Questions Presented

Can the COMELEC validly impose a new and substantial requirement before people can vote?

Is the addition of a biometric data requirement tantamount to substantial requirement as

contemplated by the constitution?

Is R.A. 10367 valid?

Is R.A. 10367 violative of our Right to Privacy?

FACTS

R.A. 10367 entered the floor on July 23 2012, it was later passed by approval of then President
Aquino at February 13, 2013.

R.A. 10367 or an ACT PROVIDING MANDATORY MANDATORY BIOMETRICS VOTER

REGISTRATION

R.A. 10367 provides that before a person can exercise his right to vote, he must comply with the
requirements laid herein.

(Insert here facts to finish timeline, from passing the law to implementation and ending at the 2016
elections up to the point right before it becomes moot and academic with the lapse of the elections
and the decision of G.R. 221318 the biometrics case)

ISSUES

The validity of R.A. 10367: Is R.A. 10367 a substantial requirement ?

Juxtaposing R.A. 10367 and Art 5 of the Constitution

Section 7. Deactivation. 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 pursuant
to this Act.

Versus

Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by
law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least
one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding
the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise
of suffrage.
ARGUMENTS

What is a substantial requirement?

Substantial defined by Blacks

Of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable. Belonging to substa

nce; actually existing; real; not seeming orimaginary; not illusive; solid; true; veritabl
e.

Substantial defined by case law

(Other cases that have the same line of thought)

Similarity to the case of SJS vs DDB (G.R. 157870)

The Court upheld that this requirement by COMELEC was a requirement that expanded the
criteria needed to run as a Senator, thus overstepping and infringing the constitution.

According to Pimentel, the Constitution only prescribes a maximum of five (5)

qualifications for one to be a candidate for, elected to, and be a member of the Senate. He
says that both the Congress and COMELEC, by requiring, via RA 9165 and Resolution
No. 6486, a senatorial aspirant, among other candidates, to undergo a mandatory drug
test, create an additional qualification that all candidates for senator must first be certified
as drug free. He adds that there is no provision in the Constitution authorizing the
Congress or COMELEC to expand the qualification requirements of candidates for
senator.

In the same vein, the COMELEC cannot, in the guise of enforcing and administering election
laws or promulgating rules and regulations to implement Sec. 36(g), validly impose
qualifications on candidates for senator in addition to what the Constitution prescribes. If
Congress cannot require a candidate for senator to meet such additional qualification, the
COMELEC, to be sure, is also without such power. The right of a citizen in the democratic
process of election should not be defeated by unwarranted impositions of requirement not
otherwise specified in the Constitution.13

Statutory Construction

Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by
law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least
one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding
the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise
of suffrage.

May be exercised by all

What this phrase means and who it pertains to

Literacy, property, or other substantive requirement

Biometrics is that tantamount to a substantive requirement or literacy or even property?

Literacy and Property

For those who belong to the indigenous regions, access to biometrics is a problem
and the knowledge there off. It begs the question that wouldnt those who are too marginalized to
understand the complexity of the system be open to abuse from it? Is there a special system in place
for people like them?

Biometric data is an invasion of Privacy

Cite Ople v Torres

Cite Right to Privacy provisions from the Constitution