Akbayan-Youth et al. v. COMELEC & Betito v. COMELEC et al.

– GR No 147066 & 147179, 03/26/2001

Facts: Akbayan, representing the youth sector, seeks to direct the COMELEC to conduct a special
registrations of new voters ages 18-21 before the May 14, 2001 General Elections. Akbayan states that
there are around 4 million youths who failed to register on or before the Dec 27, 2000 deadline set by
COMELEC under RA 8189 “Voters Registration Act of 1996”

Senator Raul Roco, Chairman of Committee on Electoral Reforms, Suffrage, and People’s Participation
issued letter on Jan 25, 2001 to invite COMELEC to a public hearing for a discussion on the registration of
voters and the extension of the deadline.

On Jan 29, 2001, Commissioners Tancangco and Lantion submitted Memorandum 2001-027 regarding the
2-day additional registration of new voters only on Feb 17-18. The deadline on already registered voters
will still be on Dec 27. These were the results of the discussion headed by Senator Roco.

On Feb 8, 2001, COMELEC issued Resolution 3584 denying the petition of Akbayan It read: “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."

However, Commissioners Javier and Sadain voted against this resolution while Tancangco and Lantion
voted to accommodate the students’ request. Despite the opposition, COMELEC still took the Resolution
as having effect.

Akbayan-Youth et al. then filed with SC for a petition for certiorari and Mandamus to declare Sec. 8 of RA
8189 as unconstitutional and to conduct the special registrations. Michelle Betito, a UP student, also filed
with the SC for mandamus on for the special registrations.

Sec 8 reads: “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”

Issue: (1) Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution 3584 (2) Whether
SC can compel COMELEC, through mandamus, to conduct the special registration despite the already
imposed deadline by COMELEC

Held: Petitions are bereft of merit. The right to suffrage is not absolute; it is subject to substantive and
procedural requirements embodied in the Constitution, statute books, and other laws (as provided
substantively by Art. 5 Sec 1 Const.). Additionally, minimum and procedural requirements for the voting
registration is already set by RA 8189.

(1) No, 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. COMELEC acted within the boundaries of the
applicable law: Sec. 8 RA 8189

(2) No, SC cannot issue mandamus as it imposes upon a co-equal branch of government; which is a time-
honored principle in jurisdiction. Mandamus merely compels an officer to perform ministerial duties,
not discretionary. To do so, will inhibit the duty of that officer in compliance with the law (RA 8189). For
the determination of whether 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.

Wherefore, premises considered, the instant petitions for certiorari and mandamus are hereby DENIED.