REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. “> SUPREME COURT QISDEC 11 PH 3:51 ooc9 MANILA a EN BANC yl KABATAAN PARTY-LIST, e¢ al, G.R. No, 221318 Petitioners, For: Certiorari and Prohibition with “versus Prayer for Temporary 4 Restraining Order COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. one ennee aceniaann “Xx CONSOLIDATED COMMENT AND MANIFESTATION AD CAUTELAM The OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG) and Respondent COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), to this Honorable Court, in compliance with its Resolution dated December 1, 2015, respectfully state: STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a Petition for Certiorari and Probibition with application for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order seeking to declare Republic Act (R. A.) No. 10367 and COMELEC Resolutions No. 9721, 9863 and 10013 as unconstitutional. RELEVANT ANTECEDENTS On February 15, 2013, R. A. No. 10367, “An Act Providing for Mandatory Biometrics Voter Registration,” became law. Pertinent provisions of R. A. No, 10367 read:CONSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Party-list, etal, » COMBLEC Page 2 of 24 Section 3, Who Shall Submit for Validation.—Registeted voters whose biometrics have not been captuted shall submit themselves for validation. Section 5. Commencement of Validation—The Commission shall conduct validation beginning July 1, 2013, consistent with the continuing registration under Republic Act No. 8189. Section 7, Deactivation—Voters who fail to submit for validation on of before the last day of filing of application for registration for purposes of the May 2016 elections shall be deactivated pursuant to this Act Section 8. Reactivation.—Those deactivated under the preceding section may apply for reactivation after the May 2016 elections following the procedure provided in Section 28 of Republic Act No. 8189. Section 10, Mandatory Biometrics Registration.—The Commission shall implement a mandatory biometrics registration system for new voters. Section 12. Rules and Regulations.—The Commission shall, within sixty (60) days after the effectivity of this Act, promulgate the implementing rules and regulations. Pursuant to respondent’s constitutional authority to “enforce and administer all laws and regulations to the conduct of an election ...”" respondent issued the three (3) assailed Resobutions. On June 26, 2013, respondent issued COMELEC Resolution No. 9721,? which promulgated the Rules and Regulations implementing R. A. No. 10367. On April 1, 2014, respondent issued COMELEC Resolution No. 9863° amending Sections 28 and 38 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9853 The amendments provided guidelines for the validation and deactivation of voter registration, * Article IX (C), Section 2 (1), 1987 Constitution. * Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act 10367, Otherwise Known as “An Act Providing For Mandatoty Biometrics Voter Registration.” * In the Matter of 1) Amending Sections 28 And 38 of Resolution 9853, dated February 19, 2013 and 2) Guidelines on Deactivation of Voters Registration Records. “ Rules and Regulations on the Resumption of the System of Continuing Registration of Voters, Validation and Updating of Registration Records for the May 9, 2016 Synchronized ‘National, Local and ARMM Regional Elections and Other Registration Policies.CONSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Partylist, etal, . COMELEC Page 3 of 24 On November 3, 2015, respondent issued COMELEC Resolution No. 10013,° providing the procedure for the deactivation of registration records of voters who do not have biometrics data in the Voter’s Registration System (VRS) after October 31, 2015. Pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 9721, respondent, on July 1, 2013, commenced the mandatory biometric system of registration to establish a clean, complete, and updated list of voters through the adoption of biometric technology ® To make the registration convenient and accessible to the voting public, respondent established satellite registration offices in barangays and malls, in addition to the COMELEC offices in each local government unit. Registration in malls was made open even on weekends to accommodate more registrants Respondent likewise continuously informed the public that failure to register under the new system would result in the deactivation of the voter's registration record. Aside from this announcement, respondent twice sent individual notices to registered voters who have yet to validate their registration recotds in the COMELEC’s list of voters. The list was also posted in conspicuous places in the voters’ respective municipalities or cities. October 31, 2015 was the last day of registration set by respondent. Despite the lapse of more than two (2) years from the issuance of R. A. No. 10367 and COMELEC Resolution No. 9721, a number of qualified voters either failed or refused to submit to mandatory biometrics validation. As a consequence, their voter registration was deactivated, effectively batting them from voting in the forthcoming 2016 National and Local Elections. Claiming that R. A. No. 10367 and COMELEC Resolution No. 9721 dated June 26, 2013, COMELEC Resolution No. 9863 dated Aptil 1, 2014 and COMELEC Resolution No. 10013 dated November 3, 2015 impinge on their right to sufftage, petitioners filed the instant Petition alleging that: 1. Biometrics validation and deactivation under Republic Act No. 10367 and its implementing regulations ate an unconstitutional substantial requirement imposed on the exercise of suffrage; and 2 Biometrics validation gravely violates constitutional due process, applying the strict scrutiny test, as it is not poised “In the Matter of Deactivating the Registration Records of Voters Without Biometrics Data in the Voters’ Registration System for Failure to Validate Pursuant to Republic Act No. 10367. * Section 2, R.A. No. 10367.CONSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Parby-list, et al, v. COMELEC Page 4 of 24 as a compelling reason for state regulation and is an unreasonable deprivation of the right of suffrage.” THE PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR BEING ARGUMENTS PROCEDURALLY FLAWED. A. B. Cc. THE BIOMETRICS SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION IS A AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF VALID PETITIONERS FAILED TO IMPLEAD BOTH THE CONGRESS, THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, AND