July 5 Recording

Sir: Kabataan vs. Comelec. Kabataan party questioning the constitutionality of RA10367, particularly on
the mandatory biometrics registration system. This law requires the registration sa biometrics as a
voter. Before you can vote you have to enroll in the biometrics registration and the purpose of which is
to establish daw a clean, complete, permanent, and updated list of voters. And “…” to this law, the
comelec issued several resolutions requiring the registration of voters and those who do not have
biometrics daw or incomplete biometrics data are considered as deactivated voters and shall not be
allowed to vote. The period by which these people “…” can enroll “…” be extended several times among
other things. And then, after the required period by which you can register, you can no longer vote in
the May 2016 elections. So this was the recent presidential elections. So this was challenged by
Kabataan party et. al., because according to them, this disenfranchises voters. It gives a substantial
qualification where there is a “…” of deactivation. So ma-defeat daw ang right to vote sa mga tao and
therefore it is unconstitutional as well as the Comelec issuances “…” to this law.

Is the law as well as the Comelec resolutions, unconstitutional? The concept that they are not, they’re
all constitutional, they are not unconstitutional.

Now, procedural objections for raised in order to dismiss this petition and the court call brush them
aside as mere rules of procedure, technicalities that should not cause the dismissal of a complaint
because among other things the petition is “…” on an important constitutional issue pertaining to the
right of suffrage, your right to vote. And therefore, the matter is one of transcendental public
importance and compelling significance and even if the petition has several procedural defects, the
court deemed it proper to brush this aside and instead resolve the case on the merits.

In fact, this case demands immediate “…” in view of the critical preparatory activities that are currently
being undertaken by the Comelec with regard to the May 2016 elections “…”. Transcendental
importance as well as the imperative “…” as soonest possible time it cause of the event which is the May
2016 elections duol na kaayo sya. Anyway, what is the purpose of this rules of procedure? These are
mainly tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice and therefore you cannot use them to
defeat the attainment of justice.

Another “…” issue, as we already said earlier, the law is not unconstitutional as well as the issuances of
the Comelec on the same law. Now, what about your right to vote? This right of suffrage, in particular
article 5 of the constitution, this will be discussed more intensively in second year, election law. But just
to touch on, little discussion on the matter, anyways, the constitution, is our right to vote is it a natural
right? Is it a basic unqualified absolute right? No. The right to vote is a right created by law. It is a
privilege granted by the state to us, who are most likely to exercise it for the public good. And therefore
it can be regulated.

Under the 1987 Constitution article 5 section 1, it prescribes the qualifications before one can exercise
the right to suffrage, right to vote. It “…” exercise by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, so that’s the first, “…” citizen not otherwise disqualified by law, at least 18 years of
age, who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least 1 year, and in the place where in they
proposed to vote at least 6 months, immediately preceding the elections. Those are the requisites or
requirements set by the constitution before you can exercise the right to vote. In other words, your right
to vote is not automatic, its not something that is absolute, naa gihapon qualifications. And what is the
contentious requirement here is this requirement that you must have “…” disqualified by law. In other
words, the law can disqualify you from voting.

This qualification, reflects the franchised nature of the right to suffrage. It is subject to regulation. The
state may therefore regulate its right to imposing statutory legal disqualifications with the restriction
however that these disqualifications should not amount to literacy, property or other substantive
requirement. In the same probation, section 1 article 5, literacy, property or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the right to suffrage. This is the limitation. If you want to expand the
limitations before one can exercise the right to suffrage, it must not involve literacy, property or other
substantive requirement. The fact na you have assets of this amount, or that you are a probably tax
payer paying this amount of tax, because this will qualify as a property or other substantive
requirement, that cannot be imposed. But if other limitations imposed by law, they do not touch on
those three, then they can be validly imposed, and that is “…” here.

So, the right to suffrage may be limited by law. You can be disqualified by law. The “…” selection code, in
fact, provides for several disqualifications under section 118.

Is this biometrics requirement even a qualification to vote? Is a qualification dapat you should have? The
court said that it is not a qualification, it is just a form of registration. There is a difference between a
qualification and registration. The act of registering is only one step towards voting and it is not one of
the elements that makes a citizen a qualified voter. Because one may be a qualified voter without
exercising the right to vote. So pwede ka maging qualified voter even if wala kay biometrics
requirement. Its just that you cannot vote because you are not registered. Registration here is a form of
regulation. It is not a qualification for the right of suffrage.

Now, let us use daw according to the Kabataan party, this strict “…” test because we’re talking here of a
right in the constitution, which is being risked because of this regulation. The court said, even using the
strict “…” test, usually used if there is an “…” in fundamental rights. This regulation, this biometrics
requirement passes the test while this biometrics requirement advances a compelling state interest and
it is designed to facilitate the conduct of orderly, honest and credible elections if not eliminating the “…”
problem of flying voters as well as dead and multiple registrants.

Plus, it is also the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. Its not so “…” for you to have
yourself registered in the biometrics system. So, the court said that this requirement is not
unconstitutional. It brushes aside the procedural arguments.

