognition
of the vital role of the youth in nation-building and directive to the State to
encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. This Petition is about the exercise of a basic right upon which the
fabric of any democracy is founded – the right of suffrage. Petitioners seek the

1
Palatino v. COMELEC, G.R. No.189868, December 15, 2009.

2
nullification of respondent Commission on Elections Resolution Nos. 9149 and
9542 fixing the deadline of application of registration of voters on 31 October
2012.2

2. This deadline is more than two (2) months earlier than is prescribed
by Republic Act No. 8189 or The Voters Registration Act of 1996.

3. The prayer for the declaration of respondent’s Resolution Nos.

9149 and 9542 as null and void is anchored on two (2) crucial grounds, first, it is
unconstitutional as it is a manifest usurpation of the legislative power of
Congress, and second, it is an indubitable violation of the system of continuing
registration of voters under The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 stating in clear
and categorical terms that the personal filing of application of registration of
voters shall be conducted daily but prohibited only during one hundred twenty
(120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a special
election, and the assailed Resolution causes the disenfranchisement of millions
of first-time youth registrants and voters who cannot be accommodated by
respondent as of the October 31, 2102 deadline for purposes of the May 13,
2013 elections.

4. The start of the 120-day prohibitive period before the May 13, 2013
elections is on January 13, 2013. Thus, the deadline of application of registration
of voters should be on January 12, 2013, not on October 31, 2012, which is at
least seventy (70) days earlier than is prescribed by the statute.

5. Respondent has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to

lack or excess of jurisdiction by the issuance and implementation of Resolution
Nos. 9194 and 954.

6. First, it has actually amended the provision on the system of

continuing registration of voters under Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act
of 1996, in violation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the issuance and
implementation of the assailed Resolution constitute a manifest usurpation of the
legislative power of Congress.

2
Annexes A-1 and A-2.

3
 7. Second, the assailed Resolution Nos. 9149 and 9542 are patent
violations of the provision on the system of continuing registration of voters under
Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996, thus:

Section 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 supplied)

8. This Petition is a special civil action for Certiorari and Mandamus

brought under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Under the circumstances obtaining
in this case, herein Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law which will promptly and immediately relieve herein
Petitioners from the injurious effects of the unconstitutional acts of the
respondent in the issuance and implementation of the assailed Resolution.

9. Petitioners invoke this case as an exception to the rule on hierarchy

of courts. In the case of La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association, Inc., et al. v. Victor
O. Ramos, et al. (G.R. No. 127882, January 27, 2004), the Supreme Court
elucidated the following doctrine as regards the procedural question on the rule
on hierarchy of courts, thus:

Xxx

This Court has consistently enjoined litigants to respect the

hierarchy of courts. Although this Court has concurrent
jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of
Appeals to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such
concurrence does not give a party unrestrained freedom of
choice of court forum. The resort to this Court’s primary
jurisdiction to issue said writs shall be allowed only
where the redress desired cannot be obtained in the

4
 appropriate courts or where exceptional and
compelling circumstances justify such invocation.
(Emphasis supplied)

10. In the instant Petition, the serious and grave constitutional

questions involved in this case and the repercussions of the unconstitutional acts
of the respondent on the separation of powers between the executive and
legislative branches of government and on the statute which provides for a
system of continuing registration of voters to prevent the disenfranchisement of
millions of voters constitute exceptional and compelling circumstances to justify
resort to this Honorable Court’s jurisdiction in the first instance.

11. At the core of the issues raised in the instant Petition is a precious
and cherished right imbued with public interest – the right of suffrage.

12. It should be noted further that the issue of the respondent’s illegal
premature setting of the election registration deadline has already been resolved
by the Court in the Palatino v. COMELEC, with regard the 2010 national
elections.

13. Despite the clear mandate of the statute and affirmation by

jurisprudence, the respondent shall be repeating the same error of prematurely
setting the election registration deadline for the 2013 national elections.

14. Petitioners James Mark Terry L. Ridon, Vencer Mari Crisostomo,

Vanessa Faye Bolibol, Isabelle Therese Baguisi, Cleve Kevin Robert Arguelles,
Marjohara Tucay are suing in their capacities as concerned citizens, as the
issues raised hereunder are of transcendental importance which must be settled
early given the far-reaching implications of the unconstitutional acts of
respondent on the separation of powers between the executive and legislative
branches of government and on the citizens’ fundamental right of suffrage.

