Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES Manila

JAMES MARK TERRY L. RIDON, VENCER MARI CRISOSTOMO, VANESSA FAYE BOLIBOL, ISABELLE THERESE BAGUISI, CLEVE KEVIN ROBERT ARGUELLES, MARJOHARA TUCAY, leaders and members of Kabataan Partylist. Petitioners, - versus COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. x--------------------------------------------x

SC-G.R. SP. NO. (Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with Application for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order)

URGENT PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS WITH APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Petitioners, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully state that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

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 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. 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, 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.1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1.

This Petition is about the exercise of a basic right upon which the

fabric of any democracy is founded the right of suffrage. Petitioners seek the

Palatino v. COMELEC, G.R. No.189868, December 15, 2009.

2

nullification of respondent Commission on Elections Resolution Nos. 9149 and 9542 fixing the deadline of application of registration of voters on 31 October 2012.2 This deadline is more than two (2) months earlier than is prescribed

2.

by Republic Act No. 8189 or The Voters Registration Act of 1996. The prayer for the declaration of respondents Resolution Nos.

3.

9149 and 9542 as null and void is anchored on two (2) crucial grounds, first, it is unconstitutional as it is a manifest usurpation of the legislative power of Congress, and second, it is an indubitable violation of the system of continuing registration of voters under The Voters Registration Act of 1996 stating in clear and categorical terms that the personal filing of application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily but prohibited only during one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election, and the assailed Resolution causes the disenfranchisement of millions of first-time youth registrants and voters who cannot be accommodated by respondent as of the October 31, 2102 deadline for purposes of the May 13, 2013 elections. The start of the 120-day prohibitive period before the May 13, 2013

4.

elections is on January 13, 2013. Thus, the deadline of application of registration of voters should be on January 12, 2013, not on October 31, 2012, which is at least seventy (70) days earlier than is prescribed by the statute.
5.

Respondent has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to

lack or excess of jurisdiction by the issuance and implementation of Resolution Nos. 9194 and 954.
6.

First, it has actually amended the provision on the system of

continuing registration of voters under Section 8 of The Voters Registration Act of 1996, in violation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the issuance and implementation of the assailed Resolution constitute a manifest usurpation of the legislative power of Congress.

Annexes A-1 and A-2.

3

7.

Second, the assailed Resolution Nos. 9149 and 9542 are patent

violations of the provision on the system of continuing registration of voters under Section 8 of The Voters Registration Act of 1996, thus: 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 supplied)
8.

This Petition is a special civil action for Certiorari and Mandamus

brought under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, herein Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law which will promptly and immediately relieve herein Petitioners from the injurious effects of the unconstitutional acts of the respondent in the issuance and implementation of the assailed Resolution. Petitioners invoke this case as an exception to the rule on hierarchy

9.

of courts. In the case of La Bugal-Blaan Tribal Association, Inc., et al. v. Victor O. Ramos, et al. (G.R. No. 127882, January 27, 2004), the Supreme Court elucidated the following doctrine as regards the procedural question on the rule on hierarchy of courts, thus: Xxx This Court has consistently enjoined litigants to respect the hierarchy of courts. Although this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give a party unrestrained freedom of choice of court forum. The resort to this Courts primary jurisdiction to issue said writs shall be allowed only where the redress desired cannot be obtained in the

appropriate

courts

or

where

exceptional

and

compelling circumstances justify such invocation. (Emphasis supplied) In the instant Petition, the serious and grave constitutional

10.

questions involved in this case and the repercussions of the unconstitutional acts of the respondent on the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government and on the statute which provides for a system of continuing registration of voters to prevent the disenfranchisement of millions of voters constitute exceptional and compelling circumstances to justify resort to this Honorable Courts jurisdiction in the first instance. At the core of the issues raised in the instant Petition is a precious

11.

and cherished right imbued with public interest the right of suffrage. It should be noted further that the issue of the respondents illegal

12.

premature setting of the election registration deadline has already been resolved by the Court in the Palatino v. COMELEC, with regard the 2010 national elections. Despite the clear mandate of the statute and affirmation by

13.

jurisprudence, the respondent shall be repeating the same error of prematurely setting the election registration deadline for the 2013 national elections.

