Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
~upreme
C!Court
;!ffilanila
r:
:":::
. ,....i 'I.~
, . . 1:,
r .........
, ""1,);c1 r ~~;:-..
, ,..., - 1.,,
...... *"' ,w.~.. ~.,.1 . \
:'.~ .. ~ r.'.
I. . i) i!; OCC
18 2015
I ''
I " '
t.
-I'.
\ ; ~"---:.'f"'""I' --~ . ; 1
... -
- .
.......
EN BANC
KABATAAN
PARTY-LIST,
REPRESENTED
BY
REPRESENTATIVE
JAMES
MARK TERRY L. RIDON
AND
MARJOHARA
S.
TUCAY; SARAH JANE I.
ELAGO, PRESIDENT OF THE
NATIONAL
UNION
OF
STUDENTS
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES;
VENCER
MARI
E.
CRISOSTOMO,
CHAIRPERSON
OF
THE
ANAKBAYAN; MARC LINO J.
ABILA,
NATIONAL
PRESIDENT
OF
THE
COLLEGE EDITORS GUILD
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES;
EINSTEIN
Z.
RECEDES,
DEPUTY
SECRETARYGENERAL OF ANAKBAYAN;
CHARISSE BERNADINE I.
BANEZ, CHAIRPERSON OF
THE LEAGUE OF FILIPINO
STUDENTS;
ARLENE
CLARISSE
Y.
JULVE,
MEMBER OF ALYANSA NG
MGA GRUPONG HALIGI NG
AGHAM AT TEKNOLOHIYA
PARA SA MAMAMAYAN
and
SINING
(AGHAM);
MARIA ROSAL. MARFORI,
Petitioners,
r '.''
Ii '.,
1
t_.::.Y
-~
:J.&J! ::;~-
.
-- - ---
Present:
SERENO, C.J,
CARPIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
REYES,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN, and
JARDELEZA, JJ
Promulgated:
December 16, 2015
~~~~-~
- versus -
COMMISSION
ELECTIONS,
ON
Respondent.
Decision
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
'', ~
"
'i :.
. PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
With application for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining
Order. Rollo, pp. 3-34.
Approved on February 15, 2013.
Entitled "RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING REPUBLIC ACT 10367, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 'AN
ACT PROVIDING FOR MANDATORY BIOMETRICS VOTER REGISTRATION,"' signed by then Chairman
Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr., and Commissioners Lucenito N. Tagle, Elias R. Yusoph, Christian Robert S.
Lim, Maria Gracia Cielo M. Padaca, Al A. Parreno, and Luie Tito F. Guia on June 26, 2013. Rollo, pp.
45-49.
Entitled "IN THE MATTER OF 1) AMENDING SECTIONS 28 AND 38 OF RESOLUTION No. 9853, DATED
FEBRUARY 19, 2013 AND 2) GUIDELINES ON DEACTIVATION OF VOTERS REGISTRATION RECORDS,"
dated April I, 2014. Id. at 50-54.
Entitled "IN THE MATTER OF DEACTIVATING THE REGISTRATION RECORDS OF VOTERS WITHOUT
BIOMETRICS DATA IN THE VOTERS' REGISTRATION SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO VALIDATE PURSUANT TO
REPUBLIC ACT No. 10367," signed by Chairman Juan Andres D. Bautista, and Commissioners
Christian Robert S. Lim, Al A. Parreno, Luie Tito F. Guia, Arthur D. Lim, Ma. Rowena Amelia V.
Guanzon, and SheriffM. Ahas. Id. at 55-58.
Id. at 13.
See Section lOofRA 10367.
Decision
technology. 8 RA 10367 was duly published on February 22, 2013, 9 and took
effect fifteen ( 15) days after. 10
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
In case the application is approved, the Election Officer shall retrieve the registration record from
the inactive file and include the same in the corresponding precinct book of voters. Local heads or
representatives of political parties shall be properly notified on approved applications.
Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A GENERAL REGISTRATION OF VOTERS, ADOPTING A SYSTEM OF
CONTINUING REGISTRATION, PRESCRIBING THE PROCEDURES THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING THE
APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS THEREFOR" (approved on June 11, 1996).
See Section 8 of RA 10367.
Rollo, pp. 45-49.
See Section 6 of Resolution No. 9721; id. at 47-48.
See Section 8 of Resolution No. 9721; id.
See Section 9 ofResolution No. 9721; id.