15. Hence, the Petitioners have locus standi as concerned citizen.

16. Petitioners thus humbly pray that the Honorable Court issue a
judgment:

5
 a. Declaring the Resolution Nos. 9149 and 9542 as
unconstitutional and void;
b. Commanding the respondent to extend the system of
continuing registration of voters until January 12, 2013
c. Commanding the respondent, as a continuing
constitutional body, to strictly comply with the statutory
period in the system of continuing registration of voters from
hereinafter.

17. The Petitioners are likewise praying for the issuance of a Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction due to the seriousness and extreme urgency of the matters
involved, as well as the grave and irreparable injuries that are sustained and will
continue to be sustained by Petitioners due to the unconstitutionality of
Resolution Nos. 9149 and 9542, its patent violation of Section 8 of The Voter’s
Registration Act of 1996, and the imminent lapse of the October 31, 2012
deadline in a few days, thus:

a. The Petitioners hereby replead by reference the

foregoing allegations as well as the allegations hereunder,
as part of this application;
b. Grave and irreparable injury shall result to Petitioners as
concerned citizens, and to millions of first-time youth
registrants and voters who cannot be accommodated by
respondent as of October 31, 2012 for purposes of the May
13, 2012 elections thereby causing the disenfranchisement
of millions of new registrants and voters;
c. Grave and irreparable injury shall result to Petitioners
and millions of first-time youth registrants and voters who
will sustain direct injury as they cannot be accommodated
by respondent as of October 31, 2012 for purposes of the
May 13, 2012 elections;
d. Petitioners and millions of first-time youth registrants and
voters are entitled to the relief demanded in the instant
Petition, and part of such relief consists in requiring from
respondent the extension of the deadline of application of
registration of voters during the pendency of the present

6
 Petition, otherwise the instant Petition may be rendered
ineffectual;
e. The non-extension of deadline of application of
registration of voters during the pendency of the present
Petition would work injustice to Petitioners and millions of
first-time youth registrants and voters who cannot be
accommodated by respondent as of October 31, 2012 for
purposes of the May 13, 2013 elections, as it would cause
the disenfranchisement of millions of first-time registrants
and voters;
f. That respondent is very adamant in its refusal to extend
the filing of application of registration of voters beyond the
October 31, 2012 deadline, in violation of the rights of
Petitioners and of millions of first-time youth registrants and
voters who cannot be accommodated by respondent as of
October 31, 2012 for purposes of the May 13, 2013
elections. Thus, there is a necessity for a preliminary
mandatory injunction in order not to render the judgment
ineffectual; and
g. There is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to
address these pervasive injuries to the Petitioners and to
the millions of first-time youth registrants and voters who
cannot be accommodated by respondent as of October 31,
2012 for purposes of the May 13, 2013 elections, before
this Petition could be heard by the Honorable Court.

18. Hence, based on the foregoing allegations, Petitioners are entitled to

the issuance of a Preliminary Mandatory Injunction to require respondent to
extend the system of continuing registration of voters until January 12, 2013.

THE PARTIES

19. Petitioners James Mark Terry L. Ridon, Vencer Mari Crisostomo,

Vanessa Faye Bolibol, Isabelle Therese Baguisi, Cleve Kevin Robert Arguelles,
Marjohara Tucay are leaders and members of Kabataan Partylist, and the
various national and prestigious youth and student organizations: ANAKBAYAN,

7
the National Union of Students of the Philippines, the College Editors Guild of the
Philippines, the Office of the UP Student Regent, and the Philippine Collegian.
Their office address is at 89 K-7 St., Kamias, Quezon City.

20. The Petitioners may be served with summons and other legal
processes through their counsel of record, Atty. James Mark Terry L. Ridon, at
89 K-7 St. Kamias, Quezon City.

21. Respondent COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS is the administrative

body, which has issued and implemented Resolution Nos. 9149 and 9542.
Respondent’s office address is Palacio Del Gobernador Building, Intramuros,
Manila where it may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other
court processes.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

22. On 11 February 2011 and 25 October 2012, respondent Commission

on Elections (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”) promulgated Resolution
Nos. 91493 and 95424, which set the deadline of the filing of application of
registration of voters on 31 October 2012.