De Leon vs. “…”

Here we have a case against units of the Philippine Marine Corps and at PNP SAF because they joined
the protest of militant groups etc. calling for the resignation of former president GMA and so because of
this there was an investigation conducted in several officers of the PMC and the PNP SAF were
recommended to be charged before a general court martial for violations of the “…” war and eventually
after investigation, they were charged with violations of several “…” in the articles of war.
Now, “…” the supreme court because they argued that this creation of this special general court martial
number 2 is the part that is supposed to hear they’re cases among others violates their right to process
the constitution “….”.

The court said that this case is already dismissed but on the ground of “…” because prior any resolution
to annul this memorandum as well as the creation of this court martial would no longer serve any
purpose, no practical value because prior to the resolution of this case, the cases before this courts have
been dismissed. So what’s the point? There’s nothing to enjoy, no court to stop, no proceedings to
enjoy. Because wala na silay kaso, they have been dismissed by this court. Other words, that case has
become “…” and epidemic. In fact, the special general court martial has long been dissolved. And the
petitioners here were already replaced from confinement. So there is no more reason for the court to
further rule on the matter because the case is already ruled.

Resident marine mammals vs. Reyes

Here we have oppression on standing. Why? Naay mga “…”, whales, dolphins “…” other sedation species
which inhibit the Tanyon strait. And then, they also have their stewards, their caretakers. Why? What’s
so special about them? What’s the issue about?

There was this contract between this “…”, a firm suggesting or conducting, suggesting to conduct a
geophysical survey and exploration of this Tanyon strait. And the government and this “…” entered into
an agreement which became GSEC102 and later on SC-46. The purpose of this contract or agreement
was to explore, develop, produce petroleum resources in the Tanyon strait. And so this “…”, dolphins,
whales, etc. through their representatives, stewards, filed a case to enjoy the operation of the SC-46.

In the mean time, Japex already began to drill an exploratory well. And it is argued by the “…” and also
their steward that there's bee’ a fish kill, there’s been a reduced significant reduction in the catch, in
other words, the water has become contaminated, so they filed a case to stop this because this contract
aside from violating the constitutional right to a balanced ecology also does not meet some of the
constitutional requirements for entering into such contract. As a procedural matter, the respondents in
this case, the government, challenge the standing of this “…” as well as their stewards.

Also number 2, procedural issue is that the case has already become “…”. The court said on the
mootness, it is indeed moot. Nahuman na ang contract, nahuman na ang whatever that has to be done
under SC-46. There’s nothing more left to enjoy but even if the case is already moot, we already know
the exception to that general rule. If (he then states the exceptions).

The court said that it is necessary to resolve the issues in this case because almost all of the foregoing
exceptions are present in this case. So, take note that in this case, the court said that its not required
that all must be present because pwede na almost all.

Anyway, while the case has become moot, the court still proceeded to hear the matter. Now the more
important matter of standing, this resident marine mammals, through their stewards, claim that they
have the legal standing to file the action because they are the, this creatures, “…” benefitted or injured
by the judgement in this case. Citing Oposa vs. Pactoran, the right to sue for the faithful performance of
international municipal environmental laws are created in their favor and for their benefit. Therefore,
they have the right to demand their rights and benefits under those agreements and laws.
Thus, they floated this concept of epistulari jurisdiction. The court, the Supreme Court in particular, has
episturari jurisdiction. What if it is asked in the bar? What is the epistulari jusrisdiction of the supreme
court? Its not discussed in this case but in another jurisdiction in india which has something to do with
public interest “…”, meaning if it involves the public, then the requirement on standing should be
liberally construed.

What is the purpose of this public interest “…”? epistulari jurisdiction procedure had to be relaxed to
meet the ends of justice. The purpose of this public interest “…” is to promote the public interest which
mandates the violation of the legal constitutional rights of the poor, the “…”, socially and economically
disadvantaged should not go un”…” just because there is no proper party to the sued. So, that is the
concept of epistulari jurisdiction. Pwede daw ni irecognize ni Supreme court, even if walay standing ang
parties or the requirement of standing should be relaxed.

Did the supreme court in this case give legal standing to the resident marine mammals? The court did
not rule on that issue. It did not categorically say that they have standing but it invoke the provisions of
the rules of procedure for environmental cases and these rules eliminated the requirement of the legal
standing for this resident marine mammals. “…” in environmental cases has been given in more
liberalized approach. In fact, the rules of procedure for environmental cases allow for a citizen “…” and
permit any Filipino citizen to file an action before our court for violation of environmental law of our
environmental laws. So it is any Filipino citizen in the “….” Of citizen “…” that can sue before the court in
representation of others including minors or generations yet unborn. So this is the permissive approach
provided by the rules of procedure for environmental cases. So pwede a citizen can represent this “…”
etc but the court did not say in this case categorically that the “…” etc have legal standing. So here.
Pwede sya mahimong citizen suit, the stewards or any citizen claiming to have his or her environmental
rights violated can file a case before the court invoking enviormental laws vis a vis the rules of procedure
for environmental cases.

More on the discussion of “…”, the court emphasize the ruling “…”, the concept of intergenerational
responsibility insofar as the right to a balance and healthful ecology is concerned. So very lenient
standing requirement if it involves the invocation of this right to a balance and healthful ecology.

