Welcome to the campaign website of Kabataan Partylist

Manifestation

06 January 2010

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

KABATAAN PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE RAYMOND V. PALATINO, ET AL.,

Petitioners,

- versus - G.R. No. 189868
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

Respondent.

x—————————————————-x

MANIFESTATION

PETITIONERS, through the undersigned counsel, unto the Honorable Supreme Court, most respectfully state that:

On December 15, 2009, the Honorable Court unanimously granted the instant Petition, the dispositive portion of which states, thus:

“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 May 10, 2010 elections on October 31, 2009. The COMELEC is directed to proceed with dispatch in reopening the registration of voters and holding the same until January 9, 2010. This Decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.

SO ORDERED.

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice”

(Emphasis supplied)

As a response thereto, respondent Commission on Elections promulgated on December 17, 2009 Resolution No. 8719 entitled “IN THE MATTER OF REOPENING THE REGISTRATION OF VOTERS UNTIL JANUARY 9, 2010,” the full text thereof is as follows, thus:

“RESOLUTION NO. 8719

WHEREAS, the Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. 8585, promulgated on February 12, 2009, adjusted the periods and dates set for the deadline of filing of applications for registration, last Election Registration Board (ERB) hearing and other related activities, including the submission to the Election and Barangay Affairs Department (EBAD) of the Project of Precincts (POPs) from the field offices of the Commission, so that the required data on the number of precincts and registered voters will become available in time for the setting of the configuration data of the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines to be used for the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections;

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court promulgated on December 15, 2009, its Decision in G.R. No. 189868 entitled Kabataan Party-List Representative Raymond v. Palatino et al versus Commission on Elections, declaring said Resolution No. 8585 as null and void insofar as it set the deadline of voter registration for the May 10, 2010 elections on October 31, 2009, and directing the Commission to proceed with the reopening of the registration of voters and holding the same until January 9, 2010;

WHEREAS, Section 3 (a) of Republic Act No. 8189 (The Voter’s Registration Act of 1997), by referring to registration as the “act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board (ERB)”, prescribes that the registration period includes the ERB hearing;

WHEREAS, in order to implement the Supreme Court Decision in the Kabataan case there is a need to set new dates and periods for the reopening of the registration o voters;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission on Elections, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, and other election laws, RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to promulgate the following guidelines in the reopening of registration of voters;

The personal filing of applications for registration of voters shall be made at the Office of the Election Officer (OEO) of the district/city/municipality where the applicants reside, from 8:00 o’clock in the morning until 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, in accordance with Resolution No. 8514, promulgated on November 12, 2008;

No satellite registration shall be conducted and no application for transfer of registration records, reactivation and changes / correction of entries in the registration records / inclusion of registration records / reinstatement of names in the list of voters, shall be filed;

Minute Resolution No. 09-0611 dated September 15, 2009, on the use of Add-On Utilities shall apply in areas where the Data Capturing Machine (DCM) and/or its peripherals are defective or malfunctioning, as certified by the CVL technician of the province and as reported to the Information Technology Department (ITD). Add-ons on approved applications during the reopening of registration shall be integrated in the Supplemental List referred to in paragraph 6 hereunder;

The applications for registration shall be heard in accordance with the following schedule:

Petitions for inclusion and exclusion of voters in the list may be filed in the proper courts not later than January 15, 2010; and

The Information Technology Department shall develop the appropriate program to segregate the records of registered voters as of the November 16, 2009 ERB hearing from those whose applications will be approved on January 9, 2010, and provide all Election Officers with the instructions for the generation of a separate Supplemental List of Voters in Posted Computerized Voters (PCVL) format.

The Regional Election Directors shall ensure that the program referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph is installed in the Data Capturing Machines (DCMs) prior to their use in the reopening of the registration of voters.

The Resolution shall take effect immediately.

Let the Election and Barangay Affairs Department implement this resolution.

SO ORDERED.

(Sgd.)

