Party-list group unfazed by ‘no bio, no boto’ loss

Unfazed by its loss via unanimous vote, the youth group Kabataan party-list is bent on appealing the Supreme Court decision to uphold the “no bio, no boto” policy, citing the importance of allowing all registered voters to cast their ballots on the May 2016 elections.

Kabataan party-list Rep. Terry Ridon on Thursday said his group will file a motion for reconsideration (MR) before the high court upon receipt of a copy of the ruling, made in a special en banc session on Wednesday.

A key argument, said Ridon, would be ensuring that the 2.5 million registered voters who had failed to enroll their biometrics data during the registration period would still be allowed to vote in next year’s general elections.

He reiterated that while the policy aims to cleanse the voters’ list of fraudulent entries, there would be no biometrics machines for validation on election day.

Registered voters were given one and a half years to update their registration by submitting their biometrics data at the offices of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) nationwide.

“As soon as we get a copy of the decision, we will file an MR. We will reiterate the importance of preventing the disenfranchisement of 2.5 million voters against the state interest of cleaning the voters’ list of flying voters, as the latter will not be achieved, absent new biometrics machines on election day,” Ridon said when reached for comment yesterday.

The high court on Wednesday threw out the youth group’s petition to declare the biometrics registration requirement unconstitutional, saying it was not a substantive requisite to qualify as a voter.

The ruling unanimously upheld the Comelec’s policy as a means to weed out ghost and flying voters.

It said the biometrics requirement sought to accomplish the “compelling state interest” to ensure a “clean, complete, permanent and updated” voters’ list, and that it was the “least restrictive means” to achieve such intent.

But Ridon said that under the biometrics law, a registered voter who failed to enroll biometrics data is effectively disqualified from voting.

“The substantiality of the (biometrics) requirement should not be determined solely on whether it is socioeconomic in nature, but on whether the absence of the requirement effectively disqualifies one from the right of suffrage,” he said.

“Surely, the right (to vote) should be held to a greater esteem than the supposed legitimate state interest of cleansing the voters’ list of flying voters, absent any showing of an estimation of these types of voters,” he added.