KABATAAN PARTY-LIST VS COMELEC (December 16, 2015)

Nature Petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction (WPI)
Parties Kabataan Party-list et al, petitioners
COMELEC, respondent
Disputed Matter Constitutionality of:
 Republic Act No. (RA) 10367, entitled "An Act Providing for Mandatory Biometrics Voter Registration,"
 COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9721, 9863, and 10013
Antecedents RA 10367
 Signed into law by Pres. Benigno Aquino on February 15, 2013;
 MANDATE – implement a mandatory biometrics registration system for new voters;
 STATE POLICY/RATIONALE – establish a clean, complete, permanent, and updated list of voters through the
adoption of biometric technology;
 SANCTION FOR FAILURE OF VOTERS TO SUBMIT THEMSELVES FOR VALIDATION – Deactivation.
Meaning they cannot vote in the May 2016 elections, subject to reactivation.

COMELEC Resolution No. 9721 (RA 10637 IRR)

 prescribed the procedure for validation, deactivation, and reactivation of voters' registration records (VRRs);
 provided specific instances and guidelines as well as requirements regarding deactivation as well as a mandate to conduct
an information drive regarding RA 10367;

COMELEC Resolution No. 9863

 introduced certain amendments to COMELEC Resolution No. 9721, as the deadline for submission for validation.

COMELEC Resolution No. 10013

 provided deactivation procedures for those who do not have biometrics data in the and prescribed the deadline for such.

Petitioners Contentions – grounds cited to declare the law and IRRs unconstitutional:
1. BIOMETRICS VALIDATION IS A SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENT ON SUFFRAGE prohibited by the
Constitution;
2. BIOMETRICS DEACTIVATION IS NOT THE DISQUALIFICATION BY LAW contemplated by the 1987
Constitution;
3. DID NOT SATISFY THE STRICT SCRUTINY TEST – there is no compelling state interest to impose the biometrics
validation. This is an unreasonable deprivation of the right to suffrage;
4. DUE PROCESS VIOLATION – for deactivated voters; and
5. POOR EXPERIENCE WITH BIOMETRICS may result to ineffective execution of the law.

SC issued a TRO to suspend implementation of assailed laws and rulings.