JOSE A.R. MELO

Chairman

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)

RENE V. SARMIENTO NICODEMO T. FERRER

Commissioner Commissioner

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)

LUCENITO N. TAGLE ARMANDO C. VELASCO

Commissioner Commissioner

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)

ELIAS R. YUSOPH GREGORIO Y. LARRAZABAL

Commissioner Commissioner”

(Emphasis supplied)

A copy of respondent’s Resolution No. 8719 dated December 17, 2009 is attached hereto as Annex “A”.

RESPONDENT’S RESOLUTION NO. 8719 DATED DECEMBER 17, 2009, INSOFAR AS IT SET THE PERIOD OF THE PERSONAL FILING OF APPLICATION OF REGISTRATION OF VOTERS ONLY ON DECEMBER 21, 22, 23, 28 AND 29, 2009 AND NOT UNTIL JANUARY 9, 2010, IS PATENTLY CONTRARY TO SECTION 8 OF THE VOTER’S REGISTRATION ACT AND THE HONORABLE COURT’S DECISION.

Petitioners most humbly submit that the foregoing respondent’s Resolution No. 8719, which is supposed to implement the Honorable Court’s immediately executory Decision in the above-entitled Petition, insofar as it set the period of the personal filing of application of registration of voters only on December 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29, 2009, is patently contrary to Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act and the Honorable Court’s Decision.

It is most respectfully emphasized that said Decision has declared as null and void respondent’s Resolution No. 8585 dated February 12, 2009, insofar as it set the deadline of voters registration only on October 31, 2009 for the May 10, 2010 elections, because Resolution No. 8585 is manifestly contrary to Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act 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 supplied)

Thus, the Honorable Court has unequivocally declared in its Decision:

“The clear text of the law decrees that voters be allowed to register daily during regular office hours, except during the period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election.” (p. 5, Decision) (Emphasis supplied)

Hence, the dispositive portion of the Honorable Court’s Decision:

“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 May 10, 2010 elections on October 31, 2009. The COMELEC is directed to proceed with dispatch in reopening the registration of voters and holding the same until January 9, 2010. This Decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.” (Emphasis supplied)

There is not an iota of ambiguity in the text of the Honorable Court’s Decision. All qualified voters must be allowed to register daily during regular office hours, as clearly and categorically declared in the Decision, except during the period starting 120 days before a regular election.

Thus, as January 10, 2010 is the start of the 120-day prohibitive period before the regular election on May 10, 2010, the last day therefore for the personal filing of application of registration of voters should be on January 9, 2010, as mandated by Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act and as clearly and categorically declared in the Decision.

And it is reiterated that the period after October 31, 2009 until January 9, 2010 for the reopening of the registration of voters for the personal filing of application thereof, as clearly and categorically stated in the Decision, is not a mere extension of the period for the personal filing of application of registration of voters.

By promulgating its Decision, the Honorable Court has corrected the glaring and manifest grave abuse of discretion committed by respondent in setting the deadline of the system of continuing registration of voters only on October 31, 2009 and not on January 9, 2010, which latter date is the one mandated by Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act for purposes of the May 10, 2010 elections.

Thus, it should not be only on December 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29, 2009 that the personal filing of application of registration of voters should be allowed by respondent. It should be daily during regular office hours until January 9, 2010.

Otherwise, again, for fear of being redundant, it would be a patent violation of the Honorable Court’s Decision, thus:

“The clear text of the law decrees that voters be allowed to register daily during regular office hours, except during the period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election.” (p. 5, Decision)

xxx xxx xxx

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 May 10, 2010 elections on October 31, 2009. The COMELEC is directed to proceed with dispatch in reopening the registration of voters and holding the same until January 9, 2010. This Decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.” (p. 8, Decision) (Emphasis supplied)

By promulgating its Decision, the Honorable Court is clearly directing respondent to reopen the registration of voters by allowing the personal filing of application thereof daily during regular office hours until January 9, 2010.