23. The regular election in 2012 shall be conducted on May 13, 2013.

24. In 1996, the Philippine Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8189 or
The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 which provided for a system of continuing
registration of voters that shall be conducted daily but no registration shall be
conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a
regular election.

3
COMELEC Resolution No. 9149, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE
RESUMPTION OF THE SYSTEM OF CONTINUING REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
AND VALIDATION OF REGISTRATION RECORDS IN THE NON-ARMM AREAS,
11 February 2011.
4
COMELEC Resolution No. 9542, IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING GUIDELINES
FOR THE CONDUCT OF REGISTRATION OF VOTERS AND VALIDATION OF
REGISTRATION RECORDS IN THE NON-ARMM AREAS ON THE LAST DAY,
OCTOBER 31,2012, 25 October 2012.

8
 25. The start of the 120-day prohibitive period for the 2013 national
elections is on January 13, 2013 and until May 12, 2013. Thus, the deadline for
the filing of application of registration of voters should be on January 12, 2013,
not October 31, 2012.

26. For purposes of the May 13, 2013 elections, the projected voting
population for the age group 18-22, those who are 18-22 years of age on May 13,
2013, is no more than 9,694,781, if the National Statistics Office (NSO) data on
the 2000 Census of Population is used as the baseline data.

27. Those who are 18 or 19 years of age at the time of the May 13, 2013
elections are necessarily first time registrants and voters in the May 13, 2013
elections.

28. Those who are only 17 years of age in 2010, and thereby ineligible to
register and vote for the May 2010 elections, shall turn 20 years of age in 2013
and are therefore first-time registrants and voters in the May 13, 2013 elections.
Those who are only 17 years of age at the time of the May 2010 elections, and
thereby ineligible to register and vote for the May 2010 elections, but shall turn 18
in 2010 but after the May 2010 elections shall turn 21 years of age in 2013, and
are therefore first-time registrants and voters in the May 13, 2013 elections.

29. However, petitioners have not knowledge that a public report on the
status of registration of first-time voter registrants has been done by the
COMELEC.

30. Nonetheless, the conditions prevailing with respect to the registration

for the 2010 elections is telling as to the transcendental need to command the
COMELEC to comply with the statutory period for continuing registration, as
previously raised by the petitioners in Palatino v. Comelec.

a. As of the end of August 2009, two (2) months before the

October 31, 2009 deadline, respondent was able to process
only 2,653,594 first-time registrants and voters for purposes
of the May 10, 2010 elections, according to the data
released by respondent and published by the media.

9
 b. According to media releases issued by respondent, the
number of processed first-time registrants and voters for
purposes of the May 10, 2010 elections may reach around
3 million or 3.1 million at the end of the October 31, 2009
deadline set by respondent.
c. The said figure – 3 million or 3.1 million – is almost one
(1) million short of respondent’s own estimate of four (4)
million first-time registrants and voters, and several millions
short of the NSO’s foregoing projected voting population
and estimated registered voters for purposes of the May 10,
2010 elections.

31. With the high volume of first-time registrants and voters expected for
the May 13, 2013 elections, the October 31, 2013 deadline set by respondent for
the filing of application of registration of voters provides is utterly insufficient to
accommodate first-time youth registrants and voters highly eager to participate in
the May 13, 2013 elections.

32. Similar to Resolution No. 8585 invalidated by the COMELEC in

Palatino v. COMELEC, the assailed Resolution Nos. 9194 and 9542 have
provided a deadline of the filing of application of registration of voters way earlier
and different than is prescribed under The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996,
thereby actually amending the statute’s provision on the system of continuing
registration of voters. Thus, respondent has usurped the legislative power of
Congress by amending The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996.

33. Thus, Resolution Nos. 9194 and 9542 have effectively deprived
millions of the voting population at least seventy (70) days of opportunity to
register provided to them by The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996, thereby
causing their disenfranchisement come May 13, 2013 elections.

34. Petitioner Ridon, as the National President and General Counsel of

Kabataan Partylist, on 24 October 2012, sent a formal letter to COMELEC
Chairperson Sixto Brilliantes Jr., requesting the COMELEC to extend the
registration of voters consistent with the statutory mandate.