THE ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD (ERB). PETITIONERS LACK LOCUS STANDI. "PETITIONERS ERRONEOUSLY AVAILED OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION AS A MODE TO QUESTION THE CONSTITUTIONALITY, OF R.A. No. 10367 AND THE ASSAILED COMELEC RESOLUTIONS IL. SUFFRAGE. A, * Petition, p. 14. THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE IS NOT ABSOLUTE. DEACTIVATION AS A CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO VALIDATE, THROUGH THE BIOMETRICS SYSTEM IS NOT AN ADDITIONAL SUBSTANTIVECONSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Party-list, al, v. COME! Page 5 of 24 REQUIREMENT PROHIBITED BY SECTION 1, ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION. Cc. PETITIONERS CONFLATE VOTER DISQUALIFICATION WITH VOTER DEACTIVATION. D, PETITIONERS FAILED TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY, Tl. ‘THE BIOMETRIC SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION CREATES, IN A UNIFORM AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY MANNER, A SINGLE OFFICIAL, CENTRALIZED, INTERACTIVE COMPUTERIZED VOTER REGISTRATION LIST AND DOES NOT CLASSIFY VOTERS IN ANY WAY. Iv. THE DEADLINE SET BY THE COMELEC FOR REGISTRATION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STRICT SCHEDULE FOR ALL CRITICAL PRE-ELECTION ACTIVITIES AND ACCORDINGLY ENSURES THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF THE 2016 NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS. DISCUSSION 1 The Petition should be dismissed for being procedurally flawed. A. Petitioners failed to implead the Congress, the Office of the President, and the Election Registration Board (ERB).ConsOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Partylist,et al, . COMBLEC Page 6 of 24 ‘The first 10 paragraphs of the present petition seek the nullification and enjoinment of the implementation of certain provisions of R.A. No. 10367. Part 3(b) of the same petition seeks relief consistent with these allegations. And yet, the petition does not implead the Congress, the Office of the President, and the ERB. These basic exrors in pleading and practice require the immediate dismissal of the petition. This case cannot proceed without the presence of parties whose acts are being challenged ‘That the implementing agency, the COMELEC, has been impleaded, is of no moment and does not detract from the fact that the ultimate aim of petitioners is the nullification of the joint act of Congress (which passed the Dill) and the President (who signed it into law). The failure to implead the Congress and the Office of the President means that this suit is being litigated without the participation of indispensable patties. Moreover, that the Office of the Solicitor General has been furnished a copy of the petition and required to file a comment does not cure this fundamental defect in the petition, and indeed, only highlights the procedural awkwardness of the 1 December 2015 Resolution of the Honorable Court which “(a) REQUIRED] the respondent and the Office of the Solicitor General to COMMENT on the petition within a NON-EXTENDIABLE petiod of ten (10) days from notice hereof. While the Office of the Solicitor General is the statutory counsel for the Republic, its authority to represent the Republic presupposes that the Republic (or its relevant organ), as principal, has been sued. This is obviously not the case here, as evidenced by the title of the petition It is elementary that counsel cannot appear for an unimpleaded patty. Considering that at issue here is the validity of the joint act of Congress and of the Office of the President, this suit cannot proceed without theit presence. ‘That the Office of the Solicitor General has been required to comment on the petition does not mean that it can file a comment for these unimpleaded political departments. For the sake of clatity and emphasis, the Office of the Solicitor General is filing this comment only upon instruction of the Honorable Court and in representation of an impleaded party, the COMELEC. It is also manifesting that the present comment is being filed not in representation of the Congress and the Office of the President, both of whom have not been impleaded in this case and have not authorized the Office of the Solicitor General to appear on their behalf.CoNSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Party, et al, e. COMELEC Page 7 of 24 In addition, while it is the respondent which has the power to enforce and administer elections laws under the Constitution, it is the ERB which is the statutorily created body with the power to approve and disapprove all applications for registration under R.A. No. 8189°. In fact, ERB is the exclusive body that executes all acts related to registration such as, transferring registration, certifying the list of voters in a given precinct, processing oppositions to contest a registrant’s application for inclusion in the voter’s list, deactivating a voter’s registration and removing his registration records from the corresponding precinct book of voters, and reactivating a voter's registration upon compliance with applicable requirements provided by the law. ‘Therefore, that the implementing agency for election laws, the respondent, has been impleaded, is of no moment because it is the ERB, not the respondent, that deactivates and even reactivates the voter registration. st, B. Petitioners lack locus standi. Solely on the basis of the claim that it is a “large network of energized and pro-active young people... with a membership of over 90,000 youth across the country,” petitioner Kabataan Party-List asserts that it has standing to sue for and in behalf of this constituency. While organizations may be granted standing to assert the rights of its membets,” the Honorable Court has repeatedly denied standing to associations or organizations which failed to establish any injury-in-fact to its members." In constitutional cases where the /ocus standi of associations ot organizations are involved, the basic question to be answered is whether the association or organization can file a suit on behalf of its members who have suffered the injury-in-fact.”” Petitioner Kabataan Party-List failed to establish that any one of its members sustained any injury-in-fact as a result of the respondent’s acts. In the absence of any clear allegation that any one of its members suffered actual injury, petitioner Kabataan Party-List does not have any /ocus standi to institute the