See Section 8 of Resolution No. 9721; id., emphasis supplied.
Decision
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Decision
See Items A (3) and (4) of Resolution No. 10013; id. at 57.
Section 4. Hearing and approval/disapproval of applications. - The applications shall be heard by
the Election Registration Board (Board) at the [Office of the Election Officer (OEO)], in accordance
with the following schedule:
Period to file
applications
36
37
38
39
40
41
Hearing and
Approval/
Disapproval of
aoolications
July 21, 2014
October 6, 2014
January 5, 2015
April 6, 2015
July 6, 2015
October 5, 20 I 5
November 4, 20 I 5
November9,
2015
If the last day to post notice, file oppositions and hearing for approval/disapproval falls on a
holiday or a non-working day, the same shall be done on the next working day.
See Item A (5) of Resolution No. 10013; id. at 57.
See Item B (3) of Resolution No. 10013; id.
See Item B (1) of Resolution No. 10013; id.
See Ite:n C (4) of Resolution No. 10013; id. at 58.
See Item A (2) of Resolution No. 10013; id. at 57.
See id. at 19-20.
Decision
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Decision
At the outset, the Court passes upon the procedural objections raised
in this case. In particular, the COMELEC claims that petitioners: (a) failed
to implead the Congress, the Office of the President, and the ERB which it
purports are indispensable parties to the case; 56 ( b) did not have the legal
standing to institute the instant petition; 57 and (c) erroneously availed of
certiorari and prohibition as a mode of questioning the constitutionality of
RA 10367 and the assailed COMELEC Resolutions. 58
The submissions do not hold.
Recognizing that the petition is hinged on an important constitutional
issue pertaining to the right of suffrage, the Court views the matter as one of
transcendental public importance and of compelling significance.
Consequently, it deems it proper to brush aside the foregoing procedural
barriers and instead, resolve the case on its merits. As resonated in the case
of Pabillo v. COMELEC, 59 citing Capalla v. COMELEc6 and Guingona, Jr.
v. COMELEC: 61
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Decision
That being said, the Court now proceeds to resolve the substantive
issues in this case.
II.
Decision
67
68
Id. at 20.
Id. at 20-21.
62 Phil. 945, 948 (1936).
See id.
Decision
10
no bearing on the right of a citizen to intelligently cast his vote and to further
the public good.
To contextualize, the first Philippine Election Law, Act No. 1582,
which took effect on January 15, 1907, mandated that only men who were at
least twenty-three (23) years old and "comprised within one of the following
three classes" were allowed to vote: (a) those who prior to the 13th of
August, 1898, held the office of municipal captain, governadorcillo, alcalde,
lieutenant, cabeza de barangay, or member of any ayuntamiento; (b) those
who own real property to the value of P500.00, or who annually pay P30.00
or more of the established taxes; and (c) those, who speak, read, and write
English or Spanish.
When the 1935 Constitution was adopted, the minimum voting age
was lowered to twenty-one (21) and the foregoing class qualification and
property requirements were removed. 69 However, the literacy requirement
was retained and only men who were able to read and write were given the
right to vote. 70 It also made women's right to vote dependent on a plebiscite
held for such purpose. 71
!
69
70
71
72
Section I. Suffrage may be exercised by male citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified
by law, who are twenty-one years of age or over and are able to read and write, and who shall have
resided in the Philippines for one year and in the municipality wherein they propose to vote for at least
six months preceding the election. The National Assembly shall extend the right of suffrage to women,
if in a plebiscite which shall be held for that purpose within two years after the adoption of this
Constitution, not less than three hundred thousand women possessing the necessary qualifications shall
vote affirmatively on the question. (Emphasis supplied)
Id.
Id.
Journal of the 1971 Constitutional Convention, Session No. 116, February 25, 1972, pp. 13-14.
Decision
11
xx xx
Decision
12
the right to participate in the choice of the persons who are to make their
laws for them. (Emphases supplied)
73
74
Journal ofthe 1971 Constitutional Convention, Session No. 116, February 25, 1972, p. 52.
After a voting of 40 in favor, 2 against, and 1 abstention, the Commission approved the exclusion of
literacy requirements from the limitations. (See Deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, dated
July 22, 1986, Vol. II, p.10 I.)
Decision
13
The following
shall be
(a) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer
imprisonment for not less than one year, such disability not having
been removed by plenary pardon or granted amnesty: Provided,
however, That any person disqualified to vote under this paragraph
shall automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five
years after service of sentence.
