AKBAYAN V.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 147066 March 26 2001

Buena, J.:

Facts:
Invoking the right to suffrage- petitioners representing the youth sector request for 2
additional registration day in order to enfranchise more than 4 million youth between the
ages 18-21 who failed to register on or before December 27 2000. The request was
denied on the ground provided under sec 8 of RA 8189 and that the commission has no
more time left to accomplish all pre-election activities. Petitioners then seek to set aside
and nullify COMELECs resolution and/or to declare RA 8189 unconstitutional insofar as
said provision effectively disenfranchisement of petitioners and others similarly situated.
Issue:
Whether or not COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing COMELEC
resolution.
Ruling:
No.
Right to suffrage is not at all absolute it is subject to existing substantive and procedural
requirement embodied in our constitution, statute books and other repositories of law.
The substantive aspect is provided under sec 1 art V of 1987 const. as to procedural
limitation to exercise the right of a citizen to vote he must undergo the process of
registration. Act of registration is an indispensable precondition to the right of suffrage,
for it is part and parcel of the right to vote and an indispensable element in the election
process.
On legal score sec 8 of RA 8189 explicitly provides a system of continuing registration to
wit: xxx no registration shall however, be conducted during the period starting 120 days
before a regular election or 90 days before a special election.
It is an accepted doctrine in administrative law that the determination of administrative
agency as to the operation, implementation and application of a law would be accorded
great weight considering that these specialized government bodies are, by nature and
functions , in the best position to know what they can possible do or not do, under
prevailing circumstances.
Petition denied
KABATAAN PARTY-LIST V. COMELEC
G.R. No. 221318 December 16, 2015

Perlas- Bernabe, J.:

Facts:
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of biometrics validation requirements imposed
under RA 10367 including COMELEC resolution nos. 9721,9863,10013. Petitioners posit
that it has risen to the level of an unconstitutional substantive requirement in the exercise
of the right of suffrage. They submit that the statutory requirement of biometric validation
is no different from the unconstitutional requirement of literacy and property.
Petitioner assert that biometrics validation gravely violates the constitution, considering
that applying the strict scrutiny test, it is not poised with compelling reason for state
regulation and hence, an unreasonable deprivation of the right to suffrage.
Further avers that RA 10367 and COMELEC resolutions violates the tenets of procedural
due process.
Petitioner also assail the wisdom of the legislature in adopting the biometrics registration
system in curbing electoral fraud.
Lastly petitioner proffer resolution 9863 which fixed the deadline for validation on October
31 2015 violates sec 8 of RA 8189.
Issue:
1. Whether or not statutory requirement of biometrics is an unconstitutional
requirement of literacy and property.
2. Whether or not biometrics validation passes the security test.
3. Whether or not RA 10367 and COMELEC resolution violates procedural due
process.
4. Whether or not resolution no 9863 violates sec 8 of RA 8189.
Ruling:
1. No.