KABATAAN PARTY-LIST v. COMELEC Suffrage, Biometrics Law; Constitutionality, Whether or not RA 10367, as well as COMELEC Resolution Nos.

as COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9721, and

FACTS: RULING:

President Benigno Aquino III signed into law RA 10367. Essentially, RA The petition is bereft of merit. As early as the 1936 case of The People of
10367 mandates the COMELEC to implement a mandatory biometrics registration the Philippine Islands v. Corral, it has been recognized that “[t]he right to vote is not
system for new voters, and directs that “[r]egistered voters whose biometrics have a natural right but is a right created by law. Suffrage is a privilege granted by the
not been captured shall submit themselves for validation.” “Voters who fail to State to such persons or classes as are most likely to exercise it for the public good.”
submit for validation on or before the last day of filing of application for registration
for purposes of the May 2016 [E]lections shall be deactivated x x x.” The State may therefore regulate said right by imposing statutory
disqualifications, with the restriction, however, that the same do not amount to a
The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9721 which serves as the “literacy, property or other substantive requirement.” Based on its genesis, it may
implementing rules and regulations of RA 10367, thus, prescribing the procedure be gleaned that the limitation is geared towards the elimination of irrelevant
for validation, deactivation, and reactivation of voters’ registration records. Among standards that are purely based on socio-economic considerations that have no
others, the said Resolution provides that: “[d]eactivated voters shall not be allowed bearing on the right of a citizen to intelligently cast his vote and to further the
to vote“. The COMELEC commenced the mandatory biometric system of public good.
registration.
Properly speaking, the concept of a “qualification”, at least insofar as the
On November 25, 2015, herein petitioners filed the instant petition with discourse on suffrage is concerned, should be distinguished from the concept of
application for temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary “registration”, which is jurisprudentially regarded as only the means by which a
mandatory injunction (WPI) assailing the constitutionality of the biometrics person’s qualifications to vote is determined.
validation requirement imposed under RA 10367, as well as COMELEC Resolution
No. 9721, and all related thereto. They contend, among others, that: (a) biometrics In Yra v. Abaño, citing Meffert v. Brown, it was stated that “the act of
validation rises to the level of an additional, substantial qualification where there is registering is only one step towards voting, and it is not one of the elements that
penalty of deactivation; (b) biometrics validation gravely violates the Constitution, makes the citizen a qualified voter [and] one may be a qualified voter without
considering that, applying the strict scrutiny test, it is not poised with a compelling exercising the right to vote.” In said case, this Court definitively characterized
reason for state regulation and hence, an unreasonable deprivation of the right to registration as a form of regulation and not as a qualification for the right of
suffrage; and (c) voters to be deactivated are not afforded due process. suffrage:

COMELEC Chairman Bautista, urgently appealed for the immediate lifting Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage. It is not a
of the above-mentioned TRO, stating that the COMELEC is set to finalize the Project qualification for such right. As a form of regulation, compliance with the registration
of Precincts (POP) and that the TRO issued in this case has the effect of including procedure is dutifully enjoined. Thus, although one is deemed to be a “qualified
the 2.4 Million deactivated voters in the list of voters, which, in turn, would require elector,” he must nonetheless still comply with the registration procedure in order
revisions to the POP and consequently, adversely affect the timelines of all other to vote.
interrelated preparatory activities to the prejudice of the successful
As to the procedural limitation, the right of a citizen to vote is necessarily
implementation of the Automated Election System (AES) for the 2016 Elections.
conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo: among
ISSUE: others, the process of registration. Specifically, a citizen in order to be qualified to
exercise his right to vote, in addition to the minimum requirements set by the
fundamental charter, is obliged by law to register. To complement RA 8189 (Voter’s [T]he act of registration is an indispensable precondition to the right of
Registration Act) in light of the advances in modern technology, RA 10367, or the suffrage. For registration is part and parcel of the right to vote and an indispensable
assailed Biometrics Law, was signed into law. It built on the policy considerations element in the election process. Proceeding from the significance of registration as
behind RA 8189 as it institutionalized biometrics validation as part of the a necessary requisite to the right to vote, the State undoubtedly, in the exercise of
registration process. its inherent police power, may then enact laws to safeguard and regulate the act of
voter’s registration for the ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly and
“Biometrics refers to a quantitative analysis that provides a positive peaceful election. Applying strict scrutiny, the focus is on the presence of
identification of an individual such as voice, photograph, fingerprint, signature, iris, compelling, rather than substantial, governmental interest and on the absence of
and/or such other identifiable features.” less restrictive means for achieving that interest, and the burden befalls upon the
State to prove the same.
Sections 3 and 10 of RA 10367 respectively require registered and new
voters to submit themselves for biometrics validation: In this case, respondents have shown that the biometrics validation
requirement under RA 10367 advances a compelling state interest. It was precisely
Section 3. Who Shall Submit for Validation. – Registered voters whose
designed to facilitate the conduct of orderly, honest, and credible elections by
biometrics have not been captured shall submit themselves for validation.
containing – if not eliminating, the perennial problem of having flying voters, as well
Section 10. Mandatory Biometrics Registration. – The Commission shall as dead and multiple registrants.
implement a mandatory biometrics registration system for new voters.
The re-registration process is amply justified by the fact that the
Under Section 2 (d) of RA 10367, “validation” is defined as “the process of government is adopting a novel technology like biometrics in order to address the
taking the biometrics of registered voters whose biometrics have not yet been bane of electoral fraud that has enduringly plagued the electoral exercises in this
captured.” country.

The consequence of non-compliance is “deactivation” which “refers to the That being said, the assailed regulation on the right to suffrage was
removal of the registration record of the registered voter from the corresponding sufficiently justified as it was indeed narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling
precinct book of voters for failure to comply with the validation process as required state interest of establishing a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of
by [RA 10367].” voters, and was demonstrably the least restrictive means in promoting that
interest.
Notably, the penalty of deactivation, as well as the requirement of
validation, neutrally applies to all voters. Thus, petitioners’ argument that the law
creates artificial class of voters is more imagined than real. It should also be pointed
out that deactivation is not novel to RA 10367. RA 8189 already provides for certain
grounds for deactivation, of which not only the disqualifications under the
Constitution or the Omnibus Election are listed.

With these considerations in mind, petitioners’ claim that biometrics