Kabataan Party-list v. COMELEC
| G.R. No. 221318 | December 16, 2015 | J. Perlas-Bernabe
| Article V - Section 2 |
Petitioners: KABATAAN PARTYLIST
Respondents:
COMELEC
Recit Ready Summary
RA 10367, An Act Providing For Mandatory Biometrics and other COMELEC Resolutions that provide for the implementing rules
and regulations of the said law are assailed in this case. The Law mandates the COMELEC to implement a mandatory biometric
registration system for new voters. It also provides that who fail to validate their biometrics data will not be allowed to vote.
Petitioners assert that the Law violates their right to suffrage because it allegedly adds substantive requirement and doesn’t pass
the strict scrutiny test.
The Court held that, (1) The Law doesn’t add a substantive requirement, it is merely a procedural limitation on the right to vote as
it governs the process of registration; (2) The Law also passes the strict scrutiny test because it has the compelling state interest
of addressing registration problems and it provides the least restrictive means of achieving that state interest.
FACTS:
1. RA 10367 known as “An Act Providing For Mandatory Biometrics1 Registration” and other COMELEC Resolutions, which
provide for the implementing rules and regulations of the said law are assailed in this case. The Law mandates the COMELEC to
implement a mandatory biometric registration system for new voters in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent and
updated list of voters through the adoption of biometric technology. It also provides that who fail to validate their biometrics data
will not be allowed to vote.
2. The petitioners assert that the Law violates their right to suffrage for: (1) it has risen to the level of an unconstitutional
substantive requirement in the exercise of the right to suffrage; (2) it doesn’t pass the strict scrutiny test for a deprivation of the
right to suffrage.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 10367, “An Act Providing For Mandatory Biometrics Registration”, violates right to suffrage? NO.
HELD:
1. With regard to the first contention, the Court held that the Biometrics Validation is merely a procedural limitation on the right to
vote.
2. The Court discussed the requirements in order to exercise the right of suffrage: (1) Filipino Citizen; (2) Not disqualified by law;
(3) Resided in PH for at least 1 year and in the place wherein he proposes to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the
election. The second requirement allows the State to regulate the right of suffrage by imposing statutory disqualifications as long
as they don’t amount to a ‘literacy, property, or other substantive requirement’.
3. The Law in this case primarily governs the process of registration. As held in previous cases, registration regulates the exercise
of the right of suffrage. It is not a qualification for such right.
4. With regard to the second argument, the Court pointed out that the regulation passes the strict scrutiny test.
5. Strict scrutiny refers to the standard for determining the quality and the amount of governmental interest brought to justify the
regulation of fundamental freedoms. Applying this test, the focus is on the presence of compelling state interest and on the
absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest.
6. In this case, the compelling state interest requirement is met as the Law was designed to facilitate the conduct of orderly,
honest, and credible elections by containing – if not eliminating, the perennial problem of having flying voters, as well as dead and multiple registrants. Also, it was shown that the regulation is the least restrictive means for achieving the above said interest.
Also, it was shown that the regulation is the least restrictive means for achieving the above-said interest. Section 6 of Resolution
No. 9721 sets the procedure for biometrics validation, whereby the registered voter is only required to:
(a) personally appear
before the Of ce of the Election Of cer;
(b) present a competent evidence of identity; and
(c) have his photo, signature, and
ngerprints recorded. It is, in effect, a manner of updating one's registration for those already registered under RA 8189, or a rsttime registration for new registrants.
The re-registration process is amply justi ed by the fact that the government is adopting a
novel technology like biometrics in order to address the bane of electoral fraud that has enduringly plagued the electoral
exercises in this country.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED due to lack of merit. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on
December 1, 2015 is consequently DISSOLVED.
Comments
Post a Comment