Issues
I. PROCEDURAL ISSUES
a. Should the Court not take cognizance
of the case because: i) the Office of
the President, the Congress and the
ERB were not impleaded; ii) the
parties have no legal standing, and iii)
the modes were inappropriate?
II. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
a. Had biometrics validation rose to the
level of an unconstitutional
substantive requirement in the
exercise of the right of suffrage?
Decision
NO – the right of suffrage is one of transcendental public
importance and of compelling significance. Procedural
matters should be brushed aside and the case should be
decided on its merits.
The case should be adjudicated urgently give the
preparation undertaken for the coming May 2016
elections.
NO – Registration regulates the exercise of the right of
suffrage. It is not a qualification for such right. It is a
procedural limitation, not a substantive qualification.
a. How is the right of suffrage described in the case? – It is
not a natural right but a right created by law. It is
a privilege granted by the State to such persons or
classes as are most likely to exercise it for the
public good.
b. What is the nature of the right of suffrage according to the
case? – It has a franchised nature. Meaning the
State may regulate said right by imposing statutory
disqualifications. [It is a valid exercise of police
power – the State may enact laws to safeguard and
regulate the act of voter's registration for the
ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly and
peaceful election]
c. Were there restrictions to the disqualifications that may be
imposed by the State on the right to vote? – YES. The
disqualifications should not amount to “literacy,
property or other substantive requirement.”
Disqualifications on grounds of the
aforementioned were purely based on socio-
economic considerations irrelevant on the ability of
the people to intelligently vote for the furtherance
of public good.
Doctrine
Election is a matter of great public concern.
It involves the people’s exercise of
democracy and hope for a better future. It
has the capacity to significantly affect the
lives of ordinary Filipinos.
Art. V, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution
The following were the
QUALIFICATIONS for the right of
suffrage:
1. Filipino citizenship;
2. Not disqualified by law;
3. Residence is the Philippines for at
least 1 year, and residence in the
place he intends to vote for at least
6 months immediately preceding the
elections;
4. [at least 18 years of age]
QUALIFICATION – loosely defined as the
possession of qualities, properties inherently
or legally necessary to make one eligible for
a position or office, or to perform a public
duty or function.
REGISTRATION –jurisprudentially
regarded as only the means by which a
person's qualifications to vote is
determined.
Issues Decision Doctrine
d. What is contemplated by the phrase “other substantive Registration is merely a procedural
requirement” as a limitation on the State’s ability to impose limitation on the right to vote, it is not a
restrictions on the right of suffrage? – It falls under the qualification for the same.
socio-economic considerations irrelevant to
suffrage, such as the payment of taxes. It does not
contemplate any restriction on procedural
requirements, such as that of registration.
e. Does biometrics registration fall under the limitation that
"[n]o literacy, property, or other substantive requirement
shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage."? – NO. It is
merely a procedural requirement.
f. RA 10367 complements RA 8189 in light of the
advances in modern technology.
b. Did the biometrics requirement violate NO – the penalty of deactivation, as well as the
the equal protection clause by creating requirement of validation, neutrally applies to all voters.
an artificial class of voters – those that Non-compliance by the “disobedient” only rightfully
are disqualified on failure to submit results into prescribed consequences.
themselves for validation?
c. Did the biometrics registration gravely NO – i) there is compelling state interest justifying the STRICT SCRUTINY – In terms of judicial
violate the Constitution as there is no regulation; and ii) it was the least restrictive means of review of statutes or ordinances, it refers to
compelling reason for state regulation, promoting said interest. the standard for determining the quality
and thus, constitutes unreasonable and the amount of governmental interest
deprivation of the right to suffrage? a. Compelling state interest – establishing a clean, brought to justify the regulation of
complete, permanent and updated list of fundamental freedoms. The US Courts
voters. This will contain, if not eliminate the expanded its reach to cover other
perennial problem of having flying voters, as well fundamental rights such as that of suffrage.
as dead and multiple registrants. Through which
electoral fraud can be eliminated to the end that The focus of strict scrutiny test is the
the results of the elections were truly reflective of establishment of:
the genuine will of the people. 1. compelling (rather than substantial)
b. Least restrictive means of promoting said interest – governmental interest;
the steps (personal appearance, presentation of 2. absence of less restrictive means for
identification, and recording of photo, finger print achieving that interest
and signature) for validation is simple and amply
justified by the fact that the government is
adopting a novel technology like biometrics in
order to address the bane of electoral fraud.
Issues
d. Did RA 10367 and the COMELEC
Resolutions violate procedural due
process because of the short periods
of time between hearings and notice,
and the summary nature of the
deactivation proceedings?
e. Was the poor experience of other
countries - i.e., Guatemala, Britain,
Cote d'lvoire, Uganda, and Kenya - in
implementing biometrics registration a
warning that should deter us from
adhering to the system?
a. Did the deadline set for validation
(October 31, 2015) violate the
provisions of RA 8189 stating that
“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”?
Decision Doctrine
NO – the public has been sufficiently apprised of the
implementation of RA 10367, and its penalty of
deactivation in case of failure to comply.
a. The resolutions provided for a process prior to
deactivation, i.e. posting of voters without
biometrics data, sending individual notices,
allowing them to file their opposition. The
deactivation also has to comply with such
requirements. The voters are given the right to be
heard, there is no violation of due process.
b. The summary nature of proceedings is justified
given the urgency of finalizing voter’s list in light
of the upcoming elections.
c. The law is duly published; the citizens are bound to
know the requirements and repercussions for its
violation.
d. COMELEC conducted a massive information
campaign – NoBio, No Boto
NO – i) these are mere speculations; ii) the court cannot Questions relating to the wisdom, morality,
inquire into the wisdom of the legislature in adopting the or practicability of statutes are policy
biometrics registration system in curbing electoral fraud – matters that should not be addressed to the
this is a political question. judiciary.
In the exercise of its legislative power, Congress has wide
latitude of discretion to enact laws, such as RA 10367, to
combat electoral fraud which, in this case, was through the
establishment of an updated voter registry.
NO – The 120- and 90- day periods stated therein refer to As the constitutional body tasked to enforce
the prohibitive period beyond which voter registration may and implement election laws, the
no longer be conducted. The subject provision does not COMELEC has the power to promulgate
mandate COMELEC to conduct voter registration up to the necessary rules and regulations to fulfill
such time; rather, it only provides a period which may not its mandate. This power includes the
be reduced, but may be extended depending on the determination of the periods to accomplish
administrative necessities and other exigencies. certain pre- election acts, such as voter
registration.