Participation of inmates in local polls put on hold
The Supreme Court on Tuesday stopped inmates from the national penitentiary and detainees in local prisons from voting in local polls but allowed them to vote in the national elections.
In a seven-page resolution, the high court partially granted the petition filed by Atty. Victor Aguinaldo.
Aguinaldo, in his petition said Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No. 9371 which provided for registration and voting of incarcerated persons violates the constitutional provision requiring a voter to be a resident of the city or municipality where he or she will vote.
The resolution, according to Aguinaldo, “has imperfections, inadequacies and deficiencies in its applications, and thus, creating uncertainties, loopholes, gaps and ambiguities in its provisions, application and/or implementation.” He said the resolution should be clarified or amended so that inmates from the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City and detainees in provincial, city and municipal jails nationwide to vote only for national elections.
READ: SC orders Comelec to clarify policy allowing inmates to vote
He said incarceration is forced upon the inmates and detainees like former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr., who are all detained while standing trial for plunder before the Sandiganbayan.
“Hence, the question as to whether or not such detainees can vote locally or only in the national elections arises for the simple reason that when the said detainees were transferred to the said facilities, their residence requirement is forced upon them and not voluntary.”
He added that allowing prisoners to vote, Petitioner argued that by letting the prisoners to vote would work for “injustice to those regular voters and to those absentee voters, such as the policemen and the media practitioners covering the elections.”
Government lawyers said the petition should be dismissed because Aguinaldo has no legal standing, there is no actual case or controversy and he is questioning a four-year-old resolution.
The high court said it does not appear that the position of the government met the substantive grounds raised by Aguinaldo “specifically with respect to the impact f the rules on local elections and equal protection rights.”
“Nevertheless, the Court does not want to pre-empt a resolution on the merits. Thus, a temporary restraining order is required,” the high court said.
But the high court clarified that in the interest of expediency and so as not to deprive qualified detainees of their right to vote, “the court deems it proper to partially grant the prayer…with a caveat that the TRO only extends to the conduct of elections on the local level.”
“Qualified detainees, may, if they so choose, participate in the May 9,2016 elections on the national level,” the high court said. CDG