(b) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by
competent court or tribunal of having committed any crime involving
disloyalty to the duly constituted government such as rebellion,
sedition, violation of the anti-subversion and firearms laws, or any
crime against national security, unless restored to his full civil and
political rights in accordance with law: Provided, That he shall regain
his right to vote automatically upon expiration of five years after
service of sentence.
(c) Insane or incompetent persons as declared by competent authority.
75
76
The 1987 Constitution retained the proscription on the imposition of literacy, property, or other
substantive requirements, but during the deliberations, Commissioner Rama, proposed the restoration
of the literacy requirement on the argument that for a strong electoral system, what was needed was not
number, but intelligence of voters. He also pointed out that illiterates were manipulated by
unscrupulous politicians and that their participation in the elections is inherently flawed because they
cannot keep their votes secret as they need to be assisted in casting their votes. (See Deliberations of
the Constitutional Commission, dated July 19, 1986, Vol. II, pp.8-9.)
This proposition, however, was opposed by the majority, including Commissioner Bernas on the
reason that reading and writing were not the only vehicles to acquire information and that the right of
suffrage should not be held back from those who are unfortunate as to be unable to read and write. He
further stated that illiteracy shows government's neglect of education and disenfranchising the illiterate
would only aggravate the illiteracy because their voices will not be heard. (See Deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission, dated July 19, 1986, Vol. II, pp.15-16.)
Black's Law Dictionary, gth Ed., p. 1275.
Decision
14
xx xx
As to the procedural limitation, the right of a citizen to vote is
necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he
must undergo: among others, the process of registration. Specifically,
77
78
79
80
81
,J
Decision
15
82
83
84
Id. at 635-636.
Section 3 (a), RA 8189.
Section 2 (b), RA 10367.
Decision
16
85
86
87
rl
Decision
17
The Election Officer shall post in the bulletin board of his office a
certified list of those persons whose registration were deactivated and the
reasons therefor, and furnish copies thereof to the local heads of political
parties, the national central file, provincial file, and the voter concerned.
,)
Decision
18
92
93
94
95
Decision
19
97
See Sponsorship Speech of Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III in Senate Bill 1030. Records of the
Senate, Vol. Ill, No. 26, October 16, 2012, p. 64.
Section 6. Procedure for validation.
a. The voter shall personally appear before the GEO/satellite office.
b. Based on the list of voters without or with incomplete biometrics, the EO shall conduct an initial
interview on the personal circumstances and in order to establish the identity of the voter shall require
him to present any of the following documents:
1. Current employees identification card (ID), with the signature of the employer or authorized
representative;
2. Postal ID;
3. Students ID or library card, signed by the school authority;
4. Senior Citizens ID;
5. Drivers license;
6. NBI/PNP clearance;
7. Passport;
8. SSS/GSIS ID;
9. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) ID;
I 0. License issued by the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) and;
I I. Any other valid ID.
c. The identity of the voter having been established, the EO shall verify in the database his record
whether he has no/incomplete BIOMETRICS data. If the applicant has no or incomplete
BIOMETRICS data, the EO shall record in the logbook the following data: I) date and time; 2) the
name of the voter; and 3) VRR number. After which, the EO shall direct the voter to the VRM
Operator. The VRM Operator shall:
I. Click "Select File", then click" Other Application" then click "List of Records."
,
2. Type the last name and/or first name and/or maternal name in the space provided arid click
SEARCH button.
3. Right-click in the record of the voter and select VALIDATION from the list of application type.
4. Click on the BIOMETRICS tab.
5. Capture the photo, signature and fingerprints of the voter.
6. Save the record.
d. The voter shall be instructed to affix his signature in the logbook. (See rollo, pp. 47-48.)
Decision
20
98
99
Joo
Joi
JOl
ld.at71-75.
Section 8 of RA 10367 reads:
Section 8. Reactivation. - Those deactivated under the preceding section may apply for reactivation
after the May 2016 elections following the procedure provided in Section 28 of Republic Act No.
8189.
Section 28 of RA 8189 reads:
Section 28. Reactivation of Registration. - Any voter whose registration has been deactivated pursuant
to the preceding Section may file with the Election Officer a sworn application for reactivation of his
registration in the form of an affidavit stating that the grounds for the deactivation no longer exist any
time but not later than one hundred twenty ( 120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) days
before a special election.
The Election Officer shall submit said application to the Election Registration Board for
appropriate action.