Petition. * The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996. ° Petition, p. 7. " David, et al. », Macapagal-Arroyo ot al, G.R. Nos. 171396 and 171409, May 3, 2006, " Lacson u, Perez, G.R. Nos. 147780, 147781, 147799, and 147810, May 10, 2001; Kilosbayan, Inc. 2. Morato, G.R. No. 118910, November 16, 1995. ™ League of Provinces of the Philippines ». Department of Environment and Natural Resourses and Hon, Angelo T. Reyes, in his capacity as Seoretary of DENR, Concurring Opinion, Chief Justice Sereno, GAR. No. 175368, April 11, 2013.CONSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Party-tist, ¢ al, v. COMELEC Page 8 of 24 Petitioner Ridon, on the other hand, failed to meet the requirements of legislator standing, In Kilosbayan v. Morao,? the Honorable Court has ruled that members of Congress may properly challenge the validity of an official act of any department of the government only upon showing that the assailed official act affects their rights and prerogatives as legislators." For a legislator’s locus standi to prosper, it must be shown that the powers of Congress were usurped or that one’s prerogatives as a legislator were infringed. In this case, petitioner Ridon was unable to demonstrate how respondent has usurped the power of Congress as a body to which he belongs as a member. There is likewise no showing that he was prevented by respondent from exercising his prerogatives, powers, and privileges as a legislator. Petitioners Tucay, Elago, Crisostomo, Abila, Recedes, and Bafiez, for their part, could not properly invoke citizen’s standing in instituting the present Petition. The rule when invoking a citizen’s suit is that a citizen who taises a constitutional question may only do so if he could show: (1) that he had personally suffered some actual or threatened injury; (2) that the actual or threatened injury was a result of an allegedly illegal conduct of the government; (3) that the injury is traceable to the challenged action; and (4) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action, ® Failure to validate one’s biometrics registration based on inaction for more than two years and later on being deterred by long lines during validation are not valid grounds to confer /ocus standi to petitioners Julve and Marfori. Petitioners’ claimed injury certainly cannot be based on this neglect for more than two years despite notices from the COMELEC. C. Petitioners erroneously availed of certiorari and prohibition as a mode to question the constitutionality of R. A. No. 10367 and the assailed COMELEC Resolutions, Sections 1 and 2, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court reads: ? GR. No. 118910, November 16, 1995. "* Reiterated in Del Mar ». Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, et al, G-R. Nos. 138298 and 138982, June 19, 2001. '* Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. and GMA Network, Inc. v. COMELEC, GR. No. 132922, Apsil 21, 1998.CoNsoLIDaTED COMMENT Kabataan Party-lst, etal, v. COMELEC Page 9 of 24 Section 1, Petition for certiorari—When, any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgm ent be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may requie. Section 2. Petition for prohibition When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jutisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a petson aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper coutt, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. Petitioners’ resort to certiorari and prohibition as a mode to question the constitutionality of R.A. No. 10367 and the assailed COMELEC Resolutions is improper because these Resolutions were not issued in the performance of respondent's ministerial, judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Petitioners never alleged if and how respondent acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, of with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction. Even the assailed issuances, which were promulgated to implement a statute, were never alleged to have been tainted with grave abuse of discretion. It is simply unimaginable that the COMELEC would commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it only followed the law. Il. The Biometrics System of Registration is a valid and constitutional procedural e of the requirement for the exer: right of suffrage. A. The right of suffrage isnot absolute.CONSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Partylist,et al, v. COMBLEC Page 10 of 24 On June 11, 1996, R.A. No. 8189 was approved and passed into law. It reiterated the indispensability of registration” in one’s exercise of the right to vote. ‘ Recognizing the inherent police power of the State to enact laws to safeguard and regulate the act of voter’s registration for the ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly, and peaceful elections, the Honorable Court, in Akbayan v, COMELEC;* held: the exercise of the right of suffrage, as in the enjoyment of all other rights, is subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements embodied in our Constitution, statute books and other repositories of law. Thus, as to the substantive aspect, Section 1, Article V of the Constitutions provides: 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. As to the procedural limitation, the right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo: among others, the process of registration. Specifically, a citigen in order 40 be qualified to exercise his right to vote, in addition tothe minima requirements set by fundamental charter, is obliged by law to register, at present, under the provisions of Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise known as the “Voter’s Registration Act of 1996.” Stated differently, she act of registration is an indispensable precondition to the right of sufrage. For registration is part and parcel of the right to vote and an indispensable element in the election process..." Evidently, registration is an administrative requirement which is an “indispensable precondition” to the exercise of the tight to suffrage. There can be no doubt that it is entirely within the prerogative of Congress to set reasonable procedures, such as the mandatory biometrics registration, to ensure that the voter’s list is credible. The choice of the system of registration also lies entirely with Congress, and well within its plenary powers. This holds true, for instance, with respect to ” Sections 9 and 10, R.A. No. 8189. ® GR. Nos. 147066 and 147179, March 26, 2001. * Emphasis