KABATAAN PARTY LIST, et. al.

, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 221318       December 16, 2015
 TOPIC: Biometrics validation

 FACTS:

                RA 10367 mandates the COMELEC to implement a

mandatory biometrics registration system for new voters in order to establish a clean, complete,
permanent, and updated list of voters through the adoption of biometric technology.

                RA 10367 likewise directs that “registered voters whose biometrics have not been captured

shall submit themselves for validation.” “Voters who fail to submit for validation on or before the last
day of filing of application for registration for purposes of the May 2016 elections shall be
deactivated x  x x.”

                COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9721 as amended by Resolutions No. 9863 and 10013.
Among others, the said Resolution provides that: “the registration records of voters
without biometrics data who failed to submit for validation on or before the last day of filing of
applications for registration for the purpose of the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections shall be
deactivated.

                 Herein petitioners filed the instant petition with application for temporary restraining

order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary mandatory injunction (WPI) assailing the constitutionality
of the biometrics validation requirement imposed under RA 10367, as well as COMELEC Resolution
Nos. 9721, 9863, and 10013, all related thereto.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the statutory requirement of biometrics validation is an unconstitutional

requirement of literacy and property.
2. Whether or not biometrics validation passes the strict scrutiny test.
3. Whether or not Resolution No. 9863 which fixed the deadline for validation on October 31,
2015 violates Section 8 of RA 8189.

 HELD:

 FIRST ISSUE: No.

                 The Court held that biometrics validation is not a “qualification” to the exercise of the right
of suffrage, but a mere aspect of the registration procedure, of which the State has the right to
reasonably regulate. The Court reiterated their ruling in several cases that registration regulates the
exercise of the right of suffrage. It is not a qualification for such right. The process of registration is a
procedural limitation on the right to vote.

                Thus, although one is deemed to be a “qualified elector,” he must nonetheless still comply
with the registration procedure in order to vote.

                Thus, unless it is shown that a registration requirement rises to the level of a literacy,
property or other substantive requirement as contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution -that
is, one which propagates a socio-economic standard which is bereft of any rational basis to a
person’s ability to intelligently cast his vote and to further the public good -the same cannot be
struck down as unconstitutional, as in this case.

SECOND ISSUE: Yes.

                In applying strict scrutiny, the focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than
substantial, governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving that
interest, and the burden befalls upon the State to prove the same.

Presence of compelling state interest

                Respondents have shown that the biometrics validation requirement under RA 10367

advances a compelling state interest. It was precisely 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. The foregoing consideration is unquestionably
a compelling state interest.

Biometrics validation 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 Office of the Election
Officer; (b) present a competent evidence of identity; and (c) have his photo, signature,
and fingerprints recorded.

                Moreover, RA 10367 and Resolution No. 9721 did not mandate registered voters to submit
themselves to validation every time there is an election. In fact, it only required the voter to undergo
the validation process one (1) time, which shall remain effective in succeeding elections, provided
that he remains an active voter.

                Lastly, the failure to validate did not preclude deactivated voters from exercising their right
to vote in the succeeding elections. To rectify such status, they could still apply for reactivation.

THIRD ISSUE: No.

                Section 8 of RA 8189 provides that:

System of Continuing Registration of Voters. – x x x 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.

                The Court held that the 120-and 90-day periods stated therein refer to the prohibitive
period beyond which voter registration may no longer be conducted. The subject provision does not
mandate COMELEC to conduct voter registration up to such time; rather, it only provides a period
which may not be reduced, but may be extended depending on the administrative necessities and
other exigencies.
 ROMUALDEZ V RTC etal. (G.R. No. 104960, 1993

Facts:
Petitioner Romualdez is a antural-born citizen; the son of Kokoy Romualdez and a niece of Imelda
Marcos. In 1980, he established his residence in Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte. However, in 1986, during
the days of People Power, relatives of the deposed President (Marcos), fearing for their personal
safety, fled the country. One of them are the Romuladezes – they left the country and sought
asylum in the United States.
However, in 1991, the U.S. Immigration informed them to depart from the U.S. or else they’ll be
deported. Upon receipt of the information, Romuladez went back to the Philippines and did not
delay his return to his residence in Leyte and immediately registered himself as a voter.
In 1992, herein private respondent Advincula filed a petition to exclude petitioner from the list of
the voters alleging that the latter is a U.S. resident, and residency is a qualification for a registered
voter. However, the MTC denied the petition but when the respondent elevated the petition to the
RTC, the appellate court reversed MTC’s ruling and disqualified Romuldez as a registered voter.
Hence, this case.
 Issue: Whether petitioner is qualified to be a registered voter in Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte despite his
sudden departure to the U.S?
 Ruling:
 The Court held that YES, Petitioner is qualified as a registered voter because he is still considered
a resident of Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte.
Stating that, the political situation brought about by people’s Power Revolution must have caused
great fear to the Romualdezes, and as having concern over the safety of their families, their self-
exile is understandable. Moreover, their sudden departure cannot be described as ‘voluntary’ or
‘abandonment of residence’.
It must be emphasized that the right to vote is a most precious political right; a bounden duty of
every citizen enabling them to participate in the government process to ensure the will of the
people.
AKBAYAN YOUTH vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 147066, March 26, 2001

Facts: Petitoners, representing the youth sector, seek to direct the Comelec to conduct a special
registration before the May 14, 2001 General Elections of new voters. According to the petitioners
around 4 Million youth failed to register on or before the December 27, 2000 deadline set by the
respondent Commission under R.A. 8189. On January 29, 2001 Commissioners Tantangco and
Lantion submitted Memorandum No. 2001-027 requesting for a two-day additional registration of
new voters, to be set on February 17 and 18, 2001 nationwide. Subsequently, Comelec issued
Resolution No. 3584 denying said request, it was the consensus. 

Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus, which seeks to
nullify respondent Comelec’s resolution and / or to declare Sec. 8 of R.A. 8189 unconstitutional
insofar as said provision effectively causes the disenfranchisement of petitioners and others
similarly situated. 

Issue: Whether or not respondent Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing

Resolution No. 3584 dated Feb. 8, 2001 as it denies petitioners’ right to vote. 
Held: The act of registration is an indispensable precondition to the right of suffrage. For
registration is part and parcel of the right to vote and an indispensable element in the election
process. Section 8 of R.A. 8189, provides that no registration shall be conducted 120 days before a
regular election and 90 days before a special election. 

In the light of the foregoing the assailed resolution must be upheld. The so-called “stand-by
powers” or “residual” powers of the Comelec, as raised by the petitioners is provided under the
relevant provisions of Section 29 of R.A. No. 6646 and adopted verbatim in Section 28 of R.A. No.
8436, wherein the commission shall fix other periods and dates for the accomplishment of pre-
election acts if it is no longer possible to observe the dates and periods prescribed by law, cannot
be applied in this case. The Supreme Court held that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 applies for the
purpose of upholding the resolution. Section 28 of R.A. 8436, presupposes the possibility of its
being exercised or availed of and not otherwise. In the case at bar the Comelec stated the
“operational impossibility” of holding the additional two-day registration, and therefore Section 8 of
R.A. 8436 may not apply. Comelec acted within the confines of the applicable law in denying the
petitioners’ request.

MACALINTAL VS COMELEC
FACTS:

Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Romulo B. Macalintal, a
member of the Philippine Bar, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of Republic Act No.
9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) suffer from constitutional infirmity.  Claiming
that he has actual and material legal interest in the subject matter of this case in seeing to it
that public funds are properly and lawfully used and appropriated, petitioner filed the instant
petition as a taxpayer and as a lawyer.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not Section 5(d) of Republic Act No. 9189 violates the residency requirement in
Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution.
(2) Whether or not Section 18.5 of the same law violates the constitutional mandate under
Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution that the winning candidates for President and the Vice-
President shall be proclaimed as winners by Congress.
(3) Whether or not Congress may, through the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee
created in Section 25 of Rep. Act No. 9189, exercise the power to review, revise, amend, and
approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations that the Commission on Elections, promulgate
without violating the independence of the COMELEC under Section 1, Article IX-A of the
Constitution.

HELD:

(1) No. Section 5 of RA No. 9189 enumerates those who are disqualified voting under this Act. It
disqualifies an immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host
country. However, an exception is provided i.e. unless he/she executes, upon registration, an
affidavit prepared for the purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she shall resume actual
physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later than 3 years from approval of
registration. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another
country. Failure to return shall be cause for the removal of the name of the immigrant or
permanent resident from the National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent
disqualification to vote in absentia.

Petitioner claims that this is violative of the residency requirement in Section 1 Article V of the
Constitution which requires the voter must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one yr,
and a resident in the place where he proposes to vote for at least 6 months immediately
preceding an election.

However, OSG held that ruling in said case does not hold water at present, and that the Court
may have to discard that particular ruling. Panacea of the controversy: Affidavit for without it,
the presumption of abandonment of Phil domicile shall remain. The qualified Filipino abroad
who executed an affidavit is deemed to have retained his domicile in the Philippines and
presumed not to have lost his domicile by his physical absence from this country. Section 5 of
RA No. 9189 does not only require the promise to resume actual physical permanent residence
in the Philippines not later than 3 years after approval of registration but it also requires the
Filipino abroad, WON he is a green card holder, a temporary visitor or even on business trip,
must declare that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. Thus, he/she must
return to the Philippines otherwise consequences will be met according to RA No. 9189.

Although there is a possibility that the Filipino will not return after he has exercised his right to
vote, the Court is not in a position to rule on the wisdom of the law or to repeal or modify it if
such law is found to be impractical. However, it can be said that the Congress itself was
conscious of this probability and provided for deterrence which is that the Filipino who fails to
return as promised stands to lose his right of suffrage. Accordingly, the votes he cast shall not
be invalidated because he was qualified to vote on the date of the elections.

Expressum facit cessare tacitum: where a law sets down plainly its whole meaning, the Court is
prevented from making it mean what the Court pleases. In fine, considering that underlying
intent of the Constitution, as is evident in its statutory construction and intent of the framers,
which is to grant Filipino immigrants and permanent residents abroad the unquestionable right
to exercise the right of suffrage (Section 1 Article V) the Court finds that Section 5 of RA No.
9189 is not constitutionally defective.

(2) Yes. Congress should not have allowed COMELEC to usurp a power that constitutionally
belongs to it. The canvassing of the votes and the proclamation of the winning candidates for
President and Vice President for the entire nation must remain in the hands of Congress as its
duty and power under Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution. COMELEC has the authority to
proclaim the winning candidates only for Senators and Party-list Reps.

(3) No. By vesting itself with the powers to approve, review, amend and revise the
Implementing Rules & Regulations for RA No. 9189, Congress went beyond the scope of its
constitutional authority. Congress trampled upon the constitutional mandate of independence
of the COMELEC. Under such a situation, the Court is left with no option but to withdraw from its
usual silence in declaring a provision of law unconstitutional.