GR 147066; (March, 2001) (Digest)

G.R. No. 136251, 138606 & 138607 EN BANC G.R. No. 147066 26 March 2001
AKBAYAN-YOUTH, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. G.R. No. 147179 26 March 2001 MICHELLE D. BETITO, petitioner, vs. CHAIRMAN ALFREDO BENIPAYO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, representing the youth sector, sought to compel the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to conduct a special registration for new voters aged 18 to 21 before the May 14, 2001 General Elections. They claimed approximately four million youths failed to register by the statutory deadline of December 27, 2000, set under Republic Act No. 8189 (The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996). Following a Senate public hearing where COMELEC officials participated, a proposal for a two-day additional registration with specific safeguards was formulated and submitted to the COMELEC en banc for consideration.
The COMELEC, in Resolution No. 3584 dated February 8, 2001, denied the request. The denial resulted from a split vote among the commissioners and was based on the explicit prohibition in Section 8 of R.A. 8189, which bars registration 120 days before a regular election, and logistical concerns regarding pre-election activities. Aggrieved, petitioners filed consolidated petitions for certiorari and mandamus to nullify the COMELEC resolution, challenge the constitutionality of Section 8 of R.A. 8189, and compel the holding of a special registration.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the request for a special registration and whether a writ of mandamus may issue to compel such registration.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petitions. On the petition for certiorari, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the COMELEC. The COMELEC’s denial was based on a faithful application of the clear and mandatory 120-day prohibitive period prescribed by Section 8 of R.A. 8189. The Court emphasized that its power of judicial review is limited to checking whether a government branch has acted beyond its constitutional jurisdiction. In the absence of a capricious, arbitrary, or whimsical exercise of judgment, which was not present here, the Court cannot substitute its own discretion for that of the COMELEC on matters of election administration.
Regarding the petition for mandamus, the Court held the writ could not issue. Mandamus lies only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. The determination of whether a special registration is logistically feasible and legally permissible within the constrained timeline before an election inherently involves the exercise of judgment and discretion by the COMELEC. The Court also took judicial notice of pending legislative bills in a special session of Congress aimed at amending R.A. 8189, which it viewed as a recognition by the political departments of the existing legal obstacle, thereby underscoring that the remedy sought by petitioners lay with the legislature, not the judiciary.