Republic of the Philippines
Supreme
Court
Manila
EN BANC
|
KABATAAN PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE RAYMOND
V. PALATINO, ALVIN A. PETERS, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS OF
THE PHILIPPINES (NUSP), MA. CRISTINA ANGELA GUEVARRA, CHAIRPERSON OF THE STUDENT
CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT OF THE Petitioners, - versus - COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 189868 Present: PUNO, C.J., CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
ABAD,
and VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: December 15, 2009 |
x - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
At the threshold once again is the
right of suffrage of the sovereign Filipino people – the foundation of
Philippine democracy. As the country
prepares to elect its next set of leaders on
On November 12, 2008, respondent
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued Resolution No. 8514[1]
which, among other things, set
The intense public clamor for an
extension of the October 31, 2009 deadline notwithstanding, the COMELEC stood
firm in its decision not to extend it, arguing mainly that it needs ample time
to prepare for the automated elections.
Via the present Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus filed on
Petitioner Raymond V. Palatino, a
youth sectoral representative under the Kabataan Party-list, sues as a member
of the House of Representatives and a concerned citizen, while the rest of
petitioners sue as concerned citizens.
Petitioners contend that the serious
questions involved in this case and potential disenfranchisement of millions of
Filipino voters justify resort to this Court in the first instance, claiming
that based on National Statistics Office (NSO) data, the projected voting
population for the May 10, 2010 elections is 3,758,964 for the age group 18-19
and 8,756,981 for the age group 20-24, or a total of 12,515,945.
Petitioners further contend that
COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 is an unconstitutional encroachment on the
legislative power of Congress as it
amends the system of continuing voter
registration under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 8189 (RA 8189),
otherwise known as The Voter’s
Registration Act of 1996, reading:
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.
They thus pray that COMELEC
Resolution No. 8585 be declared null and void, and that the COMELEC be
accordingly required to extend the voter registration until
The COMELEC maintains in its Comment
filed on December 7, 2009 that, among other things, the Constitution and the
Omnibus Election Code confer upon it the power to promulgate rules and
regulations in order to ensure free, orderly and honest elections; that Section
29 of Republic Act No. 6646 (RA 6646)[4]
and Section 28 of Republic Act No. 8436 (RA 8436)[5]
authorize it to fix other dates for pre-election acts which include voter
registration; and that its schedule of pre-election acts shows that the October
31, 2009 deadline of voter registration was impelled by operational and
pragmatic considerations, citing Akbayan-Youth
v. COMELEC[6] wherein
the Court denied a similar prayer for an extension of the December 27, 2000
deadline of voter registration for the May 14, 2001 elections.
The petition is impressed with merit.
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
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,[7]
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.[8]
It is against this backdrop that
Congress mandated a system of continuing voter registration in Section 8 of RA
8189 which provides:
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 and underscoring supplied)
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.
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.[9]
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 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.
The present case differs
significantly from Akbayan-Youth v.
COMELEC.[11] In said
case, the Court held that the COMELEC did not commit abuse of discretion in
denying the request of the therein petitioners for an extension of the
The
Court in fact suggested in Akbayan-Youth
that the therein petitioners could have, but had not, registered during the
period between the December 27, 2000 deadline set by the COMELEC and before the
start of the 120-day prohibitive period prior to the election date or January
13, 2001, thus:
[T]here
is no allegation in the two consolidated petitions and the records are bereft
of any showing that anyone of herein petitioners has filed an application to be
registered as a voter which was denied by the COMELEC nor filed a complaint
before the respondent COMELEC alleging that he or she proceeded to the Office
of the Election Officer to register between the period starting from December
28, 2000 to January 13, 2001, and that he or she was disallowed or barred by
respondent COMELEC from filing his application for registration. While
it may be true that respondent COMELEC set the registration deadline on
The clear import of the Court’s
pronouncement in Akbayan-Youth is
that had the therein petitioners filed their petition – and sought an extension
date that was – before the 120-day prohibitive period, their prayer would have
been granted pursuant to the mandate of RA 8189. In the present case, as reflected earlier,
both the dates of filing of the petition (
WHEREFORE, the
petition is GRANTED. COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 is declared null
and void insofar as it set the deadline of voter registration for the
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I hereby certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Rules and Regulations on the Resumption of the System of Continuing Registration of Voters in the Non-ARMM Areas.
[2] Amendments to Resolution No. 8514
Promulgated on
[3]
[4] The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987; Section 29 provides:
Section 29. Designation of Other Dates for certain
Pre-election Acts. - If it should no longer be reasonably possible to
observe the periods and dates prescribed by law for certain pre-election acts,
the Commission shall fix other periods and dates in order to ensure
accomplishment of the activities so voters shall not be deprived of their right
of suffrage.
[5] An Act Authorizing the Commission on
Elections to Use an Automated Election System in the May 11, 1998 National or
Local Elections and in Subsequent National and Local Electoral Exercises,
Providing Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes; Section 28 provides:
Section 28. Designation of other
dates for certain pre-election acts. - If it shall no longer be reasonably
possible to observe the periods and dates prescribed by law for certain
pre-election acts, the Commission shall fix other periods and dates in order to
ensure accomplishment of the activities so voters shall not be deprived of
their suffrage.
[6] G.R. Nos. 147066 &147179,
[7] Constitution, Article II, Section 1.
[8]
[9] Vide Lanot v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.164858, 507 SCRA 114, 138.
[10] Agujetas
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106560,
[11] Supra note 6.
[12]