And if respondent would invoke its “power to fix other periods and dates for pre-election activities,” suffice it to say that the Honorable Court’s Decision has already ruled on the matter in this wise, thus:

“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.” (pp. 6-7, Decision) (Emphasis supplied)

Indeed, such grant of power is only for the purpose of enabling the people to exercise their right of suffrage, not for the purpose of defeating the exercise of the right of suffrage, as categorically stated in Section 29 of R.A. No. 6646 and Section 28 of R.A. No. 8436, thus:

“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.” (Republic Act No. 6646) (Emphasis supplied)

“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 right of suffrage.” (Republic Act No. 8436) (Emphasis supplied)

And shortening again the system of continuing registration of voters only on December 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29, 2009, and not conducting the same until January 9, 2010, clearly defeats the exercise by the people of their right of suffrage. Clearly, it does not enable the people to exercise their right of suffrage, for obvious reasons. Certainly, it deprives the people of their right of suffrage contrary to the intent of the grant of such power to respondent.

Several problems have been encountered during the first shortened period of registration of voters like long queues and waiting, insufficient registration documents, malfunctioning or insufficient number of data capturing machines, which can process only around 200 to 250 applications a day.

During the reopening of the system of continuing registration of voters, the same quota or ceiling of processing only around 200 to 250 applications daily has been adopted by respondent. There was even an instance in Iloilo City where as of 11:00 A.M. on December 29, 2009, around five hundred (500) applicants had lined up to register and yet the local office of respondent for the whole city had announced that it would be accepting only one hundred fifty (150) applicants.

Indeed, even if applicants would line up every day, and the number of applicants reaches beyond the quota or ceiling a day, there would be applicants who definitely would not be able to register. And this is what happened.

Given that situation, then it is with more reason that respondent should comply with the system of continuing registration of voters until January 9, 2010, and not only until December 29, 2009, to provide the applicants the opportunity to exercise their Constitutional right of suffrage.

Thus, Resolution No. 8719, insofar as it set the period of the personal filing of application of registration of voters only on December 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29, 2009, is patently contrary to Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act and the Honorable Court’s Decision.

RESPONDENT’S REFERENCE TO SECTION 3 (A) OF THE VOTER’S REGISTRATION ACT IN ITS RESOLUTION NO. 8719, AS BASIS FOR SHORTENING AGAIN THE SYSTEM OF CONTINUING REGISTRATION AND SETTING THE PERIOD ONLY ON DECEMBER 21, 22, 23, 28, AND 29, 2009 INSTEAD OF UNTIL JANUARY 9, 2010, IS CLEARLY MISPLACED AND IS INVOKED TO EVADE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HONORABLE COURT’S DECISION.

Respondent’s reference to Section 3 (a) of The Voter’s Registration Act in the third whereas clause of Resolution No. 8719, which allegedly justifies its act of shortening again the system of continuing registration of voters and setting the period only on December 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29, 2009 instead of until January 9, 2010, is simply a deliberate attempt of respondent to evade the correct and proper implementation of the Honorable Court’s Decision.

Why is respondent always making excuses and intentionally finding ways for the millions of first-time registrants and voters, whom respondent miserably failed to accommodate during its two instances of shortened period of registration, not to exercise their right of suffrage in the May 10, 2010 elections?

Why can respondent not simply comply with Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act and the Honorable Court’s Decision?

The May 10, 2010 national and local elections are much highly anticipated and the stakes are high. The youth sector humbly wishes to effect change in the Philippine society by exercising their right of suffrage. And that Constitutional right is too important and overarching for respondent to simply utterly disregard.

The provision invoked by respondent in its third whereas clause in its Resolution No. 8719 is Section 3 (a) of The Voter’s Registration Act, thus:

“Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act:

(a) Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board;”

The third whereas clause of Resolution No. 8719 states, thus:

“WHEREAS, Section 3 (a) of Republic Act No. 8189 (The Voter’s Registration Act of 1997), by referring to registration as the “act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board (ERB)”, prescribes that the registration period includes the ERB hearing;” (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, respondent took away several precious days from the period allotted only for the personal filing of application of registration of voters and it allotted the same for other matters, as follows:

January 4, 2010 – Last day to post Notice of Hearing;

January 6, 2010 – Last day to file opposition to the applications for registration; and

January 9, 2010 – Hearing / Approval / Disapproval of Applications.

