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.

How to Compensate for Donor Fatigue (in Pepeng relief)

The aftermath of Typhoon Ondoy ("Ketsana") saw an extraordinary demonstration of the charitable spirit of Pinoys around the world. Few hesitated to dole out donations in cash or kind, many others sacrificed time off their school or professional lives to volunteer in relief centers. The sort of exhibition that evokes genuine pride in what we can accomplish as a society. However, just as life was seemingly settling back to normal, the dire news started to trickle down from Northern Luzon. Typhoon Pepeng ("Parma"), which had frazzled Metro Manila into a state of mild panic last October 2 before veering north, had apparently left a toll more severe and comprehensive than Ondoy. Even more homes were damaged, more families forced to resettle in evacuation centers, more people were killed.

From my Metro Manila vantage point, it is clear that the groundswell of charity that built up post-Ondoy has yet to emerge to support the victims of Pepeng. Some have opined on various social media that this is proof of the Manila-centric nature of the metropolis's residents, but I think that donor fatigue is a more significant problem. Hesitate as we may to admit so publicly, many of those who have given time, money and possessions after Ondoy would instinctively not be as ready, when asked, to share a comparable load just one week later for the victims of Ondoy. I've already donated all I could spare; I've already earned enough karmic badges. For the overwhelming majority of Filipinos who do not aspire to sainthood, there are limits to the extent of self that can be shared for others, and those extant limits may have been already extended after Ondoy. That is not an endemic flaw of the Filipino as a people, but merely part and parcel of human nature.

Those facts, of course, are of cold comfort to the victims of Pepeng, who need aid and assistance more than ever. I think that to satisfy the needs of the victims of Pepeng that can be supplied by charity, more subtle and indirect means to raise funds for them should be devised.On the premise that people now may be resistant to give as much for Pepeng when directly implored, the solution may be to raise these funds without directly soliciting them from individuals. For this to work, the aid of institutions is of essence.

Take for example the Catholic Church, which on ordinary Sunday masses collects millions from parishioners around the country through the collection plate. Efforts by the Church to raise collections specifically oriented to the victims of Pepeng may be impeded by the sort of resistance I spoke of earlier. However, if the Church, without announcing it so, simply allocates one Sunday's worth of its regular mass collection plate receipts to the victims of Pepeng, the infusion of perhaps millions for Pepeng relief will be of enormous aid. I really don't see any reason why the Church cannot forego of that one Sunday's worth of collections to aid the less fortunate at the time of their direst need.

Corporations can help in similar fashion. Already, Krispy Kreme has a promo pledging all sales of original glazed donuts for Sunday, October 11, for Typhoon Ondoy relief. What if San Miguel, donates all October 15 sales of Pale Pilsen for Pepeng victims. San Miguel could, as Krispy Kreme did, announce such fact beforehand or simply just make the donation with minimum fuss. Other corporations and institutions should consider making a similar sacrifice. And the government should do its best to ease the way. For example, Senator Santiago's proposal to lift the donor's tax limits for typhoon relief? Pass it, ASAP.

At this point, when individual limits may just be taxed, it will have to be the institutions which will have to fill in the gap. Nonetheless, if you feel that you can still help out more, check out Bayanihan Online, which collates the latest updates in Typhoon Pepeng relief.