GR 221318 Leonen (Digest)
G.R. No. 221318 , December 16, 2015
Kabataan Party-List, et al. vs. Commission on Elections
FACTS
Petitioners, various party-list organizations and student leaders, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 10367 (the Mandatory Biometrics Voter Registration Act) and its implementing “No Bio, No Boto” policy by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). They argued that the law and its implementing resolutions impose an additional substantive qualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage, thereby disenfranchising registered voters whose biometrics data were not captured. They contended that the deactivation of such registrants violated their constitutional right to vote.
ISSUE
Whether or not Republic Act No. 10367 and the COMELEC’s “No Bio, No Boto” policy are unconstitutional for violating the right of suffrage.
RULING
The Court, through the concurring opinion of Justice Leonen, upheld the validity of RA 10367. The legal logic is that the biometric registration requirement is not an additional qualification for voting but a reasonable regulation to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. Its primary purpose is to assist in the accurate identification of voters, thereby purging the list of spurious or “ghost” registrants and preventing multiple voting or impersonation. The deactivation of registrations lacking biometric data does not constitute disqualification of a real person; rather, it removes entries that do not correspond to identifiable, living individuals. A “ghost” cannot be disqualified as it does not exist.
Furthermore, the concurrence found that petitioners failed to establish the requisite legal standing for their constitutional challenge, as they did not present concrete facts of actual disenfranchisement affecting them. The court emphasized that judicial review requires a presentation of a real and substantial controversy, not merely broad political advocacy. The law, passed in 2013, provided sufficient time and public information for compliance, and a remedy was available for those with incomplete data. For future elections, affected individuals could re-register. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.