Suffice it to say that the Honorable Court’s Decision has declared, in clear and categorical terms, that “voters be allowed to register daily during regular office hours, except during the period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election.”

“The clear text of the law decrees that voters be allowed to register daily during regular office hours, except during the period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election.” (p. 5, Decision) (Emphasis supplied)

That is, voters must be allowed to register daily during regular office hours until January 9, 2010, as January 10, 2010 is the start of the 120-day prohibitive period for purposes of the May 10, 2010 elections.

That is, voters must be allowed to personally file their respective applications of registration daily during regular office hours until January 9, 2010, and not only until December 29, 2009.

That is what is mandated under the system of continuing registration of voters prescribed in Section 8 of The Voter’s Registrations Act, and which is unambiguously and unequivocally upheld by the Honorable Court in its Decision.

Therefore, the personal filing of application of registration of voters must be until January 9, 2010, not only until December 29, 2009. And matters like the “the posting of notice of hearing,” “filing opposition to the applications for registration,” and “hearing, approval, or disapproval of applications” by the Election Registration Board should not be done at the expense of the system of continuing registration of voters.

Such matters should be made without prejudice to the conduct of the system of continuing registration of voters, as mandated by Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act. Respondent must not raise a conflict between Section 3 (a) and Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act that would prejudice the right of suffrage of first-time registrants and voters.

It is the petitioners’ humble opinion that both Section 3 (a) and Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act should be read together in order for the people to fully exercise their right of suffrage.

The definition of the term “Registration” under Section 3 (a) of The Voter’s Registration Act refers to two aspects, thus:

First, it refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides; and

Second, it refers to the act of including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board.

This is clear under Section 3 (a) of The Voter’s Registration Act, thus:

“Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act:

(a) Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board;” (Emphasis supplied)

It must be made clear, petitioners most humbly opine, that Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act, – the system of continuing registration of voters – which is the matter of the Honorable Court’s Decision and upheld against respondent’s Resolution No. 8585, refers to the first aspect of Section 3 (a) of said statute.

This is very clear based on the text of both provisions, thus:

“Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act:

(a) Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board;” (Emphasis supplied)

“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)

And the Honorable Court’s Decision refers to the system of continuing registration of voters under Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act – that is, the personal filing of application of registration of voters which shall be conducted daily during regular office hours except during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election, 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.

The clear text of the law decrees that voters be allowed to register daily during regular office hours, except during the period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election. (p. 5, Decision)

xxx xxx xxx

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 May 10, 2010 elections on October 31, 2009. The COMELEC is directed to proceed with dispatch in reopening the registration of voters and holding the same until January 9, 2010. This Decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.” (p. 8, Decision) (Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, as the system of continuing registration of voters under Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act is the first aspect of Section 3 (a) of said statute, and the system of continuing registration of voters mandates that the personal filing of application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily during regular office hours except during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election, there is not an iota of doubt that the system of continuing registration must be conducted until January 9, 2010, and not only until December 29, 2009.

And it becomes clear now that the second aspect of Section 3 (a) of The Voter’s Registration Act – that which refers to the act of including the application for registration in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board – is not within the ambit of the system of continuing registration of voters under Section 8 of said statute.

Hence, respondent’s reliance upon Section 3 (a) of The Voter’s Registration Act in it Resolution No. 8719, as basis for shortening again the system of continuing registration and setting the period only on December 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29, 2009 instead of until January 9, 2010, is clearly misplaced.

Thus, matters like the “the posting of notice of hearing,” “filing opposition to the applications for registration,” and “hearing, approval, or disapproval of applications” by the Election Registration Board – matters which are within the second aspect of Section 3 (a) of The Voter’s Registration Act – should not be done at the expense of the system of continuing registration of voters.

