Could COMELEC Officials Be Jailed 1-6 Years For Not Extending Voter Registration Beyond October 31?

Voter registration in the Philippines end tomorrow, 31 October, despite complaints that not all eligible voters desiring to be registered have accomplished the process. The suggestion has been raised that ending the registration period on 31 October, or 181 days before the 10 May 2010 elections, is illegal.

The Voter Registration Act of 1996 (Republic Act 8189) governs voter registration in the Philippines, and Section 8 establishes the period for such registration. I'll quote the provision in full.

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 explicit provision of law provides for a general rule -- the daily filing of applications for registration during regular office hours; and the exception -- no registration starting 120 days before a regular election, or around 20 December 2009 with respect to the 2010 elections. It thus appears that prohibiting a would-be voter from filing an application for registration before 20 December 2009 violates the Voter's Registration Act.

Lawyers are familiar that agencies tasked with implementing the law, especially the COMELEC with respect to election laws, are accorded discretion and leeway and performing their functions. I'm quite sure COMELEC has a justification for suspending voter registration after 31 October, and its reasons may actually be sensible. However, there is a particular hitch regarding the Voter's Registration Act.

Section 45 of the Voter's Registration Act enumerates what consists of election offenses, which under Section 46, is punishable with a 1 year minimum prison sentence (6 years being the maximum). Section 45(j) is of particular interest:

Section 45. Election Offenses. - The following shall be considered election offenses under this Act: xxx

j) Violation of the provisions of this Act.

Yup, the violation of any provision of the Voter's Registration Act, including Section 8 on the voter registration period, is considered an election offense, punishable by a prison term. The definitive Supreme Court ruling interpreting this provision, Romualdez v. COMELEC (decided by a 9-6 vote in 2008), tends to support that view, even in the face of the argument that not every provision of the Voter's Registration Act can be deemed the source of an election offense. The majority opinion had this, among others, to say:

As structured, Section 45 of Republic Act No. 8189 makes a recital of election offenses under the same Act. Section 45(j) is, without doubt, crystal in its specification that a violation of any of the provisions of Republic Act No. 8189 is an election offense. The language of Section 45(j) is precise. The challenged provision renders itself to no other interpretation. A reading of the challenged provision involves no guesswork. We do not see herein an uncertainty that makes the same vague. (emphasis supplied)

A major caveat. The Romualdez case involved the violation of different provisions (Sections 10[g] & [j]) of the Voter's Registration Act, and not Section 8. If violating Section 8 of the Voter's Registration Act is ultimately found to indeed be an election offense, then so could the more innocuous provisions of the act, including the routine acts performed by those registering to vote, a prospect that could very well be exploited to no good by political campaigns. If you are to read the Romualdez case, might as well read the two dissenting opinions here and here, as well as this UST law journal article (PDF) on the constitutional issue surrounding that case.