10
 35. This went unheeded and the COMELEC appears keen on proceeding
with implementing its 31 October 2012 deadline.

GROUNDS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION

I. COMELEC RESOLUTION NOS. 9194 AND 9542 ARE

UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS THE SAME AMENDED SECTION 8
OF THE VOTER’S REGISTRATION ACT OF 1996 ON THE
SYSTEM OF CONTINUING REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IN
USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF
CONGRESS.

II. COMELEC RESOLUTION NOS. 9194 AND 9542 FIXING THE

DEADLINE FOR THE FILING OF APPLICATION OF
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS ON OCTOBER 31, 2012
VIOLATED SECTION 8 OF THE VOTER’S REGISTRATION
ACT OF 1996 PRESCRIBING THAT THE FILING OF
APPLICATION OF REGISTRATION OF VOTERS SHALL BE
CONDUCTED DAILY BUT PROHIBITED DURING ONE
HUNDRED TWENTY (120) DAYS BEFORE A REGULAR
ELECTION, AS OCTOBER 31, 2012 IS AT LEAST SEVENTY
(70) DAYS SHORT OF THAT PRESCRIBED BY SAID
STATUTE, THEREBY CAUSING THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT
OF MILLIONS OF FIRST-TIME REGISTRANTS AND VOTERS
THAT CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED BY RESPONDENT
COMELEC AS OF OCTOBER 31, 2012 FOR PURPOSES OF
THE MAY 10, 2013 ELECTIONS.

DISCUSSION

I. COMELEC RESOLUTION NOS. 9194 AND 9542 ARE

UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS THE SAME AMENDED SECTION 8

11
 OF THE VOTER’S REGISTRATION ACT OF 1996 ON THE
SYSTEM OF CONTINUING REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IN
USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF
CONGRESS.

36. The Resolution Nos. 9194 and 9542 are unconstitutional as the same
amended Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 on the system of
continuing registration of voters in usurpation of the legislative power of
Congress.

37. Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 is clear and

categorical about the system of continuing registration of voters, thus:

Section 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 supplied)

38. The foregoing provision is unequivocal and definite that “the filing of
application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily but no registration
shall be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days
before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election.”

39. The start of the 120-day prohibitive period is on January 13, 2013 and
until May 12, 2013.

40. Thus, the last day for the filing of application of registration should
have been January 12, 2013 instead of October 31, 2013 laid down in the
assailed Resolutions, which is at least seventy (70) days less than that
prescribed by the statute.

12
 41. The prevailing case of Palatino vs. COMELEC provides clear guidance
to the respondent. The clear text of the law thus decrees that voters be allowed
to register daily during regular offices hours, except during the period starting 120
days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election.5

42. By the above provision, Congress itself has determined that the period
of 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election is
enough time for the COMELEC to make ALL the necessary preparations with
respect to the coming elections including: (1) completion of project precincts,
which is necessary for the proper allocation of official ballots, election returns and
other election forms and paraphernalia; (2) constitution of the Board of Election
Inspectors, including the determination of the precincts to which they shall be
assigned; (3) finalizing the Computerized Voters List; (4) supervision of the
campaign period; and (5) preparation, bidding, printing and distribution of Voter’s
Information Sheet. Such determination of Congress is well within the ambit of its
legislative power, which this Court is bound to respect. And the COMELEC’s
rule-making power should be exercised in accordance with the prevailing law.6

43. On the other hand, respondent Comelec has issued the assailed
Resolutions based on its power to issue rules and regulations in the
implementation of election laws. Petitioners do not deny that respondent
Comelec has the power to issue rules and regulations for the filing of the
application of registration of voters.

44. However, the same prevailing case answers the stubborn position of
COMELEC on its power to issue rules and regulations in defiance of statute, to
wit –

Respecting the authority of the COMELEC under RA 6646

and RA 8436 to fix other dates for pre-election acts, the
same is not in conflict with the mandate of continuing voter
registration under RA 8189. This Court’s primary duty is
to harmonize laws rather than consider one as repealed
by the other. The presumption is against inconsistency or
repugnance and, accordingly, against implied repeal. For

5
Palatino v. COMELEC, G.R. No.189868, December 15, 2009.
6
Ibid.

13
 Congress is presumed to know the existing laws on the
subject and not to enact inconsistent or conflicting
statutes.[10]