As such, Resolution No. 8719, insofar as it set the period of the personal filing of application of registration of voters only on December 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29, 2009 and is allotting the rest of the period until January 9, 2010 only for matters outside the ambit of the system of continuing registration, – to the prejudice of the system of continuing registration – is patently contrary to Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act and the Honorable Court’s Decision.

RESPONDENT’S RESOLUTION NO. 8719, INSOFAR AS IT DOES NOT ALLOW ANY APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF REGISTRATION RECORDS, REACTIVATION AND CHANGES OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE REGISTRATION RECORDS, INCLUSION OF REGISTRATION RECORDS AND REINSTATEMENT OF NAMES IN THE LIST OF VOTERS, IS PATENTLY CONTRARY TO SECTION 8 OF THE VOTER’S REGISTRATION ACT AND THE HONORABLE COURT’S DECISION.

Resolution No. 8719 states the following, thus:

“NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission on Elections, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, and other election laws, RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to promulgate the following guidelines in the reopening of registration of voters;

xxx xxx xxx

No satellite registration shall be conducted and no application for transfer of registration records, reactivation and changes / correction of entries in the registration records / inclusion of registration records / reinstatement of names in the list of voters, shall be filed;” (p. 2, Resolution No. 8719) (Emphasis supplied)

For fear of being redundant, it is reiterated that the period after October 31, 2009 until January 9, 2010 for the reopening of the registration of voters for the personal filing of application thereof, as clearly and categorically stated in the Decision, is not a mere extension of the period for the personal filing of application of registration of voters.

By promulgating its Decision, the Honorable Court has corrected the glaring and manifest grave abuse of discretion committed by respondent in shortening the lawfully mandated period for the system of continuing registration of voters and setting the deadline only on October 31, 2009 and not on January 9, 2010, which is the one mandated by Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act for purposes of the May 10, 2010 elections.

Thus, it is very reasonable to conclude that the period until January 9, 2010, which is part of the originally lawfully mandated period for the system of continuing registration of voters, should include matters which are inherently related to the system of continuing registration of voters.

And these inherently related matters include application for transfer of registration records, reactivation and changes or correction of entries in the registration records, inclusion of registration records and reinstatement of names in the list of voters.

If those inherently related matters were allowed by respondent until October 31, 2009, then why would respondent arbitrarily deprive voters from filing application for such inherently related matters during the reopening of the system of continuing registration of voters until January 9, 2010 when such period is part of the originally lawfully mandated period for the system of continuing registration of voters under Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act for purposes of the May 10, 2010 elections?

Thus, it very unreasonable on the part of respondent to exclude such inherently related matters in the reopening of the system of continuing registration of voters until January 9, 2010.

Therefore, respondent’s Resolution No. 8719, insofar as it does not allow any application for transfer of registration records, reactivation and changes or correction of entries in the registration records, inclusion of registration records and reinstatement of names in the list of voters, is patently contrary to Section 8 of The Voter’s Registration Act and the Honorable Court’s Decision.

RESPONDENT’S CATEGORICAL STATEMENTS TO THE MEDIA THAT IT WILL NOT PRINT OFFICIAL BALLOTS FOR THE MAY 10, 2010 ELECTIONS FOR THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRANTS AND VOTERS DURING THE REOPENING OF THE SYSTEM OF CONTINUING REGISTRATION OF VOTERS CONSTITUTE AN ACT TO DELIBERATELY DISENFRANCHISE SAID ADDITIONAL REGISTRANTS AND VOTERS.

Respondent has been issuing statements to the media that it will not print additional official ballots for the additional registrants and voters who availed of the reopening of the system of continuing registration of voters.

The following articles were taken from the respective online editions of Cebu Daily News on December 21, 2009 and Manila Times on December 22, 2009, thus:

“Cebu Daily News

Extended list-up starts; Comelec says there’s chance new voters can’t vote

Manila — The Commission on Elections (Comelec) is preparing for a mad rush of new voters wanting to register following the Supreme Court’s decision to extend voters’ registration until Jan. 9, 2010.