supplied.CONSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Party-list et al, v. COMELEC Page 11 of 24 the type of technology to be employed in ensuring the credibility of the voters’ list and its fidelity with the information provided by registrants, Registration is therefore not a substantive requirement, but a procedural ot administrative requirement operating as an “indispensable precondition” to the exercise of the right of suffrage. One who wishes to exercises his tight of suffrage must not only possess the qualifications set forth by Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, but must also undergo the obligatory process of registration. Simply put, it is not incompatible with both law and justice to disallow someone who is otherwise qualified to vote if s/he fails, in the first place, to register as a voter. B. Deactivation as a consequence of failure to validate through _—_the Biometrics System is not an additional substantive tequirement prohibited by Section 1, Article V of the Constitution. Petitioners maintain that biometrics validation and deactivation under R. A. No. 10367 and its implementing Regulations are an unconstitutional substantial requirement imposed on the exercise of suffrage.” Petitioners’ contentions are devoid of metit. Section 1, Article V of the Constitution provides: Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by law, who afe at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have tesided 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.” Clearly, what the Constitution prohibits is the imposition of any substantive qualification similar in nature to literacy or ownership of property.” ‘These substantive requirements are prohibited because of our learning from the history of electoral laws in other countries which allowed legislatures to provide discriminatory requirements that single out “discrete and insular minorities.” ® Petition, p. 14. * Emphasis supplied. ® See Bernas, Joaquin, S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, p. 670.CoNSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Partylst, etal, , COMELEC Page 12 of 24 ‘The constitutional policy is meant to prohibit the political department from recognizing the people’s right to vote while simultaneously imposing significant, if unsurmountable burdens on certain groups to ensure the success of a particular sector. On the other hand, the requirement of validation and the consequent deactivation for failure to do so are far from being similar in nature to literacy ot ownership of property. Validation and deactivation do not at all pertain to the social ot economic status of a person. Validation and deactivation do not take into account the person’s financial capacity, knowledge, ot race. They are generic requirements that apply to everyone and impose minimal burdens that coincide with the state policy of ensuring a clean voters’ list, nothing more. What R. A. No. 10367 imposes upon a qualified voter who wishes to exercise his or her right to vote is to comply with the modernized procedure of registration, ie, the process of taking his or her biometrics for validation Otherwise, his ot her registration shall be deactivated and his ot her name shall be taken off the voter’s list. One cannot read into this procedure a policy of imposing the infamous grandfather clause. To be sure, R. A. No. 10367 is similar to Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, as amended” and R.A. No, 8189 which similarly imposed registration as a necessary requirement for the exercise of the right to vote. The only difference is that R.A. No. 10367 now imposes mandatory biometric voter registration. In Aportadera 0, Sotto,” the Honorable Court ruled that registration does not add to the original requirements of a qualified voter: Petitioner lays stress upon the clause ‘in which he had registered,’ in this section 98, to bolster up the claim that registration is one of the qualifications to be a votet. He overlooks, however, the fact that registration in a given precinct is mentioned in said provision, in order that a person ‘may vote in said precinct.’ In any event, said section 98 cannot be construed as adding registration to the original requirements of a qualified voter, for, otherwise, it would conflict with Article V of the Constitution, pursuant to which: ‘Sufftage may be exercised by male citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are twenty- cone years of age or over and are able to read and write, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for one year and in the municipality wherein they propose to vote for at least six months preceding the election. The National Assembly shall extend the right of suffrage to women, if in plebiscite which * The Omnibus Election Code, 7 GR. No. L-16876 , November 30, 1961.CONSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Partylist et al, . COMELEC Page 13 of 24 shall be held for that purpose within two years after the adoption of this Constitution, not less than three hundred thousand women possessing the necessary qualifications shall vote affirmatively on the question.’ Inasmuch as registration is not essential, under this Article, for the possession of the right of suffrage, defendant’s contention cannot be sustained without holding that section 98 of the Reviged Election Code seeks to amend said provision of our fundamental law, and, hence, without becoming unconstitutional.” Re-registration and revalidation of voters’ list are also not novel. R.A. No. 10367 is not the pioneer law that imposed the consequence of deactivation of one’s registration record for failure to perform a certain act mandated by law. Deactivation was already in existence as early as 1996, when R.A. No. 8189 was passed into law. Section 27 thereof provides, among others, for deactivation of the registration records of any person who did not vote in two (2) successive preceding regulat elections as shown by their voting records. ‘This provision of R.A. No. 8189 remains valid to date despite a similar imposition of deactivation of voter registration records. C. Petitioners conflate voter disqualification with voter deactivation. Petitioners next contend that the disqualification contemplated by Section 1, Article V of the Constitution “atises only in the event of a criminal conviction in which the offense committed has among its penalties either the perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage.” Petitioners’ arguments are at once incorrect and irrelevant. In fact, theré are other grounds