In a special attended by all justices, the high court unanimously upheld the validity of the Comelec’s “No Bio, No Boto” policy and subsequently lifted the temporary restraining order it earlier issued against that rule on Dec. 1.
The high court made its decision even as Malacañang said it will leave it up to the Comelec to decide on how to proceed following the high court’s ruling.
“We note the Resolution of the Supreme Court dismissing the petition filed against the Comelec’s ‘No Bio No Boto’ policy,” Communications Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. said in a statement.
“We leave it to the Comelec’s best judgment, as an independent constitutional body, on how to proceed in the light of the Supreme Court ruling in terms of ensuring that the preparations for the holding of the May 2016 elections are in place.”
The high court ruling was written by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe. It dismissed for lack of merit the petition of the Kabataan party-list questioning the constitutionality of the policy that it says will disenfranchise some 2.4-registered voters who are without a digital photograph, a signature and fingerprints in their registration records.
Kabataan party-list Rep. Terry Ridon and his group argued that the new policy under Republic Act 10367, or the law on mandatory biometrics voter registration, and Comelec Resolutions 9721, 9863 and 10013 violate the Constitution as it adds a substantive requirement for Filipinos to be able to exercise their right to suffrage.
The petitioners also claimed that the new policy “violates due process as it is an unreasonable deprivation of the constitutional right to vote for millions of Filipinos who have failed to register their biometric information… for various reasons…”
But the high court dumped the petitioners’ arguments and instead agreed with the Comelec’s position that the registration of biometrics is not an additional substantive requirement.
“Registering is only one step towards voting, and it is not one of the elements that makes the citizen a qualified voter,” the high court said.
“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… the same cannot be struck down as unconstitutional, as in this case.”
