DISSENTING OPINION
PARDO, J.:
These are petitions for:
(1) certiorari and mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction filed by
petitioners AKBAYAN – Youth, et al; and (2) mandamus filed by Michelle D.
Betito, which seek a writ of certiorari annulling and setting aside
Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No. 3584 adopted on February 8,
2001, and/or declaring unconstitutional Section 8, R.A. No. 8189, insofar as
it disenfranchises petitioners, and a writ of mandamus directing Comelec
to conduct a registration of new voters before the May 14, 2001, national and
local elections.
The dispositive portion
of Resolution No. 3584, adopted on February 8,
2001, reads as follows:
"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."
R.A. No. 8189, Section 8,
provides that:
"System of Continuing Registration of Voters. – The personal filing of application of voters shall be conducted daily in the office of the Election Officer during the 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."
The backdrop of these
petitioners is the enactment on June 11, 1996, of Republic Act No. 8189[1] which provides for a general registration of voters
in June 14, 15, 21 and 22, 1997, and subject to the discretion of the
Commission on Elections, on June 28, and 29, 1997[2] and a system of
continuing registration of voters in which a qualified voter shall personally
accomplish an application form for registration before the Election Officer on
any date during regular office hours.[3] No registration,
however, shall be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120)
days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election.[4]
"Pursuant to the
powers vested in it by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881)
and other election laws" on September 28, 2000, the Comelec adopted a
resolution prescribing a "calendar of activities" and periods of
prohibited acts for the May 14, 2001 national and local elections. Under that resolution, the last day to file
applications for registration, transfer
of registration records, etc. was on December 27, 2000.
On January 29, 2001, the
Senate Committee on Electoral Reforms, Suffrage and People's Participation,
presided over by Senator Raul S. Roco,
held a meeting with representatives of the Comelec relative to the
request of representatives of the youth for extension of the registration of
voters to accommodate those who were not able to do so before the deadline on
December 27, 2000. As a result of the
recommendation of Comelec's representatives during the meeting, on February 8,
2001, the Comelec adopted Resolution No. 3584, which denied the request to
conduct a two-day additional registration of new voters on February 17 and 18,
2001.
Subsequently, there has
been a nationwide public clamor for additional days for registration of new
voters representing the youth sector.
Hence, these petitions.[5]
Akbayan-Youth's petition[6] is founded on one of the most fundamental political
rights of a Filipino under the Constitution – the right of suffrage. It states that the absence of a massive and
active information campaign by the Comelec caused more or less four (4) million
new Filipino voters to be uninformed of the last day of the continuing
registration fixed on December 27, 2000.
Thus, petitioners were not able to register on or before said date.
Akbayan-Youth anchors its
petition on the following grounds:
"1.
Petitioners have all
the qualifications to register as voters and exercise their right of suffrage
in the May 14, 2001 general elections.
"2.
Respondent COMELEC's
failure to conduct a thorough, comprehensive, widespread and active nationwide
campaign to inform new voters of the registration period legislated in Section
8 of R.A. 8189 effectively denied petitioners their right of suffrage.
"3.
In any event, Section
8 of R.A. 8189 imposes an unconstitutional limitation and an effectively
substantive requirement on the petitioner's right of suffrage.
"4.
The 1987 Constitution
makes people empowerment a State policy, recognizes the vital role of the youth
in nation-building and directs the State to encourage the youth's involvement
in public and civil affairs. The denial of the youth's right of suffrage
violates these constitutional policies."[7]
The issues raised are
whether the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion ousting itself of
jurisdiction, first, in ruling that the deadline for registration of
voters was on December 27, 2000, and failing to give adequate publicity for the
dissemination of this deadline and, second, in denying the petition of
the "youth" or of those who were unable to register before the
deadline to be given a special time to register even after such deadline in
time to vote in the elections scheduled on May 14, 2001.
We find the petitions
impressed with merit.
The right of suffrage is
a constitutional right of the Filipino people to enable them to vote for the
leaders who will lead the country. The
right to vote is a political right enabling the people to participate in the
governance of the State to ensure that it derives its power from the consent of
the governed. The people's sovereign
authority is exercised through the ballots of qualified voters who would choose
their representatives in the governance of the State. For this reason, the Constitution reserved an Article solely for
this right, to wit:*
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.