for voter disqualification. Section 11 of R.A. No 8189, for instance, provides: Section 11, Disqualification. ‘The following shall be disqualified from registering: a) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment of not less than one (1) year, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty: Provided, however, ‘That any person disqualified to vote under this ™ Emphasis supplied. ” Petition, p. 19.CONSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Party-lst ef al, ». COMELEC Page 14 of 24 paragraph shall automatically reacquire the tight to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence; b) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by a competent court or tribunal of having committed any ctime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the firearms laws or any ctime against national security, unless restored to his full civil and political rights in accordance with law: Provided, That he shall automatically reacquire the right to vote-upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence; and ©) Insane ot incompetent persons declared as such by competent authority unless subsequently declared by proper authority that such person is no longer insane or incompetent. Section 5 of R.A. No 9189” likewise provides grounds for the forfeiture of the right of suffrage. Sec. 5. Disqualifications. ~ ‘The following shall be disqualified from voting under this Act: 1. Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with Philippine laws; 2. Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine and who have pledged allegiance to a foreign country; izenship 3. Those who have committed and are convicted in a final judgment by a coust of tribunal of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one (1) year, including those who have committed and been found guilty of Disloyalty as defined under Article 137 of the Revised Penal Code, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty; Provided, however, That any person disqualified to vote under this subsection shall automatically acquite the right to vote upon expiration of five (6) years after service of sentence; Provided, further, That the Commission may take cognizance of final judgments issued by foreign courts or tribunals only on the basis of reciprocity and subject to the formalities and processes prescribed by the Rules of Court on execution of judgments; 4. An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host country, unless he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for the purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later than three (3) years from approval of his/her registration under this Act. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall be the cause for the removal of the name of ® An Act Providing for a System of Overseas Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of the Philippines Abroad, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes.CONSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Party-lst, etal, t. COMELEC Page 15 of 24 the immigrant or permanent resident from the National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to vote in absentia. 5. Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared insane or incompetent by competent authority in the Philippines or abroad, as verified by the Philippine embassies, consulates or foreign service establishments concerned, unless such competent authority subsequently certifies that such person is no longer insane or incompetent. Petitioners wrongly conflate deactivation with disqualification. Disqualification is generally either a penalty (for committing a crime) ot the necessary consequence of loss of status (such as citizenship), while deactivation is both administrative and non-punitive in nature. Deactivation is simply the failure to register, as required by law, of an otherwise qualified voter. Thus, a voter whose registration has been deactivated can have his/her registration reactivated upon compliance with the law. In fact, Section 9 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9721 expressly states that “[tJhose voters whose records are deactivated ... may apply for teactivation upon the resumption of the system of continuing registration of voters after the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections.” A disqualified voter, on the other hand, cannot register even if s/he tried (until the disqualification is, if at all, so removed). D. Petitioners failed to overcome the presumption —_—of constitutionality. What is worth emphasizing here is that this case involves the constitutional right of Congress to mandate a specific system of registration and the constitutional mandate of the COMELEC to register voters pursuant to the law and with the view to ensuting that it is able to build a credible list of voters. Furthermore, all laws are presumed to be constitutional. An act of the legislature, approved by the executive, is presumed to be within constitutional limitations. The responsibility of upholding the Constitution rests not on the courts alone but on the legislature and executive branches as well. The question of the validity of every statute is first determined by the legislative department of the government itself" To declare a law unconstitutional, the repugnancy of that law to the Constitution must be clear and unequivocal, for even if a law is aimed at the attainment of some public good, no infringement of constitutional rights is * Macalintal ». COMBLEG, G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003.CONSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Partylist, etal, . COMELEC Page 16 of 24 allowed. To strike down a law thete must be a clear showing that what the fundamental law condemns or prohibits; the statute allows it to be done.” This was not shown in this case. What the petitioners claim in this case is that R. A. No. 10367 curtails the right of suffrage, a guaranteed and safeguarded right under the Constitution, by imposing the consequence of deactivation for one’s failure to validate or register through the biometrics system. This atgument loses credibility when taken in the context of more than two and a half years of continuous registration under the new system, in the face of general and specific notices to all qualified voters In addition, contrary, to petitioners’ view, R. A. No. 10367 does not restrain the people’s right to vote. It, in fact, protects this tight, through biometrics technology, by ensuring that no other person can vote in behalf or in lieu of another person, Besides, R. A. No. 10367 does not require the impossible to be done. What it requires is simple: to submit one’s self for validation. Ill. The Biometrics System of Registration creates, in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner, a single official, centralized, teractive computerized voter registration list and does not classify Respondent issued the assailed Resolutions implementing the Biometric System of Registration in a uniform and non-disctiminatory manner. ‘The ERB, for its part, accepted all registrants regardless of gender, educational attainment, employment, status or class. Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, said System does not create an artificial classification of voters. ‘The alleged classification put forth by petitioners, ie, first-time registered voters registered directly through biometrics, prior registered voters who have complete biomettic information, registered voters who have no biomettic data, and registered voters who have incomplete biometsic data,” is nothing but an attificial, forced classification. In fact, there are only two classifications—those who were able to register and those who were not able to do so. There is no new, additional, or * Ibid ” Petition, pp. 21-22.CONSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Party-list, et al, . COMELEC Page 17 of 24 even an artificial classification that is created by the law or by implementing the law, but only a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters for the 2016 National and Local Elections, and beyond. ‘The reality is that respondent cannot compel qualified voters to register or exercise their right to vote. ‘The most that respondent can do is to provide a system whete those who wish to exercise their right to vote may do so in a clean, orderly, and trustworthy manner. The system does not segregate voters into classes; it only ensures that there is a list of validated voters. IV. The deadline set by the COMELEC for registration is in accordance with a strict schedule for all critical pre-election activities and accordingly ensures the orderly conduct of the 2016 National and Local Elections. ‘The Biometric System of Registration creates a clean, complete, permanent, updated list of voters. This list is critical since it determines who are allowed to participate in the 2016 National and Local Elections, the number of vote counting machines (CM) and related peripherals to be deployed, and the budget needed. ‘The period provided for voter registration ended on October 31, 2015. Notices were sent to those who failed to validate their record and they were given until November 9, 2015 within which to contest their deactivation from the voter's list. Hearings for this purpose were set on November 16 to 20, 2015 and November 23 to 27, 2015. ‘Thus, the voters’ list must be completed early in order for these protests to be heard and acted upon promptly. ‘The clean list is then entered into the election management system with other election data. Petitioners claim, however, that since the 2016 National and Local Elections are scheduled on May 9, 2015, voter registration should extend until January 8, 2015 pursuant to Section 8 of R. A. No. 8189, to wit: Section 8 System of Continuing Registration of Voters. The personal filing of application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily in the office ‘of the Election Officer during regular office hours. No registration shall, however, be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a tegular election and ninety (90) days before a special election.CONSOLIDATED COMMENT. Kabataan Party, eal, , COMELEC Page 18 of 24 According to petitioners, the 120-day prohibited period under the above-quoted Section 8 should begin on January 9, 2015 and end on May 9, 2015. Ending the voter registration period on October 31, 2015 is accordingly seventy (70) days earlier than the period prescribed by the said Section 8. Petitioners’ claim is untenable. ‘The 120-day and 90-day prohibited periods for registering before a regular and special election, respectively, under the afore-quoted provision, are meant to aid respondent in the orderly administration of the process of registration. The 120-day and 90-day periods are not the determining points for the last day to file applications for registration. These are the minimum periods when registration is not allowed. This interpretation of Section 8 of R.A. 8189 is consistent with the Honorable Court’s ruling in Kabataan Party List, et. al v COMELEG* ‘The Court agtees with the COMELEC that the 120 days is not the reckoning point for the determination of the last day for filing applications for registration. What the Voter's Registration Act merely provides is that registration shall no longer be allowed during the period of one hundred ‘owenty (120) days before a regular election or, in this case, beyond January 8, 2016. It does not, however, mandate that the period for registration should be up to such time. Moreover, the COMELEC is allowed to lengthen the 120 and 90-day periods of “no registration” on account of administrative necessities and other exigencies. The COMELEC had to fix the deadline for the filing of applications for registration on October 31, 2015, since there are certain pre~ election acts that are dependent upon it and cannot be petformed without awaiting its completion. The filing of applications is just the initial phase in a long process of registration. Following this phase is the approval of applications by the Election Registration Board, and the filing of petitions for inclusions and exclusions, among others. A final list of accepted voters can only be prepared after said process is completed. This list is a prerequisite to the preparation of the Project of Precints (POP) which, in turn, is needed for the generation of digital certificates for the electoral boards. If, however, the POP will not be available on time, all the other major pre-election activities will be adversely affected, i, the printing of ballots and the configuration of election machines. Clearly, while Section 8 of R.A. No. 8189 provides for a period in which voters cannot register anymore, it does not proscribe respondent from providing a longer period of time for prohibiting registration in order to secure a more meaningful, clean, and efficient electoral process within the context of the electoral powers conferred on it by the Constitution. Indeed, it is erroneous to argue