Both R.A. No. 6646, Section 29 and R.A. No. 8436,

Section 28 grant the COMELEC the power to fix other
periods and dates for pre-election activities only if the
same cannot be reasonably held within the period
provided by law. This grant of power, however, is for the
purpose of enabling the people to exercise the right of
suffrage – the common underlying policy of RA 8189, RA
6646 and RA 8436.
In the present case, the Court finds no ground to hold that
the mandate of continuing voter registration cannot be
reasonably held within the period provided by RA 8189,
Sec. 8 – daily during office hours, except during the period
starting 120 days before the May 10, 2010 regular
elections. There is thus no occasion for the COMELEC to
exercise its power to fix other dates or deadlines therefor.

45. However, it is noteworthy to emphasize at this moment the well-settled

doctrines as regards the power to promulgate implementing rules and regulations
and the nature and character of such implementing rules and regulations, thus:

45.1.It must be stressed that the power of administrative

officials to promulgate rules in the implementation of a
statute is necessarily limited to what is provided for in the
legislative enactment. The implementing rules and
regulations of a law cannot extend the law or expand its
coverage, as the power to amend or repeal a statute is
vested in the legislature. xxx. All that is required is that xxx
the regulation does not contradict but conforms with the
standards prescribed by law.7

7
The Public Schools District Supervisors Association v. Hon. Edilberto C. De
Jesus, G.R. No. 157286, June 16, 2006.

14
 45.2.The implementing rules cannot add to or detract from
the provisions of the law it is designed to implement.8

46. Thus, it is clear that by providing a period different than that

prescribed under Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996, respondent
Comelec has actually amended the said statute. The assailed Resolution has
detracted from said Section 8 and has amended The Voter’s Registration Act of
1996. And this is manifestly an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power; it is
beyond the province of administrative agencies, thus a serious and grave
violation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

47. The line that delineates Legislative and Executive power is not
indistinct. Legislative power is “the authority, under the Constitution, to make
laws, and to alter and repeal them.” The Constitution, as the will of the people in
their original, sovereign and unlimited capacity, has vested this power in the
Congress of the Philippines. The grant of legislative power to Congress is broad,
general and comprehensive. The legislative body possesses plenary power for all
purposes of civil government. Any power, deemed to be legislative by usage and
tradition, is necessarily possessed by Congress, unless the Constitution has
lodged it elsewhere. In fine, except as limited by the Constitution, either expressly
or impliedly, legislative power embraces all subjects and extends to matters of
general concern or common interest. 9

48. Thus, the said unconstitutional acts of respondent Comelec in

issuing and implementing the assailed Resolution smack of outright arbitrariness
on the part of said respondents.

49. Again, as already elucidated in the foregoing allegations, by only

limiting the deadline for the filing of the application of registration of voters on
October 31, 2012 instead of conducting the same daily, or until January 12, 2013,
but not during the prohibitive period starting one hundred twenty (120) days
before the May 10, 2013 elections, the issuance and implementation of the
assailed Resolution are ultra vires and beyond the authority vested by The
Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 to respondent Comelec.

8
The Honorable Secretary of Finance v. The Honorable Ricardo M. Ilarde, G.R.
No. 121782, May 9, 2005.
9
Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998.

15
 50. Indeed, if respondent Comelec were to be allowed to simply invoke
their “rule-making power” governing the filing of application of registration of
voters in the issuance and implementation of the assailed Resolution, the fate of
several millions of first-time youth registrants and voters in the May 10, 2010
elections who shall be disenfranchised of their basic right of suffrage shall be at
the mercy of respondent Comelec.

51. Many regulations, however, bear directly on the public. It is here

that administrative legislation must be restricted in its scope and application.
Regulations are not supposed to be a substitute for the general policy-making
that Congress enacts in the form of a public law. Although administrative
regulations are entitled to respect, the authority to prescribe rules and regulations
is not an independent source of power to make laws.10

52. Thus, in view of the foregoing premises, it is clear that the assailed
Resolution is unconstitutional as the same has amended Section 8 of The Voter’s
Registration Act of 1996 on the system of continuing registration of voters in
usurpation of the legislative power of Congress.