14.

Petitioners James Mark Terry L. Ridon, Vencer Mari Crisostomo,

Vanessa Faye Bolibol, Isabelle Therese Baguisi, Cleve Kevin Robert Arguelles, Marjohara Tucay are suing in their capacities as concerned citizens, as the issues raised hereunder are of transcendental importance which must be settled early given the far-reaching implications of the unconstitutional acts of respondent on the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government and on the citizens fundamental right of suffrage.
15.

Hence, the Petitioners have locus standi as concerned citizen. Petitioners thus humbly pray that the Honorable Court issue a

16.

judgment:

a. Declaring the Resolution Nos. 9149 and 9542 as unconstitutional and void; b. Commanding the respondent to extend the system of continuing registration of voters until January 12, 2013 c. Commanding the respondent, as a continuing constitutional body, to strictly comply with the statutory period in the system of continuing registration of voters from hereinafter.

17.

The Petitioners are likewise praying for the issuance of a Preliminary

Mandatory Injunction due to the seriousness and extreme urgency of the matters involved, as well as the grave and irreparable injuries that are sustained and will continue to be sustained by Petitioners due to the unconstitutionality of Resolution Nos. 9149 and 9542, its patent violation of Section 8 of The Voters Registration Act of 1996, and the imminent lapse of the October 31, 2012 deadline in a few days, thus: a. The Petitioners hereby replead by reference the foregoing allegations as well as the allegations hereunder, as part of this application; b. Grave and irreparable injury shall result to Petitioners as concerned citizens, and to millions of first-time youth registrants and voters who cannot be accommodated by respondent as of October 31, 2012 for purposes of the May 13, 2012 elections thereby causing the disenfranchisement of millions of new registrants and voters; c. Grave and irreparable injury shall result to Petitioners and millions of first-time youth registrants and voters who will sustain direct injury as they cannot be accommodated by respondent as of October 31, 2012 for purposes of the May 13, 2012 elections; d. Petitioners and millions of first-time youth registrants and voters are entitled to the relief demanded in the instant Petition, and part of such relief consists in requiring from respondent the extension of the deadline of application of registration of voters during the pendency of the present
6

Petition, otherwise the instant Petition may be rendered ineffectual; e. The non-extension of deadline of application of registration of voters during the pendency of the present Petition would work injustice to Petitioners and millions of first-time youth registrants and voters who cannot be accommodated by respondent as of October 31, 2012 for purposes of the May 13, 2013 elections, as it would cause the disenfranchisement of millions of first-time registrants and voters; f. That respondent is very adamant in its refusal to extend the filing of application of registration of voters beyond the October 31, 2012 deadline, in violation of the rights of Petitioners and of millions of first-time youth registrants and voters who cannot be accommodated by respondent as of October 31, 2012 for purposes of the May 13, 2013 elections. Thus, there is a necessity for a preliminary mandatory injunction in order not to render the judgment ineffectual; and g. There is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to address these pervasive injuries to the Petitioners and to the millions of first-time youth registrants and voters who cannot be accommodated by respondent as of October 31, 2012 for purposes of the May 13, 2013 elections, before this Petition could be heard by the Honorable Court.
18.

Hence, based on the foregoing allegations, Petitioners are entitled to

the issuance of a Preliminary Mandatory Injunction to require respondent to extend the system of continuing registration of voters until January 12, 2013.

THE PARTIES

19.