that the registration should not be conducted only within the 120-day * GR. No. 220918, December 8, 2015.CONSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Party-list, et al, », COMELEC Page 19 of 24 and 90-day prohibited periods before the elections. Especially so when respondent has demonstrated reasonable and valid grounds for the timeline and periods required to implement the Automated Election System (AES). To be mote specific, if the 2.4 million voters who failed to validate their registration will be included in the final list of voters, all other election data will have to be changed and all deadlines moved per the following COMELEC timeline: 1. Preparation and completion of the Project of Precincts (POP). The preparation and completion of the POP is the basis for the finalization of the Election Management Systems (EMS), which generates the template of the official ballots for 18,083 elective positions at stake; and determines the voting jutisdiction for the 238 legislative districts, 1634 cities/municipalities, and 81 provinces, as well as the configuration of the canvassing and consolidation system (CCS) for each voting jurisdiction. 2, Immediately after the loading of the pertinent election data, the digital certificates for the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI), Boards of Canvassers (BOC), Vote Counting Machines (VCM) and (Canvassing and Consolidated System (CCS), will have to be generated within a 7-day period, from December 18, 2015 to December 24, 2015 so that said digital certificates may be loaded into the EMS by December 26, 2015, 3. Since the Election Management System (EMS) is a major component in the Automated Election System (AES) preparations, the data loaded into it, more particularly, the contested positions and the candidates vis-a-vis their voting jurisdictions, need to be validated. In order to meet the deadlines for the succeeding activities, only a period of four days, from December 27 to 30, 2015, has been allotted even if there are 18,083 positions at stake, at least 45,800 candidates vying for said positions, and 1,953 voting jurisdictions. 4. After all election data have been validated, 1,953 ballot faces will then be created by the EMS, from January 2 to 8, 2015, so that said ballot faces may be posted at the COMELEC website on January 3 to 10, 2015, to provide all candidates an opportunity to determine if their names ate correctly indicated on the ballots, and if their names ate placed in the correct voting jurisdiction. 5. Immediately after the validation of the ballot faces, beginning January 11, 2016, all election data earlier validated will be loaded into the EMS to commence the generation of the final ballot faces, and the configuration of the VCM and CCS, all of which shall be used in the Pre- Election Logic and Accuracy Test (PrE-LAT) of the entire automated election system (AES); final testing and sealing of the VCM prior to election day; and election day itself 6. Considering that there ate 1,953 voting jutisdictions, a petiod of 64 days, from January 12, 2016 to March 15, 2016, is needed to generateCONSOLIDATED ComMENT Kabataan Party-list, etal, ». COME Page 20 of 24 the final ballot faces in order to ensure that the official ballots assigned to a certain clustered precinct cannot be used in any other precinct, among other security considerations. 7. ‘To guarantee that the AES is working “securely, accurately and properly” as required under Republic Act No. 9369, test ballots using the final ballot faces, including the actual election-day configuration of the VCM and CCS ~ all of which are generated by the EMS using election data which includes the clean list of voters — will be utilized during the PrE-LAT. Since 98,497 VCMs and 1,715 CCS for 1,490 municipalities, 144 cities and 81 provinces, will be subjected to PrE-LAT, the COMELEC has provided a PrE-LAT period of 102 days, from January 15, 2016 to April 25, 2016, giving the COMELEC less than two weeks to complete the configuration, shipment and deployment of the VCM and CCS for use on election day. 8. After all Pre-LAT test ballots have been printed, the election day official ballots generated by the EMS shall be printed beginning Januaty 20, 2016 up to April 5, 2016, giving the COMELEC only 34 days to complete the printing, packaging and shipment of approximately 54.5 million official ballots to the offices of the city/municipal treasurer.” Prior to the completion of the above events is the conduct of other interrelated undertakings, such as, the determination of the telecommunication facilities to be installed in all polling and canvassing centers; laboratory tests of the VCM and CCS; field test and mock elections as required under R. A. No. 9369; and final trusted build of the AES by the International Certification Entity that will recommend to the Technical Evaluation Committee whether or not to issue a Certification that the AES is working “securely, accurately and properly” — all of which requires the clean and validated list of voters. To stress, the October 31, 2015 deadline set by respondent is necessary to meet the timelines for the other critical activities that have to be undertaken to ensure a successful AES for the 2016 National and Local Elections. Petitioners cite the alleged ineffectiveness of the biometric system of registration in other countries. In the first place, the Honorable Court cannot possibly treat as conclusive and binding this type of allegations based on the internet and book that is even cited incompletely. Surely, the credibility of an entire system of registration cannot be invalidated on the basis of these two citations. Second, the citation of the biometric system of registration in other countries is irrelevant considering that the procedure in the Philippines is clearly different from that of other countries. In People v. Casolocan,” this Honorable Court reminded lawyers to refrain from incorporating in “pleadings allegations and discussions which are irrelevant and misplaced, serving no other » See Letter of COMELEC Chairman J. Andres D. Bautista dated December 7, 2015 to the Supreme Coutt En Banc. © GR. No. 156890, July 13, 2004.CONSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Partylist, et al, v. COMELEC Page 21 of 24 purpose other than to distract and mislead this Court in deciding the core issues of the case.” AVERMENTS FOR THE LIFTING OF THE TRO AND OPPOSITION TO THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION On December 1, 2015, the