“Voting is the most precious right of every
citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting
process.” –Hillary Clinton
Various youth groups feared that the constitutional
right to suffrage was put in jeopardy when the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) launched its “No Bio, No Boto” policy. The Kabataan Party-List, along with other youth and student
organizations, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme
Court assailing the constitutionality of Republic Act 10367 or the “Mandatory
Biometrics Registration Act of 2013”.
Under RA 10367, the COMELEC is mandated to “implement
a mandatory biometrics registration system for new voters”[1]
in order “to establish a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters
through the adoption of biometric technology.”[2]
On the other hand, “registered voters whose biometrics have not been captured
shall submit themselves for validation”.[3]
As for those with incomplete biometrics data and those corrupted data
(biometrics) in the database, the COMELEC clarified, in Resolution No. 10013,
that their registration records “shall not be deactivated and be allowed to
vote in the May 9, 2016 Synchronized National, Local and [Autonomous Region on
Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)] Regional Elections.”
The petitioners in this case raise the following
issues— (1) that biometrics validation rises to the level of an additional,
substantial qualification where there is penalty of deactivation; (2) that biometrics
deactivation is not the disqualification by law contemplated by the 1987
Constitution; (3) that biometrics validation gravely violates the Constitution,
considering that, applying the strict scrutiny test, it is not poised with a
compelling reason for state regulation and hence, an unreasonable deprivation
of the right to suffrage; (4) that voters to be deactivated are not afforded
due process; and (5) that poor experience with biometrics should serve as
warning against exacting adherence to the system.[4]
On the first issue and second issue, the Court explained
that what is meant by ‘substantive requirement’ in Section 1, Article V of the
1987 Constitution are purely socio-economic considerations that have “no
bearing on the right of a citizen to intelligently cast his vote and to further
the public good.”[5] To
further contextualize this point, the Court showed the evolution of voting in
the Philippines— how requirements of literacy and property were eliminated so
as increase the electoral base and allow for a more inclusive representation.
The Court also went on to differentiate “registration” (as a form of
regulation) and “qualification”. Registration, according to the Court (and
emphasized in Justice Leonen’s concurring opinion), is merely a means to
determine if the voter has the necessary qualifications to vote. Biometrics is
a procedural and not a substantive
requirement.
On the third issue, the Court held that RA 10367
passed the strict scrutiny test. ‘Strict scrutiny’ is used to test the validity
of laws dealing with the regulation of speech, gender, or race as well as other
fundamental rights. It refers to “the standard for determining the quality and
the amount of governmental interest brought to justify the regulation of
fundamental freedoms”.[6]
In applying the strict scrutiny test, there must be a compelling state interest
and an absence of a less restrictive means for achieving that interest. The Court found the perennial problem of
flying voters, and dead and multiple registrants a compelling state interest;
there is a need, in the words of Senator Aquilino Pimentel III, “to cleanse the
national voter registry so as to eliminate electoral fraud and ensure that the
results of the elections were truly reflective of the genuine will of the
people.”[7]
On the fourth issue, the Court took into
consideration the efforts made by the COMELEC and the realities of registration
[of voters] and elections. The Court thought that the time frame and procedures
instituted by the COMELEC was reasonable, and that it afforded everyone an
opportunity to be heard. The Court pointed out that the law became effective as
early as 2013, and that registration period lasted at least 18 months.
And on the last issue, the Court found the
petitioners’ argument on the efficiency of the biometric system as observed
from the experiences of other countries as a political question. The
petitioners’ submissions assail the wisdom of the policy, a matter which is
outside the province of the judiciary. Such concern should be addressed to the
political branches of the government.
To conclude, the “No Bio, No Boto” policy does not
expand the qualifications provided by the Constitution; it is a merely a
procedural requirement aimed to “enhance the fundamental right [of suffrage”.
There is a compelling state interest in cleansing the national voter registry with
the use of new technology to prevent electoral fraud and make elections truly
representative of the will of the people. The COMELEC has taken fair and
reasonable measures to afford citizens a chance to register, and it is upon
each individual to fulfill his or her responsibility regardless of the
inconvenience that may be caused.
[1]
Section 10, RA 10367
[2]
Section 1, RA 10367
[3]
Section 2 (d), RA 10367
[4] Kabataan Party List, et al. v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 221318 (The Supreme Court December 16, 2015).
[5]
Id.
[6]
Id.
[7]
Id.
No comments:
Post a Comment