Petitioners James Mark Terry L. Ridon, Vencer Mari Crisostomo,

Vanessa Faye Bolibol, Isabelle Therese Baguisi, Cleve Kevin Robert Arguelles, Marjohara Tucay are leaders and members of Kabataan Partylist, and the various national and prestigious youth and student organizations: ANAKBAYAN,
7

the National Union of Students of the Philippines, the College Editors Guild of the Philippines, the Office of the UP Student Regent, and the Philippine Collegian. Their office address is at 89 K-7 St., Kamias, Quezon City. The Petitioners may be served with summons and other legal

20.

processes through their counsel of record, Atty. James Mark Terry L. Ridon, at 89 K-7 St. Kamias, Quezon City. Respondent COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS is the administrative

21.

body, which has issued and implemented Resolution Nos. 9149 and 9542. Respondents office address is Palacio Del Gobernador Building, Intramuros, Manila where it may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
22.

On 11 February 2011 and 25 October 2012, respondent Commission

on Elections (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) promulgated Resolution Nos. 91493 and 95424, which set the deadline of the filing of application of registration of voters on 31 October 2012. The regular election in 2012 shall be conducted on May 13, 2013. In 1996, the Philippine Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8189 or

23.

24.

The Voters Registration Act of 1996 which provided for a system of continuing registration of voters that shall be conducted daily but no registration shall be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election.

COMELEC Resolution No. 9149, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE RESUMPTION OF THE SYSTEM OF CONTINUING REGISTRATION OF VOTERS AND VALIDATION OF REGISTRATION RECORDS IN THE NON-ARMM AREAS, 11 February 2011. 4 COMELEC Resolution No. 9542, IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING GUIDELINES FOR THE CONDUCT OF REGISTRATION OF VOTERS AND VALIDATION OF REGISTRATION RECORDS IN THE NON-ARMM AREAS ON THE LAST DAY, OCTOBER 31,2012, 25 October 2012.
3

25.

The start of the 120-day prohibitive period for the 2013 national

elections is on January 13, 2013 and until May 12, 2013. Thus, the deadline for the filing of application of registration of voters should be on January 12, 2013, not October 31, 2012.
26.

For purposes of the May 13, 2013 elections, the projected voting

population for the age group 18-22, those who are 18-22 years of age on May 13, 2013, is no more than 9,694,781, if the National Statistics Office (NSO) data on the 2000 Census of Population is used as the baseline data.
27.

Those who are 18 or 19 years of age at the time of the May 13, 2013

elections are necessarily first time registrants and voters in the May 13, 2013 elections.
28.

Those who are only 17 years of age in 2010, and thereby ineligible to

register and vote for the May 2010 elections, shall turn 20 years of age in 2013 and are therefore first-time registrants and voters in the May 13, 2013 elections. Those who are only 17 years of age at the time of the May 2010 elections, and thereby ineligible to register and vote for the May 2010 elections, but shall turn 18 in 2010 but after the May 2010 elections shall turn 21 years of age in 2013, and are therefore first-time registrants and voters in the May 13, 2013 elections.
29.

However, petitioners have not knowledge that a public report on the

status of registration of first-time voter registrants has been done by the COMELEC.
30.

Nonetheless, the conditions prevailing with respect to the registration

for the 2010 elections is telling as to the transcendental need to command the COMELEC to comply with the statutory period for continuing registration, as previously raised by the petitioners in Palatino v. Comelec.

a. As of the end of August 2009, two (2) months before the October 31, 2009 deadline, respondent was able to process only 2,653,594 first-time registrants and voters for purposes of the May 10, 2010 elections, according to the data released by respondent and published by the media.

b. According to media releases issued by respondent, the number of processed first-time registrants and voters for purposes of the May 10, 2010 elections may reach around 3 million or 3.1 million at the end of the October 31, 2009 deadline set by respondent. c. The said figure 3 million or 3.1 million is almost one (1) million short of respondents own estimate of four (4) million first-time registrants and voters, and several millions short of the NSOs foregoing projected voting population and estimated registered voters for purposes of the May 10, 2010 elections.

31.

With the high volume of first-time registrants and voters expected for

the May 13, 2013 elections, the October 31, 2013 deadline set by respondent for the filing of application of registration of voters provides is utterly insufficient to accommodate first-time youth registrants and voters highly eager to participate in the May 13, 2013 elections. Similar to Resolution No. 8585 invalidated by the COMELEC in

32.