However, some of these additional registrants may not have a chance to vote because the Comelec decided not to print additional ballots for the additional voters who will register starting today.

“We won’t be printing any additional ballots. They will be like chance passengers,” said Comelec spokesman James Arthur Jimenez in a GMANews.TV interview.

Jimenez said that the ballots to be printed on January 28 are based on the number of voters that had registered prior to the Supreme Court ruling.

According to the Comelec, there are more than 49 million registered voters as of Dec. 10 and the supposed ratio of the ballot to voter was one is to one.

Jimenez said that the only way these additional voters could vote is if there would be “spare” ballots on election day.

He, however, said that there’s “usually low voter turnout” during the elections and thus there could still be extra ballots for the additional voters.

Jimenez, who is also the director of the Comelec’s education and information department, said the agency has prepared to accommodate about a million people taking advantage of the renewed opportunity to register.

The extension of the registration period, ordered last week by the high court, was scheduled for five days by the Comelec in an en banc resolution issued Thursday.

Jimenez called on local Comelec officials in charge of registration to be patient with the expected long lines of would-be registrants from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Dec. 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29.

“In registering during this five-day period, we should expect that there would be lots of people there so it’s better if we keep our heads cool,” Jimenez told reporters.

He recalled that in the days leading to the deadline of registration – Oct. 31 – people trooped to the municipal and district election offices at the last minute and there were near-brawls with some people bad-mouthing Comelec employees for the lengthy wait or for not being able to register.

Jimenez reminded those registering to bring the necessary requirements such as valid identification cards, pens and, if possible, registration forms obtained in advance from the local election office.

On Dec. 15, the Supreme Court granted a petition of the Kabataan party-list group to extend the registration period to Jan. 9, 2010.

The justices ruled as invalid Comelec’s advancing to Oct. 15 the original Dec. 15 deadline for the registration, noting that Republic Act No. 8189 or the Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 provided that the final day of registration should be not 120 days before the election itself.

The Comelec said petitions for inclusions and exclusion of voters in the voters’ lists should be filed on or before Jan. 15.

In its latest tally, Comelec said there were about 49.2 million registered voters qualified to vote in the May 2010 national and local elections. In the 2007 midterm elections, there were only 45 million voters.

Kabataan lawyer Julius Matibag said around four million first-time registrants, mostly youths, had yet to register.

If all of them registered, they would “mostly likely” decide who the next president would be, he said in a statement.

“These new voters will most likely determine the fate of next year’s polls. The May 2010 elections are much highly anticipated and the stakes are high. The youth wish to effect change in the country by exercising their right of suffrage. They will determine who the next president will be,” Matibag said.

The lawyer said that due to the shortened registration period, Comelec was able to accommodate only less than 3 million first-time registrants compared to the “conservative” estimate of around 7 million eligible first-time voters by the National Statistics Office. /INQUIRER with a GMANEWS.TV report” (Emphasis supplied)

“Manila Times

A recent Supreme Court ruling requiring the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to extend voters’ registration up to January 9 next year has required the poll body to print some 50 million ballots, not the over 49 million that it had intended to produce.

The total number of registered voters from the original October 31 deadline reached 49.2 million, but the commission will now print as many as 50 million for the expected influx of more voters because of the extension.

Printing of the ballots that will be used for the first-ever nationwide automated elections is set to start on January 25, Comelec Chairman Jose Melo said Monday.

“That [number of ballots] will be based on the number of voters registered per precinct. Ballots will be precinct-specific,” Melo added.

Only a specified number of ballots will be delivered to each of the 74,000 clustered precincts, a move that supposedly would help hinder any possible election fraud in the May 2010 elections.

“We cannot wait for the list of new registrants” to be able to come up with the actual number of ballots needed for next year’s polls, Melo said.

He disclosed that they would only be printing some 50 million ballots since historically, there has never been a 100-percent turnout of voters in each precinct.