"Sec. 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.
Section 1 provides for
the requirements to qualify an individual to exercise the right to vote for a
candidate in an election which is achieved through registration. Registration of voters is a pre-election
activity necessary and essential to determine who are the qualified
voters. A person may possess all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications, but can not vote for the
reason that he is not registered.
Non-registration will render nugatory the constitutional right of
suffrage granted to every qualified Filipino citizen. This in the main is the essence of these petitions.
Since the Constitutional
provision on suffrage is not self-executing,
Congress enacted several laws implementing the same. The basic election law is Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881, or the "Omnibus Election Code of 1985." To cope with the need for change in view of
the growing need for electoral reforms, congress later enacted several
electoral reform measures into law,
among them is Republic Act No.
6646,[8] or "The
Electoral Reforms Law of 1987."
Relative to the issues
raised, Section 29 of R.A. No. 6646, which states:
"Sec. 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."
and
B.P. Blg. 881, Sec. 52 [m] must be considered in relation to Section 8, R.A.
No. 8189 which prohibits registration of voters one hundred twenty (120) days
before a regular election and ninety
(90) days before a special election.
It is a basic rule in
statutory construction that laws are to be harmonized rather than consider one
repealed in favor of the other.
Besides, there is nothing incongruous in R.A. No. 8189 with R.A. No.
6646, Section 29, nor B.P. Blg. 881, Sec. 52 [m], as to repeal the latter. Neither is there an express repeal of the
same. "It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of
statutes by implication are not favored."[9] "The
presumption is against inconsistency or repugnancy and, accordingly, against
implied repeal."[10]
In the same fashion, R.A.
No. 8189 did not expressly or impliedly repeal B.P. Blg. 881, particularly
Secs. 115 et seq. In Relampagos v.
Cumba,[11] we ruled that
"[B]y the tenor of its aforequoted Repealing Clause, it does not evidently
appear that the Batasang Pambansa had intended to codify all prior election
statutes and to replace them with the new Code. It made, in fact, by the second sentence, a reservation that all
prior elections statues or parts thereof not inconsistent with any provisions
of the Code shall remain in force. x x
x This being the case, the Court
painstakingly examined the aforesaid last paragraph of Section 50 of the
Omnibus Election Code to determine if the former is inconsistent with any of
the provisions of the latter. It found
none. "Thus, we find no inconsistency between the continuing registration
prescribed under R.A. No. 8189, and the periodic registration of voters
prescribed under B.P. Blg. 881.
R.A. No. 6646, Section 29
is reproduced verbatim in R.A. No. 8436, Section 28.[12] This should be
construed as a Congressional intention to retain the "standby power"
of the Commission to fix periods for pre-election activities given even under
B.P. 881, Sec. 52 [m]. This is also
indicative of the Congressional desire to grant the Commission adequate
discretionary power and operational flexibility in extraordinary cases so as
not to render the Commission inutile and hapless in the performance of its
functions. Historically, Congress gave
Comelec broad powers to enforce election laws.
In the first election law, Commonwealth Act No. 357, enacted on August
22, 1938, Congress provided for registration of voters by the board of inspectors
of each election precinct on the seventh Saturday and sixth Saturday before the
day of the election.[13] The law empowered
the Secretary of the Interior (predecessor of Comelec in the execution of
election laws) if, on account of insurmountable difficulties, the
registration of voters could not be effected on the dates fixed therein, the
Secretary of the Interior may, with the approval of the President, fix
another date so that the omission may be remedied and the voters may not be
deprived of the right of suffrage.[14]
In the Revised Election
Code, Republic Act No. 180, Congress provided for a similar prescription.[15] In P.D. No. 1296,
otherwise known as the 1978 Election Code, Comelec was vested with power to
"fix other periods for certain pre-election requirements in
order that voters shall not be deprived of their right of suffrage."[16] Congress
reiterated this power of the Comelec in B.P. Blg. 881, Sec. 52[m].
Both R.A. No. 6646,
Section 29 and R.A. No. 8436, Section 28 grant the Commission the power to fix
other periods and dates for pre-election activities when the same cannot be
reasonably held within the period provided by law. The Constitution and the law granted Comelec
with such broad power or authority to fix other periods for pre-election
activities for the purpose of enabling the people the opportunity to exercise
the right of suffrage.
