FLORENCIO BERNABE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. BENJAMIN H. AQUINO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL (BR. VIII) AND ROMEO A. R. AMBROCIO, RESPONDENTS.

Original action for certiorari.  In this first case involving the Election
Code of 1971, Republic Act No. 6388, which took effect on September 2, 1971, petitioner
questions the authority thereunder of the Commission
on Elections to extend to October 14,
1971 the period for the filing of exclusion cases against
disqualified or illegally regis­tered voters.

Respondent Romeo A. R. Ambrocio, as
election registrar of Paranaque,
Rizal, filed on September 24, 1971 the petitions for exclu­sion from the
permanent list of voters of Parañaque, Rizal, of the registered voters impleaded
as respondents in said petitions docketed as Election Cases Nos. 63 to 78 of
respondent court.

Petitioner, having been allowed to intervene as a mayoralty
candidate who may be affected by the proceedings^[1]
filed motions to dismiss the cases on the ground that they were filed beyond
the deadline of September 9, 1971 fixed under section 137 of the Election Code
of 1971, which provides that such exclusion cases may not be filed within the
period of sixty days before a regular election.^[2]

Respondent court denied petitioner’s dismissal motions for lack
of merit in its order of October 5,
1971, and likewise denied in open court on the same day
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Hence, the present petition challenging respondent court’s
jurisdiction to hear and resolve the exclusion cases.  At petitioner’s instance, the Court issued on
October 7, 1971 a temporary
restraining order enjoining respondent court from further proceedings in the
pre­mises pending the Court’s resolution of the issue.

Respondent election registrar maintains in his answer that the
exclusion cases were timely filed with respondent court by virtue of Comelec Resolution No. RR-938 duly promulgated on September
3, 1971, extending, inter alia, the period for
the filing of such exclusion cases up to October 14, 1971, inclusive, under the
authority of the transitory provisions of section 240 of the new Code, as
follows:

“WHEREAS, the Election Code of 1971 fixes definite periods and
dates for certain pre-election acts;

“WHEREAS, it would no longer reasonably be possible to observe
some of the periods and dates prescribed in said Code and as a matter of fact
some of these periods and dates have already elapsed, while other periods and
dates cannot be observed without im­pairing the rights and causes of action of
those who may desire to avail themselves thereof or without depriving voters of
their right of suffrage;

x          x          x

WHEREFORE, the Commission on Elections, pursuant to Sec. 240 of
said Code, RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to fix and declare the following
dates and periods in force for certain pre-election acts
in con­nection with the November 8,
1971 elections:

x          x          x

“VIII.    Inclusion and
exclusion

of voters
before precinct

books of
voters are closed and sealed. 
(Secs. 136 and

137,
Election Code of 1971)

A.  Filing of petition in – Not later than
Municipal Court or October 14, 1971
Court of First Instance

x          x          x”

1.  The Court holds that the Comelec validly extended the dead­line for the filing of
exclusion cases under the express authority thus granted it in section 240 of
the new Code:

“SEC. 240.  Designation of certain
pre-election acts immediately after the approval of this Act.  – If upon the approval of this Act, it should
no longer rea­sonably be possible to observe the periods and dates herein
prescribed for certain pre-election acts in the 1971 elections, the Commission
shall fix other periods or order that voters shall not be deprived of
their right of suffrage.”^[3]

The legislative injunction in section 247 of the new Code that
the Comelec “shall have such powers pertaining
to election matters, only as are expressly granted in this Code, existing laws
or jurispru­dence to the contrary notwithstanding.  Nothing herein contained shall be construed
as a grant of implied powers,” as invoked by petitioner, is not herein
applicable.

2.  It should be recalled
that under the previous law, the dead­line for the filing of such exclusion
cases would have been later by fif­teen days and would have expired only on
September 24, 1971, since it provided for a longer period for the filing of
such cases excepting only forty-five days before a regular election,^[4]
as against the earlier deadline of September 9, 1971 under the new Code
proscribing the filing of exclusion cases within the period of sixty days
before a regu­lar election.^[5]
Since the previous law provided for the registra­tion of qualified voters on
any date but not later than sixty days before a regular election^[6]
it could readily be seen that the application of the new Election Code, as
sought by petitioner, would in effect practi­cally foreclose the right to file
exclusion cases:  – voters under the pre­vious
law had up to September 9, 1971 to register (60 days before the
election) yet no exclusion case could be filed against them, since under the
new Code, no such case may be filed after September 9, 1971 (no
exclusion case may be filed within 60 days before the election).