Like chance passengers

Late registrants, Melo said, would have to be like “chance passengers,” who would be able to vote only in case early registrants opted not to exercise their right to cast their ballot.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a petition filed by Ang Kabataan party-list group, which urged the Comelec to extend the voters’ registration.

Registration officially ended on October 31 and the poll body declined to extend it despite calls from various groups.

Melo said that the commission had given the public more than 10 months to enlist.

But with the Supreme Court decision to extend the voters’ registration, he conceded that they had no choice but to comply with the ruling.

Melo said that he would stand in the way of another extension.

Under the law, the Comelec is required to open the registration for voters prior to 120 days before election day. Its field offices will be open for registration on December 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29.

Melo said that he was hoping the public would not troop to the field offices on the last day of the extended registration.” (Emphasis supplied)

Respondent’s statements that registrants and voters who availed of the reopening of the system of continuing registration of voters would be mere “chance passengers”, as respondent refers to them, “and would be able to vote only if early registrants opt not to exercise their right of suffrage”, indeed constitute an act to deliberately disenfranchise said registrants and voters.

If shortening again the period of the system of continuing registration of voters only on December 21, 22, 23, 28, and 29, 2009 and not until January 9, 2010 is already an act depriving the people of their right of suffrage, respondent’s treatment to these additional registrants and voters as mere “chance passengers” has already sealed their fate – a bleak one at that – in the May 10, 2010 elections.

Petitioners could not understand why respondent is very lenient to Smartmatic in its delays in the delivery of the automated machines when such matter is the heart of automated elections. Without the machines, there will not be automated elections.

And to the first-time registrants and voters who merely want to exercise their right of suffrage, respondent has no patience and is even depriving them from fully exercising their right of suffrage.

Thus, instead of issuing scary pronouncements to the media about the alleged effects of the reopening of the system of continuing registration of voters, respondent should simply comply with the Honorable Court’s Decision.

Petitioners cannot overemphasize enough the seriousness of the consequences of such adamant plan of respondent not to print additional ballots for the additional registrants and voters.

It is a premeditated and deliberate intention to disenfranchise these additional registrants and voters, plain and simple. It is a premeditated and deliberate intention to violate the Constitutional right of suffrage, plain and simple.

And petitioners most humbly submit that this should not be countenanced by the Honorable Court.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioners most respectfully pray of the Honorable Court the following:

1. That this Manifestation be duly noted by the Honorable Court;

1. That respondent Commission on Elections be directed to continue allowing the personal filing of application of registration of voters until January 9, 2010 in accordance with the Honorable Court’s Decision dated December 15, 2009 in the above-entitled Petition;

1. That respondent Commission on Elections be directed to allow applications for transfer of registration records, reactivation and changes or correction of entries in the registration records, inclusion of registration records and reinstatement of names in the list of voters until January 9, 2010; and

1. That respondent Commission on Elections be directed to print the corresponding number of additional official ballots for the May 10, 2010 elections for the additional registrants and voters who availed of the reopening of the system of continuing registration of voters until January 9, 2010.

Petitioners likewise pray for such other reliefs as are just and equitable under the circumstances.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Quezon City for Manila, 28 December 2009.

Copy furnished: Through Registered Mail

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Palacio Del Gobernador Building

Intramuros, Manila

SOLICITOR GENERAL

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

OSG Bldg., 134 Amorsolo St.,

Legaspi Village, Makati City

EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE OF MANIFESTATION

THROUGH REGISTERED MAIL

The service of copies of the instant Manifestation is done through registered mail. Pursuant to Rule 13, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, the service of copies of the instant Manifestation cannot be done personally due to distance and lack of available personnel.

JULIUS GARCIA MATIBAG

0 Comments For This Post

1 Trackbacks For This Post

No ‘chance passengers,’ Print ballots for new voters, Comelec told | Kabataan Partylist Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
[...] Partylist, the largest youth party in the country, today filed a manifestation at the Supreme Court (SC) directing the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to ensure that new voters [...]