II. COMELEC RESOLUTION NOS. 9194 AND 9542 FIXING THE

DEADLINE FOR THE FILING OF APPLICATION OF
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS ON OCTOBER 31, 2012
VIOLATED SECTION 8 OF THE VOTER’S REGISTRATION
ACT OF 1996 PRESCRIBING THAT THE FILING OF
APPLICATION OF REGISTRATION OF VOTERS SHALL BE
CONDUCTED DAILY BUT PROHIBITED DURING ONE
HUNDRED TWENTY (120) DAYS BEFORE A REGULAR
ELECTION, AS OCTOBER 31, 2012 IS AT LEAST SEVENTY
(70) DAYS SHORT OF THAT PRESCRIBED BY SAID
STATUTE, THEREBY CAUSING THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT
OF MILLIONS OF FIRST-TIME REGISTRANTS AND VOTERS
THAT CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED BY RESPONDENT
COMELEC AS OF OCTOBER 31, 2012 FOR PURPOSES OF
THE MAY 10, 2013 ELECTIONS.

10
Ibid.

16
 53. The Resolution Nos. 9194 and 9542 fixing the deadline for the filing
of application of registration of voters on October 31, 2013 violated Section 8 of
The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 prescribing that the filing of application of
registration of voters shall be conducted daily but prohibited during one hundred
twenty (120) days before a regular election, as October 31, 2013 is at least
seventy (70) days short of that prescribed by said statute, thereby causing the
disenfranchisement of millions of first-time registrants and voters that cannot be
accommodated by respondent Comelec as of October 31, 2012 for purposes of
the May 13, 2013 elections.

54. The foregoing Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 is

positive about its phraseology that the filing of application of registration of voters
shall be conducted daily only that it is prohibited to do so within one hundred
twenty (120) days before a regular election.

55. It has already been established that the period of one hundred
twenty (120) days starts from January 13, 2013 and ends on May 12, 2013, as
the regular election is on May 13, 2013.

56. Therefore, the deadline for the filing of the application of registration
should have been January 12, 2013, not the October 31, 2012 fixed in the
assailed Resolution.

57. Likewise, it has already been shown that the difference in the
number of days between October 31, 2013 and January 12, 2013 is at least
seventy (70) days taken away by respondent Comelec from several millions of
first-time youth registrants and voters that cannot be accommodated by
respondent Comelec as of October 31, 2013 for purposes of the May 13, 2013
elections.

58. There is no doubt that, indeed, the assailed Resolution violates the
foregoing Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996. The assailed
Resolution indubitably does not provide for the proper and correct
implementation of the system of continuing registration of voters, as it prescribes
a period different and way earlier than is commanded under the statute.

17
 59. Verily, the assailed Resolutions have effectively deprived millions of
the voting population at least seventy (70) days of opportunity to register
provided to them by The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996, thereby causing their
disenfranchisement come May 13, 2013 elections.

60. Thus, in view of the foregoing premises, the assailed Resolutions

violate the statute’s provision on the system of continuing registration of voters,
as it does not conform to Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996, and
in fact defeats the purpose and spirit of the same.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioners most respectfully pray of

the Honorable Court the following:

1. That this Petition be given due course;

2. That a Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and/or a Temporary
Restraining Order be issued to require the respondent Commission on
Elections to extend the system of continuing registration of voters until
January 12, 2013 and restrain the COMELEC from implementing its
October 31, 2012 deadline for election registration;
3. That after notice and hearing, a final order is issued:
a. Declaring the respondent Commission on Elections Resolution
Nos. 9194 and 9542 as unconstitutional and void;
b. Commanding the respondent Commission on Elections to extend
the system of continuing registration of voters until January 12,
2013, and;
c. Commanding the respondent, as a continuing constitutional office,
to strictly comply with the statutory period in the system of
continuing registration of voters from hereinafter.

Petitioners likewise pray for such other reliefs as are just and equitable
under the circumstances.

18
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Quezon City for Manila, 31 October 2012.

JAMES MARK TERRY L. RIDON

Counsel for Petitioners
89 K-7 St., Kamias, Quezon City
Roll of Attorneys No. 61374
IBP Receipt No. 892955/8 March 2012/City of
Manila
PTR No. 6698353/30 April 2012/Quezon City
MCLE compliance in the process of completion
as counsel was admitted to the Bar only in
2012.

19