Such extension to October 14, 1971 of the deadline for
filing of exclusion cases was made doubly necessary since the Comelec in Article I of its cited resolution of September
3, 1971 extended the period for registration of voters “before election
registrars – (to) every working day up to September 10, 1971,” with
a view of giving the voters every opportunity to register and not be deprived
of their right of suffrage.  With­out
such extension, the period to file exclusion proceedings would have expired on September 9, 1971, even before the
expiration on September 10, 1971
of the extended period for registration.

Hence, to avoid giving such unintended sanctuary to disqualified
and illegally registered voters, the Comelec properly
exercised the authority granted under the transitory provision of section 240
of the new Code to extend the period for the filing of exclusion cases up to
October 14, 1971,
only for the 1971 elections.

3.  The text and substance of
the transitory authority granted to the Comelec in
the cited section of the new Code do not warrant petitioner’s restrictive view
that the purpose of the extension should be that “voters shall not be
deprived of their right of suffrage,” whereas exclusion pro­ceedings
precisely seek to deprive certain registered voters of their right to vote.

To begin with, voters who have been registered in the permanent
list notwithstanding their being disqualified, or illegally registered, or
fictitious, – which is the burden of the petitions below – may not validly
claim to be deprived of their right of suffrage, if they are ordered exclu­ded
as the Election Code ordains.  Then
again, as it was no longer rea­sonably possible to observe the deadline for
exclusion cases as prescribed in section 137 of the new Code since the
deadline, September 9, 1971, was close at hand when the new Code was approved,
the very condition therein laid down for the Comelec’s
exercise of the transitory authority to extend the deadline for the filing of
such exclusion cases was clearly satisfied. 
As already stated above, since the Comelec
extended to September 10, 1971
the period for registration of new voters, it necessarily had to ex­tend to a
reasonable period to October 14, 1971
the period for filing peti­tions for the exclusion of disqualified or
fictitious voters who may have succeeded in being illegally registered.  Furthermore, it should not escape attention
that the questioned resolution likewise extends the same deadline for inclusion
proceedings which otherwise it would not have been reason­ably possible to
observe, because of the belated enactment and approval of the new Code.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby dismissed and the
temporary restraining order of October
7, 1971 is recalled and set aside. 
In view of the shortness of the time left before the November 8, 1971
elections, this decision is declared immediately executory
and respondent court is directed to forthwith hear and re­solve the pending
exclusion cases before it.  SO OR­DERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Barredo, Villamor,
and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Pursuant to Sec. 139(e), R.A. 6388.

^[2]
The pertinent provision of sec. 137, R.A. 6388 reads:

“SEC. 137.  Application for exclu­sion of voters from the permanent list.  — Any registered voter,
representative of a political party or election regis­trar of the city,
municipality or municipal district, may at any time except sixty days before
a regular election and twenty-five days before a special election apply
with the proper court for the exclusion of a voter from the permanent list on
the ground that he is disqualified, or illegally registered, giving the name
and residence of the latter, and the election precinct in which he is
registered.  ** ** **.” (Underscoring
supplied)

^[3]
Emphasis furnished.  This is the official
text as printed by the Bureau of Printing and per certification dated October 25, 1971 issued by Secretary
I. B. Pareja of the House of Representatives and
attached by the Clerk to the Rollo.

^[4]
Sec. 15, R.A. No. 3588, which was renumbered as Sec. 18, R.A. No. 4730.

^[5]
Sec. 137, R.A. No. 6388, supra, fn. 2.

^[6]
Sec. 5, R.A. No. 3588, renumbered as Sec. 8, R.A. No. 4730.  The new Election Code of 1971 now provides in
Section 109 for an earlier deadline for registration of qualified voters, i.e.
“not later than the first Saturday of August of an election year.”