Honorable Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) directing respondent to desist from deactivating registeted voters without biometric information, The TRO should be lifted and the prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction should be denied. ‘A mandatory injunction which commands the performance of some specific act is regarded as of a more serious nature than a mere prohibitive injunction, the latter being intended generally to maintain the status quo only." Since a preliminary mandatory injunction is cautiously regarded, the issuance of the same is justified only in a clear case, free from doubt or dispute.” If the issuance on preliminary application of an injunction mandatory in nature will have the effect of granting to the complainant all the relief that he could obtain upon a final hearing, the application should be refused except in very rare cases, and then only where complainant's right to the relief is clear and certain.” Petitioners claim that the deactivation of the voters’ registration and non-extension of deadline of application of registration of voters during the pendency of the present Petition would work injustice to Petitioners and millions of youth registrants and voters who cannot be accommodated by respondent as of October 31, 2015 for purposes of the May 9, 2016 elections.* Petitioners are wrong, ‘As discussed above, the respondent acted within its constitutional and statutory powers when it required the voters’ registration of biomettics before they may vote in the upcoming 2016 national and local elections. The said requirement is in consonance with the exercise by the respondent of its necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. The respondent cannot be faulted for the voters’ failure to validate their biometrics registration based on inaction for more than two years. To recall, “\ National Marketing Corporation ». Cloritel, G.R. No. L-26585, Match 13, 1968. * Heirs of Uy and Matualaga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182371, September 4, 2013, citing Sps. Dela Rosa v. Heir of Valdez, GR. No. 159101, June 27, 2011, © Villadores v. Encarnacion, G.R. No. 1.-6425, September 30, 1954, * Petition, p. 30.CONSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Party list, etal, . COMBLEC Page 22 of 24 pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 9721, respondent, on July 1, 2013, already commenced the mandatory biometric system of registration.” Petitioners’ claim of grave and irreparable injury certainly cannot be based on their neglect for more than two years despite notices from the COMELEC. Thus, in failing to prove that they are entitled to the extraordinary and highly exceptional writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, petitioners’ application must be denied and the TRO issued by the Honorable Court should be lifted. PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that: 1. The Temporary Restraining Order dated December 1, 2015 issued by the Honorable Court be LIFTED; 2. The prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction be DENIED; and 3. ‘The Petition dated November 25, 2015 be DENIED for lack of merit. Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances ate likewise prayed for. Makati City, December 11, 2015. © Section 2, R.A. No. 10367.CONSOLIDATED COMMENT Kabataan Partylist, et al, . COMELEC Page 23 of 24 Solicitor General Roll No. “950/ IBP Lifetime No. MCLE Exemption No. 1V- -001068/ May 14, 2013 I) MARIA HAZEL P. VALDEZ- ACANTILADO Senior State Solicitor Officer-In-Charge, Felix Q. Antonio Division Roll No. 43682 IBP Lifetime No. 02780 MCLE Compliance No. IV- 0009120/November 13, 2012 UA ENAMARIE LIZZETTE C. MEDENCELES-VILLALON Senior State Solicitor Roll No. 49057 IBP Lifetime Membership No. 05811 MCLE Compliance No. TV- 0009185 /November 13, 2012 noob ACORDA A fate Solicitor II Roll No, 62372 IBP Lifetime Membership No. 011797 Admitted to Bar — April 26, 2013 MA. ANTONETTE M. MABBUN, Associate Solicitor I Roll No. 63143, IBP No. 979541 /December 19, 2014 MCLE Compliance No. V- 0008902/July 1, 2015 JUAN ANDRES D. BAUTISTA COMELEC Chairman (on Official Travel Roll No. 36870 IBP Lifetime No. 560998 MCLE Exemption No, TV-000002 April 14, 2012 shee or TANGARO-CASINGAL ‘Acting Director IV Law Department Roll No. 41476 IBP No. 946439/January 27, 2015 MCLE Compliance No. V-0010340ConsoLipaTED COMMENT Kabataan Party-list, et al, . COMELEC Page 24 of 24 Roll No,63462 IBP No. 0999168/March 11. 2015 MCLE Compliance No. V- 0004533/November 11, 2014 Copy furnished: ATTY. MARIA KRISTINA C. CONTI Counsel for Petitioners 3/F Exythrina Building 1 Maaralin cor. Matatag St. Central District, Quezon City EXPLANATION (Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) ‘The foregoing Consolidated Comments being served by registered mail, personal service not being possible due to lack of adequate office personnel to effect the same. ENAMARIE LIZZETTE C. MEDENCELES-VILLALON Senior State SolicitorREPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE (Revised as of April 1992) I, EMIO A. ESTOQUE, JR. SAO OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL , with Office address at SHEMALE ea ‘Village Makati City, after being swom to depose and say: That on 12/11/2015, , | caused to be served a copy of the following pleading/paper: NATURE OF THE PLEADING Consolidated Comment Incase No.__G-R.No. 221318 _ entitled_KABATAAN PARTY-LIST REP BY REP JAMES MARK VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS pursuant to Section 3,4,5 and 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, as follows: By Personal Service To: () By depositing a copy to the party or his/her attorney on ‘as shown on p () By leaving a copy in bigger clerk or with a person having charge thereof of as shown on p 7 () By delivering a copy to the Courffripunal Office on as shown on p By Registered Mail To: () By depositing copy on in the Post Office at __ as evidenced by Registry Alty. Maria Kristina C. Conti Receipt(s) N hereto attached and SEERIteS Garo indicated after the name (s) of the addresse(s), and Tea ee TESST with instruction to the postmaster to retum the mail to Central District, Quezon City , , Philippines the sender after (10) days if undelivered - Makati, Metro Manila, Phililippines antemioh" ESTOQUE, JR. SAU (atiant) Dep 47 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this of. ey: City, Philippines. Affiant exhibiti Fi E g ITO ea a Solicitor, Officer Administering the Oath 15-031731-0003 Office of the Solicitor General