Under the circumstances
prevailing, the prohibition to conduct registration one hundred twenty ( 120 )
days before a regular election as set forth in R.A. No. 8189, Section 8,
is not an absolute prohibition. It is
directory, not mandatory, and Comelec is vested with residual power to conduct
pre-election activities, including registration of voters beyond the deadline
prescribed by law. This is not to
defeat the right of suffrage of the people as guaranteed by the
constitution. Millions of qualified
voters in the country were not able to register before the 120-day period
provided by law because of the failure of Comelec to conduct a nationwide
public information campaign relative to the period provided by law.[17] The Comelec
erroneously perceived that the number of voters who registered during the
system of continuing registration is the barometer for the success or
effectiveness of their information campaign which was actually
non-existent. Comelec must bear the
responsibility for this. Time and
again, it has beens said that every
Filipino's right to vote shall be respected and upheld. Preliminary as it is in the exercise of
their right to vote, the deprivation of their right to register is tantanmount
to the denial of their right to vote.
In this jurisdiction, an
election means "the choice or selection of candidates to public office by
popular vote"[18]through the use of
the ballot, and the elected officials of which are determined through the will
of the electorate.[19] "An election
is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power of
the people."[20]
"specifically, the term
'election', in the context of the Constitution, may refer to the conduct of
the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral
campaign, and the casting and counting of votes."[21]
In fact, the Comelec has
actually misled the public by its erroneous resolution declaring that the last
day for registration under the system of continuing registration was on
December 27, 2000. Counting the 120 days from May 14, 2001, the date of the regular election, the
last day fell on January 14, 2001. Truly, the last day for the registration of voters was on January 14, 2001, not
December 27, 2000. This fact had
undoubtedly disenfranchised voters and deprived qualified voters of their right
of suffrage in the forthcoming elections.
This "error" of respondent Comelec not only affected
petitioners, representatives of the Filipino youth, but also thousands or
perhaps millions of other qualified Filipino voters who failed to register
within that erroneous deadline. Equally
important, Comelec's resolution pre-terminating the deadline of registration
under the system of continuing registration deprived the Filipino voters not
only of their right to register but also to transfer their registration to
their present residence.
The legal and operational
problems which respondent Comelec claim they would encounter with the holding
of a special registration as well as the effect on its preparation for the May
14, 2001, elections, are matters that can be solved with proper planning, coordination and cooperation among its
Members, staff and other deputized agencies of the government Extraordinary
efforts may be needed, but the work can still be done.
It bears stressing that
Comelec has vast powers. "Section 2 (1) of Article IX (C) of the
Constitution gives the COMELEC the broad power "to enforce and administer
all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum and recall."
Undoubtedly, the text and intent of this provision is to give COMELEC
all the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the objective of
holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. Congruent to this intent, this Court has not
been niggardly in defining the parameters of powers of COMELEC in the conduct
of our elections."[22]
The powers and functions
of the Comelec conferred upon it by the 1987 Constitution and the Omnibus
Election Code, may be classified into administrative, quasi-legislative,
quasi-judicial, and, in limited instances, judicial.
The quasi-judicial power
of the Commission embraces the power to resolve controversies arising in the
enforcement of election laws and to be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation
controversies and of all contest relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications. Its quasi-legislative
power refers to the issuance of rules and regulations to implement the election
laws and to exercise such legislative functions as may expressly be delegated
to it by Congress.[23] Its administrative
function refers to the enforcement and administration of election laws. In the exercise of such power, the
Constitution (Section 6, Article IX-A) and the Omnibus Election Code (Section
52 [c]) authorize the Comelec to issue rules and regulations to implement the
provisions of the 1987 Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code.
It is reasonably expected
that Comelec under its new leadership will take appropriate action in order not
to deprive those who are qualified to vote by the neglect, inaction or delay in
its preparations for the coming elections.
On the matter of the
exclusion/inclusion of voters as prescribed in B.P. 881, the period fixed
therein within which to file petitions with the municipal or metropolitan trial
courts may be shortened[24] and the courts may resolve the applications in time
to be received by the election officers or the board of election inspectors
concerned not later than thirty (30) days before the May 14, 2001, elections,
to enable respondent Comelec to prepare the necessary list of voters. Comelec retains residual powers to adopt adequate
safeguards to ensure that "flying" voters and other ineligible or
disqualified voters are not able to register or transfer their registration.