In case the application is approved, the Election Officer shall retrieve the registration record from
the inactive file and include the same in the corresponding precinct book of voters. Local heads or
representatives of political parties shall be properly notified on approved applications.
See Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 208062, April 7, 2015.
See Rollo, pp. 26-28.
rJ
Decision
21
103
104
Period to file
applications
105
106
107
Hearing and
Approval/
Disapproval of
aonlications,
July 21, 2014
October 6, 2014
January 5, 2015
April 6, 2015
July 6, 2015
October 5, 2015
November 4, 2015
November9,
2015
If the last day to post notice, file oppositions and hearing for approval/disapproval falls on a
holiday or a non-working day, the same shall be done on the next working day.
See Section 8 of Resolution No. 9721; rollo, p. 48.
See Item B (2) (a.7) of Resolution No. 9863; id. at 53.
RA 10367 was published in the February 22, 2013 issues of Manila Bulletin and Philippine Star.
,J
Decision
22
effect fifteen (15) days after. 108 Accordingly, dating to the day of its
publications, all are bound to know the terms of its provisions, including the
consequences of non-compliance. As implemented, the process of
biometrics validation commenced on July 1, 2013, or approximately two and
a half (2Yz) years before the October 31, 2015 deadline. To add, the
COMELEC conducted a massive public information campaign, i.e., NoBioNoBoto, from May 2014 until October 31, 2015, or a period of eighteen (18)
months, whereby voters were reminded to update and validate their
registration records. On top of that, the COMELEC exerted efforts to make
the validation process more convenient for the public as it enlisteu the
assistance of malls across Metro Manila to serve as satellite registration
centers and declared Sundays as working days for COMELEC offices within
the National Capital Region and in highly urbanized cities. 109 Considering
these steps, the Court finds that the public has been sufficiently apprised of
the implementation of RA 10367, and its penalty of deactivation in case of
failure to comply. Thus, there was no violation of procedural due process.
v.
Petitioners aver that the poor experience of other countries - i.e.,
Guatemala, Britain, Cote d'Ivoire, Uganda, and Kenya - in implementing
biometrics registration should serve as warning in adhering to the system.
They highlighted the inherent difficulties in launching the same such as
environmental and geographical challenges, lack of training and skills,
mechanical breakdown, and the need for re-registration. They even adrpitted
that while biometrics may address electoral fraud caused by multiple
registrants, it does not, however, solve other election-related problems such
. an d source-co de mampu
. 1at10n.
. 110
as vote-buymg
Aside from treading on mere speculation, the insinuations are
improper. Clearly, petitioners' submissions principally assail the wisdom of
the legislature in adopting the biometrics registration system in curbing
electoral fraud. In this relation, it is significant to point out that questions
relating to the wisdom, morality, or practicability of statutes are policy
matters that should not be addressed to the judiciary. As elucidated in the
case of Farinas v. The Executive Secretary: 111
[P]olicy matters are not the concern of the Court. Government policy is
within the exclusive dominion of the political branches of the government.
It is not for this Court to look into the wisdom or propriety of
legislative determination. Indeed, whether an enactment is wise or
unwise, whether it is based on sound economic theory, whether it is the
best means to achieve the desired results, whether, in short, the legislative
discretion within its prescribed limits should be exercised in a particular
108
109
110
111
rl
Decision
23
manner are matters for the judgment of the legislature, and the serious r
conflict of opinions does not suffice to bring them within the range of
judicial cognizance. 112 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Id. at 204.
See Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corporation, G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994, 234 SCRA 255, 268.
Entitled "Kabataan Party/isl v. COMELEC."
See Notice of Resolution in Kabataan Partylist v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 220918, December 8, 2015,
citing AKLATv. COMELEC, 471 Phil. 730, 738 (2004).
ti
Decision
24
to fulfil its mandate. 116 Perforce, this power includes the determination of the
periods to accomplish certain pre-election acts, 117 such as voter registration.
SO ORDERED.
AiA~~
116
111
118
119
120
121
Id.
Id.
See Notice of Resolution in Kabataan Party-List v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 220918, December 8, 2015.
See rollo, p. 72.
See id. at 73.
See Section 2 (!),Article lX-C of the 1987 Constitution.
Decision
25
WE CONCUR:
Qz:j~
......
PRESBI:;pERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
r
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
{J~gD~~
~~'-'~
$~
Associate Justice
'JR.
Associate Just
Associate Justice
Asscciate Justice
Associate Justice
Decision
26
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court.