AKBAYAN YOUTH vs.

COMELEC Case Digest

AKBAYAN YOUTH vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 147066, March 26, 2001

VD-Balagat 4th Tranche

Facts:

Petitoners, representing the youth sector, seek to direct the Comelec to conduct a special registration
before the May 14, 2001 General Elections of new voters. According to the petitioners around 4 Million
youth failed to register on or before the December 27, 2000 deadline set by the respondent Commission
under R.A. 8189. On January 29, 2001 Commissioners Tantangco and Lantion submitted Memorandum
No. 2001-027 requesting for a two-day additional registration of new voters, to be set on February 17 and
18, 2001 nationwide. Subsequently, Comelec issued Resolution No. 3584 denying said request, it was the
consensus.

Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus, which seeks to nullify
respondent Comelec’s resolution and / or to declare Sec. 8 of R.A. 8189 unconstitutional insofar as said
provision effectively causes the disenfranchisement of petitioners and others similarly situated.

Issue: Whether or not respondent Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No.
3584 dated Feb. 8, 2001 as it denies petitioners’ right to vote.

Held: 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. Section 8 of R.A.
8189, provides that no registration shall be conducted 120 days before a regular election and 90 days
before a special election.

In the light of the foregoing the assailed resolution must be upheld. The so-called “stand-by powers” or
“residual” powers of the Comelec, as raised by the petitioners is provided under the relevant provisions
of Section 29 of R.A. No. 6646 and adopted verbatim in Section 28 of R.A. No. 8436, wherein the
commission shall fix other periods and dates for the accomplishment of pre-election acts if it is no longer
possible to observe the dates and periods prescribed by law, cannot be applied in this case. The Supreme
Court held that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 applies for the purpose of upholding the resolution. Section 28 of
R.A. 8436, presupposes the possibility of its being exercised or availed of and not otherwise. In the case
at bar the Comelec stated the “operational impossibility” of holding the additional two-day registration,
and therefore Section 8 of R.A. 8436 may not apply. Comelec acted within the confines of the applicable
law in denying the petitioners’ request.