Palatino v. COMELEC, the assailed Resolution Nos. 9194 and 9542 have provided a deadline of the filing of application of registration of voters way earlier and different than is prescribed under The Voters Registration Act of 1996, thereby actually amending the statutes provision on the system of continuing registration of voters. Thus, respondent has usurped the legislative power of Congress by amending The Voters Registration Act of 1996. Thus, Resolution Nos. 9194 and 9542 have effectively deprived

33.

millions of the voting population at least seventy (70) days of opportunity to register provided to them by The Voters Registration Act of 1996, thereby causing their disenfranchisement come May 13, 2013 elections. Petitioner Ridon, as the National President and General Counsel of

34.

Kabataan Partylist, on 24 October 2012, sent a formal letter to COMELEC Chairperson Sixto Brilliantes Jr., requesting the COMELEC to extend the registration of voters consistent with the statutory mandate.

10

35.

This went unheeded and the COMELEC appears keen on proceeding

with implementing its 31 October 2012 deadline.

GROUNDS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION

I.

COMELEC

RESOLUTION

NOS.

9194

AND

9542

ARE

UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS THE SAME AMENDED SECTION 8 OF THE VOTERS REGISTRATION ACT OF 1996 ON THE SYSTEM OF CONTINUING REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IN USURPATION CONGRESS. II. COMELEC RESOLUTION NOS. 9194 AND 9542 FIXING THE DEADLINE FOR THE FILING OF APPLICATION OF REGISTRATION OF VOTERS ON OCTOBER 31, 2012 VIOLATED SECTION 8 OF THE VOTERS REGISTRATION ACT OF 1996 PRESCRIBING BUT THAT THE FILING OF ONE APPLICATION OF REGISTRATION OF VOTERS SHALL BE CONDUCTED DAILY PROHIBITED DURING HUNDRED TWENTY (120) DAYS BEFORE A REGULAR ELECTION, AS OCTOBER 31, 2012 IS AT LEAST SEVENTY (70) DAYS SHORT OF THAT PRESCRIBED BY SAID STATUTE, THEREBY CAUSING THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF MILLIONS OF FIRST-TIME REGISTRANTS AND VOTERS THAT CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED BY RESPONDENT COMELEC AS OF OCTOBER 31, 2012 FOR PURPOSES OF THE MAY 10, 2013 ELECTIONS. OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF

DISCUSSION

I.

COMELEC

RESOLUTION

NOS.

9194

AND

9542

ARE

UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS THE SAME AMENDED SECTION 8

11

OF THE VOTERS REGISTRATION ACT OF 1996 ON THE SYSTEM OF CONTINUING REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IN USURPATION CONGRESS. OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF

36.

The Resolution Nos. 9194 and 9542 are unconstitutional as the same

amended Section 8 of The Voters Registration Act of 1996 on the system of continuing registration of voters in usurpation of the legislative power of Congress. Section 8 of The Voters Registration Act of 1996 is clear and

37.

categorical about the system of continuing registration of voters, thus: 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 supplied) The foregoing provision is unequivocal and definite that the filing of

38.

application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily but no registration shall be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election. The start of the 120-day prohibitive period is on January 13, 2013 and

39.

until May 12, 2013. Thus, the last day for the filing of application of registration should

40.

have been January 12, 2013 instead of October 31, 2013 laid down in the assailed Resolutions, which is at least seventy (70) days less than that prescribed by the statute.

12

41.

The prevailing case of Palatino vs. COMELEC provides clear guidance

to the respondent. 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.5
42.

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 Voters Information Sheet. Such determination of Congress is well within the ambit of its legislative power, which this Court is bound to respect. And the COMELECs rule-making power should be exercised in accordance with the prevailing law.6
43.

On the other hand, respondent Comelec has issued the assailed

Resolutions based on its power to issue rules and regulations in the implementation of election laws. Petitioners do not deny that respondent Comelec has the power to issue rules and regulations for the filing of the application of registration of voters. However, the same prevailing case answers the stubborn position of

44.

