1930 AKBAYAN v COMELEC

26 March 2001 G.R. No. 147066 J. Buena

Article V, Section 2, Special Registration Bianca Paloma
Before General Elections
Petitioners: AKBAYAN - Youth, SCAP, UCSC, Respondents: COMMISSION ON ELECTION
MASP, KOMPIL II - Youth, ALYANSA, KALIPI,
PATRICIA Q. 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,
_____________________________________ _____________________________________

MICHELLE D. BETITO CHAIRMAN ALFREDO BENIPAYO,

COMMISSIONER MEHOL SADAIN, RUFINO
JAVIER, LUZVIMINDA TANCANGCO, RALPH
LANTION, FLORENTINO TUASON and
RESURRECCION BORRA, all of the
Commission on Election (COMELEC)
Doctrine:

Facts:
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. 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. On February 8, 2001, the
COMELEC issued Resolution No. 3584 denying the petition. 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.

Issue/s: Ruling:
1. Whether or not this Court can compel respondent COMELEC to 1. YES
conduct a special registration of new voters during the period
between the COMELEC’s imposed Dec ember 27, 2000 deadline
and the May 14, 2001 general elections.
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:
1. The petitions are bereft of merit. As to the procedural limitation, the act of
registration is an indispensable pre condition 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 o f 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 voter’s 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. 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.