WHEREFORE, I vote to annul and set aside Comelec
Resolution No. 3584, dated February 8, 2001 as well a Resolution No. 3258,
dated September 28, 2000, insofar as it fixed the deadline for registration on
December 27, 2000. R.A. No. 8189 has
not repealed expressly or impliedly B.P. No. 881, Secs. 115 et seq. In relation to Sec. 52 [m], and R.A. No.
6646. Consequently, in the absence of
legal impediments, Comelec has adequate power and authority to designate a date
not later than the seventh and sixth Saturdays (March 31, 2001 and April 7,
2001) or other convenient dates before the regular elections on May 14, 2001,
and constitute a board of election inspectors of precincts in each municipality
or barangay to conduct special registration of all qualified voters who failed
to register heretofore to enable them to exercise the right of suffrage in the
May 14, 2001, national and local elections, without having to postpone such
elections.
[1] An
Act Providing for a General Registration of Voters, Adopting a System of
Continuing Registration, Prescribing the Procedures thereof and Authorizing the
Appropriation of Funds therefor.
[2] Section 7, R.A. No. 8189-
--Immediately after the barangay elections in 1997, the
existing certified list of voters shall cease to be effective and
operative. For purposes of the May 1998
elections and all elections, plebiscites, referenda, initiatives, and recall
subsequent thereto, the Commission shall undertake a general registration of
voters before the Board of Election Inspectors on June 14, 15, 21 and 22, and,
subject to the discretion of the Commission, on June 28 and 29, 1997 in
accordance with this Act.
[3] R.A.
No. 8189, Secs. 8, 9, 10.
[4] R.A.
No. 8189, Sec. 8.
[5] G.R.
No. 147066, filed on March 5, 2001.
G.R. No. 147179, filed on March 9, 2001. On March 13, 2001, we resolved to consolidate these cases, and
required respondents to file comment not later than 10:00 a.m., March 16, 2001,
and to set the cases for hearing at 3:00 p.m.
Respondents filed their comment on March 16, 2001, at 11:20 a.m.
[6] G.R.
No. 147066.
[7] Petition,
G.R. No. 147066, pp. 6-7.
[8] An
Act Introducing Additional Reforms in the Electoral System and for Other
Purposes.
[9] Agpalo,
Statutory Construction (Third Edition) 1995, p. 322, citing Valdez v. Tuason,
40 Phil. 943 [1920], and other cases.
[10] Ibid.,
citing Iloilo Palay & Co. Planters Assn. Inc. v. Feliciano, 13 SCRA
377 (1965).
[11] 243
SCRA 690, 703 [1995].
[12] 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.
[13] Com.
Act No. 357, Sec. 96.
[14] Com.
Act No. 357, Sec. 6.
[15] R.A.
No. 180, Sec. 9 in relation to Sec. 101.
[16] P.D.
No. 1296, the 1978 Election Code, Article XVII–Powers of the Commission, Sec.
185[e].
[17] In
fairness to Chairman Alfredo L. Benipayo, this occurred before his appointment
to the position of Chairman on February 16, 2001.
[18] Gonzales
v. Commission on Elections, 129 Phil. 7, 33 [1967]; Taule v. Santos,
200 SCRA 512, 519 [1991].
[19] Taule
v. Santos, supra, Note 18.
[20] Taule
v. Santos, supra, Note 18, p. 519, citing Hontiveros v.
Altavos, 24 Phil. 636 [1913].
[21] Taule
v. Santos, supra, Note 14, p. 519, citing Javier v.
Commission on Elections, 228 Phil. 193, 205 [1986].
[22] Loong
v. Commission on Elections, 305 SCRA 832, 866-867 [1999].
[23] Digman
v. Comelec, 120 SCRA 650 [1983].
[24] Under
B. P. 881, the period is twenty (20) days after the last registration; this may
be shortened to five (5) days, and the courts shall resolve or decide the
applications within five (5) days from filing.
Cases appealed to the regional trial court shall be decided within five
(5) days receipt of the appeal. Its
decision shall be immediately final and must be received by the election
officer or the board of election inspectors not later than thirty (30) days
before the elections.