COMELEC on its power to issue rules and regulations in defiance of statute, to wit 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 Courts 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

5 6

Palatino v. COMELEC, G.R. No.189868, December 15, 2009. Ibid.

13

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. However, it is noteworthy to emphasize at this moment the well-settled

45.

doctrines as regards the power to promulgate implementing rules and regulations and the nature and character of such implementing rules and regulations, thus:
45.1.It

must be stressed that the power of administrative

officials to promulgate rules in the implementation of a statute is necessarily limited to what is provided for in the legislative enactment. The implementing rules and regulations of a law cannot extend the law or expand its coverage, as the power to amend or repeal a statute is vested in the legislature. xxx. All that is required is that xxx the regulation does not contradict but conforms with the standards prescribed by law.7

The Public Schools District Supervisors Association v. Hon. Edilberto C. De Jesus, G.R. No. 157286, June 16, 2006.
7

14

45.2.The

implementing rules cannot add to or detract from

the provisions of the law it is designed to implement.8

46.

Thus, it is clear that by providing a period different than that

prescribed under Section 8 of The Voters Registration Act of 1996, respondent Comelec has actually amended the said statute. The assailed Resolution has detracted from said Section 8 and has amended The Voters Registration Act of 1996. And this is manifestly an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power; it is beyond the province of administrative agencies, thus a serious and grave violation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The line that delineates Legislative and Executive power is not

47.

indistinct. Legislative power is the authority, under the Constitution, to make laws, and to alter and repeal them. The Constitution, as the will of the people in their original, sovereign and unlimited capacity, has vested this power in the Congress of the Philippines. The grant of legislative power to Congress is broad, general and comprehensive. The legislative body possesses plenary power for all purposes of civil government. Any power, deemed to be legislative by usage and tradition, is necessarily possessed by Congress, unless the Constitution has lodged it elsewhere. In fine, except as limited by the Constitution, either expressly or impliedly, legislative power embraces all subjects and extends to matters of general concern or common interest. 9 Thus, the said unconstitutional acts of respondent Comelec in

48.

issuing and implementing the assailed Resolution smack of outright arbitrariness on the part of said respondents. Again, as already elucidated in the foregoing allegations, by only

49.

limiting the deadline for the filing of the application of registration of voters on October 31, 2012 instead of conducting the same daily, or until January 12, 2013, but not during the prohibitive period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before the May 10, 2013 elections, the issuance and implementation of the assailed Resolution are ultra vires and beyond the authority vested by The Voters Registration Act of 1996 to respondent Comelec.

The Honorable Secretary of Finance v. The Honorable Ricardo M. Ilarde, G.R. No. 121782, May 9, 2005. 9 Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998.
8

15

50.

Indeed, if respondent Comelec were to be allowed to simply invoke

their rule-making power governing the filing of application of registration of voters in the issuance and implementation of the assailed Resolution, the fate of several millions of first-time youth registrants and voters in the May 10, 2010 elections who shall be disenfranchised of their basic right of suffrage shall be at the mercy of respondent Comelec. Many regulations, however, bear directly on the public. It is here

51.

that administrative legislation must be restricted in its scope and application. Regulations are not supposed to be a substitute for the general policy-making that Congress enacts in the form of a public law. Although administrative regulations are entitled to respect, the authority to prescribe rules and regulations is not an independent source of power to make laws.10
52.

