Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    GR 221318 Leonen

    Uploaded by

    Cherry Ursua
    This concurring opinion agrees with the dismissal of the petition challenging the constitutionality of the law requiring mandatory biometric voter registration. The opinion summarizes that: 1) The biometric registration requirement enhances the fundamental right to vote by ensuring voter identity and preventing multiple/fraudulent votes. 2) It is not an additional qualification but a means to protect voter identity, as names are deactivated only if they do not correspond to real persons. 3) The petitioners failed to establish standing by presenting only broad advocacy rather than concrete facts of how they were actually harmed by the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    GR 221318 Leonen

    Uploaded by

    Cherry Ursua
    47 views2 pages
    This concurring opinion agrees with the dismissal of the petition challenging the constitutionality of the law requiring mandatory biometric voter registration. The opinion summarizes that: 1) The biometric registration requirement enhances the fundamental right to vote by ensuring voter identity and preventing multiple/fraudulent votes. 2) It is not an additional qualification but a means to protect voter identity, as names are deactivated only if they do not correspond to real persons. 3) The petitioners failed to establish standing by presenting only broad advocacy rather than concrete facts of how they were actually harmed by the law.

    Original Title

    gr_221318_leonen

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This concurring opinion agrees with the dismissal of the petition challenging the constitutionality of the law requiring mandatory biometric voter registration. The opinion summarizes that: 1) The biometric registration requirement enhances the fundamental right to vote by ensuring voter identity and preventing multiple/fraudulent votes. 2) It is not an additional qualification but a means to protect voter identity, as names are deactivated only if they do not correspond to real persons. 3) The petitioners failed to establish standing by presenting only broad advocacy rather than concrete facts of how they were actually harmed by the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    47 views2 pages

    GR 221318 Leonen

    Uploaded by

    Cherry Ursua
    This concurring opinion agrees with the dismissal of the petition challenging the constitutionality of the law requiring mandatory biometric voter registration. The opinion summarizes that: 1) The biometric registration requirement enhances the fundamental right to vote by ensuring voter identity and preventing multiple/fraudulent votes. 2) It is not an additional qualification but a means to protect voter identity, as names are deactivated only if they do not correspond to real persons. 3) The petitioners failed to establish standing by presenting only broad advocacy rather than concrete facts of how they were actually harmed by the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. 221318 - KABATAAN PARTY-LIST, REPRESENTED BY


    REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MARK TERRY L. RIDON AND
    MARJOHARA S. TUCAY; SARAH JANE I. ELAGO, PRESIDENT
    OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS OF THE
    PHILIPPINES, VENCER MARI E. CRISOSTOMO, CHAIRPERSON
    OF THE ANAKBAYAN; MARC LINO J. ABILA, NATIONAL
    PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE EDITORS GUILD OF THE
    PHILIPPINES; EINSTEIN Z. RECEDES, DEPUTY SECRETARY-
    GENERAL OF ANAKBAYAN; CHARISSE BERNADINE I. BANEZ,
    CHAIRPERSON OF THE LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS;
    ARLENE CLARISSE Y. JULYE, MEMBER OF ALYANSA NG MGA
    GRUPONG HALIGI NG AGHAM AT TEKNOLOHIYA PARA SA
    MAMAMAYAN (AGHAM); and SINING MARIA ROSA L.
    MARFORI, Petitioners, v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
    I
    Respondent.

    Promulgated:
    December 16, 2015
    :x-------------------------------------------------------------~~-~~-:=~

    CONCURRING OPINION

    LEONEN,J.:

    I concur.

    Republic Act No. 1036?1 is a valid regulation that assists in the


    identification of a person for purposes of ensuring that the right to vote is
    e:xercised only by that person. It is also a measure to purge the voters list of
    spurious names or ghost voters.

    Viewed this way, Republic Act No. 10367 is not a burden on the right
    of suffrage; rather, it enhances this fundamental right. It provides
    mechanisms to ensure the identity of the voter, prevent multiple votes for a
    single individual, and deter the casting of ballots in the names of persons
    who do not actually e:xist or who, at the time of the elections, are already
    deceased.

    The requirement of biometric registration, therefore, is not an


    additional qualification but rather a means to ensure and protect the identity

    1
    Entitled "An Act Providing for Mandatory Biometrics Voter Registration." The law was approved on
    /
    February 15, 2013.
    Concurring Opinion 2 G.R. No. 221318

    of the voter. Names are deactivated because these do not correspond to real
    persons. Thus, there is no disqualification in as much as fictitious names or
    names of the deceased do not represent real persons. A ghost cannot be
    disqualified because it does not exist.

    Finally, petitioners failed to establish the actual and concrete facts that
    entitle them standing to question the constitutionality of the law and the
    Commission on Elections' implementing regulations. I agree with the
    ponencia that constitutional objections should be presented with more rigor
    than broad political advocacies. The experiences of other emerging
    economies cited in the Petition may be instructive for context,2 but they are
    certainly insufficient by themselves for this court to veto political acts of
    Congress, the President, and the Commission on Elections in the guise of
    judicial review. This court is more circumspect. We attend to legal
    arguments grounded on the actual controversies substantially and materially
    experienced by a petitioner. We do not have license to be moved solely by
    the passion of advocacy.

    The vigilance of petitioners is to be commended except that it comes


    too late. The law was passed in 2013 and implemented shortly thereafter. 3
    On May 2014, the "No Bio, No Boto" public information campaign was
    launched together with the period of continuing registration. 4 There was
    sufficient time for people to comply, and notices appear to have been
    sufficient. If there were those whose biometric information was incomplete,
    a remedy was provided. For those who did not act early enough, their
    registration can still be accommodated in future elections. For the names
    delisted because these do not correspond to live persons, any amount of
    information will not result in a solution. Their names deserve to be
    deactivated.

    ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the Petition and DISSOLVE


    the temporary restraining order.

    "'

    MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN


    /
    Associate Justice

    ·~

    See Decision, p. 22.


    Decision, p. 4. See Republic Act No. 10367.
    4
    See Commission on Elections Resolution No. 9863, Item B (2a) (7) of Resolution No. 9863; Decision
    p. 4.

    You might also like