7/24/2019 101197406 Akbayan Youth vs COMELEC Digest

1/2

EN BANC [G.R. No. 147066. March 26, 2001] AKBAYAN Youth, SCAP, UCSC, MASP, KOMPILII Youth, ALYANSA, KALIPI, PATRICIA O. PI CAR, MYLA GAIL Z. TAMONDONG, EMMANUELE. OMBAO, JOHNNY ACOSTA, ARCHIE JOHN TALAUE , RYAN DAPITAN, CHRISTOPHER OARDE, JOSE MARI MODESTO, RICHARD M. VALENCIA, EDBEN TABUCOL, petitioners, vs. COMMISSIONON ELECTIONS, respondents. [G.R. No. 147179. March 26, 2001] MICHELLE D. BETITO, petitioner, vs. CHAIRMAN ALFREDO BENIPAYO, COMMISSIONERS MEHO L SADAIN, RUFINO JAVIER, LUZVIMINDA TANCANGCO, RALPH LANTION, FLORENTINO TUASON and RESURRECCION BORRA, all of the Commission on Election (COMELEC), respondents . FACTS: Petitioners - representing the youth sector - seek to direct the Commissi on on Elections(COMELEC) to conduct a special registration before the May 14, 2 001 General Elections, of new voters ages 18 to 21. According to petitioners, aro und four million youth failed to register on or before the December 27, 2000 dea dline set bythe 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 M andamus. ISSUE: Whetheror not this Court can compel respondent COMELEC to conduct a spec ial registration of new voters during the period between the COMELEC's imposed Dec ember 27, 2000 deadline and the May 14, 2001 general elections. HELD: 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 ri ght 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, theState undoubte dly, in the exercise of its inherent police power, may then enact laws to safegu ard and regulate the act of voter's registration for the ultimatepurpose of condu cting honest, orderly and peaceful election, to the incidentalyet generally imp ortant end, that even pre-election activities could be performed by the duly con stituted authorities in a realistic and orderly manner one which is not indiffer ent and so far removed from the pressing order of the day and the prevalent circ umstances of the times. Considering the circumstances where the writ of mandamus lies and the peculiarit ies of the present case, we are of the firm belief that petitioners failed to es tablish, to the satisfaction ofthis Court, that they are entitled to the issuan ce of this extraordinary writ so as to effectively compel respondent COMELEC to conduct a special registrationof voters. For the determination of whether or not the conduct of a special regis

tration of voters is feasible, possible or practi cal 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 mandamu s are hereby DENIED.

7/24/2019 101197406 Akbayan Youth vs COMELEC Digest

2/2