Thus, in view of the foregoing premises, it is clear that the assailed

Resolution is unconstitutional as the same has amended Section 8 of The Voters Registration Act of 1996 on the system of continuing registration of voters in usurpation of the legislative power of Congress. II. COMELEC RESOLUTION NOS. 9194 AND 9542 FIXING THE DEADLINE FOR THE FILING OF APPLICATION OF REGISTRATION OF VOTERS ON OCTOBER 31, 2012 VIOLATED SECTION 8 OF THE VOTERS REGISTRATION ACT OF 1996 PRESCRIBING BUT THAT THE FILING OF ONE APPLICATION OF REGISTRATION OF VOTERS SHALL BE CONDUCTED DAILY PROHIBITED DURING HUNDRED TWENTY (120) DAYS BEFORE A REGULAR ELECTION, AS OCTOBER 31, 2012 IS AT LEAST SEVENTY (70) DAYS SHORT OF THAT PRESCRIBED BY SAID STATUTE, THEREBY CAUSING THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF MILLIONS OF FIRST-TIME REGISTRANTS AND VOTERS THAT CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED BY RESPONDENT COMELEC AS OF OCTOBER 31, 2012 FOR PURPOSES OF THE MAY 10, 2013 ELECTIONS.

10

Ibid.
16

53.

The Resolution Nos. 9194 and 9542 fixing the deadline for the filing

of application of registration of voters on October 31, 2013 violated Section 8 of The Voters Registration Act of 1996 prescribing that the filing of application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily but prohibited during one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election, as October 31, 2013 is at least seventy (70) days short of that prescribed by said statute, thereby causing the disenfranchisement of millions of first-time registrants and voters that cannot be accommodated by respondent Comelec as of October 31, 2012 for purposes of the May 13, 2013 elections.
54.

The foregoing Section 8 of The Voters Registration Act of 1996 is

positive about its phraseology that the filing of application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily only that it is prohibited to do so within one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election. It has already been established that the period of one hundred

55.

twenty (120) days starts from January 13, 2013 and ends on May 12, 2013, as the regular election is on May 13, 2013. Therefore, the deadline for the filing of the application of registration

56.

should have been January 12, 2013, not the October 31, 2012 fixed in the assailed Resolution. Likewise, it has already been shown that the difference in the

57.

number of days between October 31, 2013 and January 12, 2013 is at least seventy (70) days taken away by respondent Comelec from several millions of first-time youth registrants and voters that cannot be accommodated by respondent Comelec as of October 31, 2013 for purposes of the May 13, 2013 elections.
58.

There is no doubt that, indeed, the assailed Resolution violates the indubitably does not provide for the proper and correct

foregoing Section 8 of The Voters Registration Act of 1996. The assailed Resolution implementation of the system of continuing registration of voters, as it prescribes a period different and way earlier than is commanded under the statute.

17

59.

Verily, the assailed Resolutions have effectively deprived millions of

the voting population at least seventy (70) days of opportunity to register provided to them by The Voters Registration Act of 1996, thereby causing their disenfranchisement come May 13, 2013 elections.
60.

Thus, in view of the foregoing premises, the assailed Resolutions

violate the statutes provision on the system of continuing registration of voters, as it does not conform to Section 8 of The Voters Registration Act of 1996, and in fact defeats the purpose and spirit of the same.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioners most respectfully pray of the Honorable Court the following: 1. 2. That this Petition be given due course; That a Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and/or a Temporary Restraining Order be issued to require the respondent Commission on Elections to extend the system of continuing registration of voters until January 12, 2013 and restrain the COMELEC from implementing its October 31, 2012 deadline for election registration; 3. That after notice and hearing, a final order is issued: a. Declaring the respondent Commission on Elections Resolution Nos. 9194 and 9542 as unconstitutional and void; b. Commanding the respondent Commission on Elections to extend the system of continuing registration of voters until January 12, 2013, and; c. Commanding the respondent, as a continuing constitutional office, to strictly comply with the statutory period in the system of continuing registration of voters from hereinafter. Petitioners likewise pray for such other reliefs as are just and equitable under the circumstances.

18

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Quezon City for Manila, 31 October 2012.

JAMES MARK TERRY L. RIDON Counsel for Petitioners 89 K-7 St., Kamias, Quezon City Roll of Attorneys No. 61374 IBP Receipt No. 892955/8 March 2012/City of Manila PTR No. 6698353/30 April 2012/Quezon City MCLE compliance in the process of completion as counsel was admitted to the Bar only in 2012.

19