Who has standing here? Katong stewards. What about the substance? Is SC-46 valid? The court nullified
this SC-46 is null and void. Why? It violates several provisions of the constitution and also the law under
article 12 section 2. There are requirements that this could be construed as an agreement, technical
agreement between our country and another entity. The president before he can enter into this
contract shall notify the congress of every “…” entered into, in accordance with the provision under
article 12 section 2. In this case, there was no notification to congress of this type of contract.

What else? This service contract should be crafted in accordance with a general law that will set a
standard or uniform terms etc. The court said here that indeed there is a law that could fall under this
requirement PD 87 but there are still other requirements while this law is sufficient to satisfy the
requirement of the general law, there is an absence of the two other conditions:

1. That the president should be a signatory to SC -46

2. That the congress should be notified of the contract
And these requirements are required to the constitution. Out of three, katong general law, the
president is signatory, and congress should be notified, only one is present. The presence of the general
law. But the other two, they were not. Therefore the contract is unconstitutional.

Rappler vs. Bautista

Here we have an agreement between the Comelec and the Rappler. They have this memorandum of
agreement on the broadcast of this Pilipinas Debates for presidential and vice presidential candidates
which the comelec is organizing. And the Rappler and also “a name I cant decipher” were tasked to do
the online coverage. However, there was a provision in the memorandum of agreement which limits
regarding online streaming. The imposition of a maximum of two minutes of debate excerpts for news
reporting. So it is argued by Rappler that this provision should not be imposed because wala man namo
ni gisabutan. As a procedural issue, on the matter to case when the supreme court, does it suffer from
procedural defects? Probably. But the court said that it should not be dismissed solely because it has
procedural defects because the court can liberally set aside procedural lapses in cases involving issues of
transcendental importance. This matter is of transcendental importance as it illuminates the public as to
the platform, propaganda of our candidates to the president and vice president positions.

As to the issue on substance, can the comelec impose these limitations, maximum limit of two minutes
of debate excerpts for news reporting? The court said that it should not impose these limitations.

Under the MOA, the networks involved are mandated to promote the dates for maximum audience.
And the function of this debate is to give the widest dissemination of the debates to the public. The
MOA has not reserved or withheld the reproduction of the debates to the public but has in fact
expressed to allow the reproduction of the debate subject to copyright conditions.

The only limitation therefore in the distribution or in the broadcast of the streaming is copyright
conditions. Kung mameet na nimo ning copyright conditions then there will be no need to impose a two
minute restriction on the quotation or the excerpts for news reporting. And after those requirements
are fulfilled, no issue on copyright, then the broadcast should proceed the streaming. The purpose of
the debates here, the court emphasized, is again for the benefit of the electorate to assist us in making
informed decisions or choices during the election period. It gives us the opportunity to be informed of
our candidates qualifications and track record, platforms or programs, and their answers to significant
issues of national concerns. Therefore, the debate should be allowed to be live streamed on “…” sites
including Rapplers.

Rosales vs. ERC

On the matter of this MCC, the members contribution on the capital expenditures. Later renamed as
RFSC or reinvestment fund for sustainable capital expenditures. The cooperatives here, elected
cooperatives, are challenging this imposition by the ERC, this energy regulation commission of these
expenditures or fees. Because according to them, this imposition should not be considered as a capital
expenditure but should be considered instead as a patronage capital which is an investment that must
be accounted for and to be withdrawn by the members or consumers. Kung dili da ing.ato ang
treatment, it could constitute as a deprivation of private property, without ailment of just
compensation. Gusto nila that the treatment of this MCC should be in “…” capital outlay, na wala kay
makuha in return, it should be an investment. Because you are adding additional charges, gusto nila nay
return from their payment of these charges.

What did the court do to the case here? It dismissed the case for several procedural defects. And the
defects that we’ll be discussing are the defects that are pertinent to our topic. Standing: many of the
petitioners here do not have standing. But some of them qualified. “someone” and Ramirez. Why? What
about the other petitioners? What about the NACELCO, it was not shown that the members of the
NACELCO, that the respondent electric cooperatives are members of this NACELCO.

Also, there are other qualified electronic cooperatives who were not “…” in this petition.

What about standing for our legislators? This should be legislators suit. The court said there was no
specific allegation of the “…” legislative function. And so it cannot be considered as a legislative suit.
Legistators suit.

Is the issue here of transcendental importance that would allow the relaxation of the rules? The court
said that it is not of transcendental importance.

What are the requisites anyway before u can consider a matter of transcendental importance? Public
character of the funds or other assets involved, presence of clear disregard of the constitution or
statutory prohibition, lack of any other party will be more distinct, direct and specific interest. The
requirements number 2 and 3 are lacking in this case. The second requirement that there is a disregard
of the constitution or statutory prohibition, the court said, there is no disregard of the constitutional or
statutory prohibition in this case. In fact, the ERC is empowered from the law to issue these costs to
impose these costs on these electric cooperatives. The third requirement, party, the standing
requirement. The court said that number 1, walay locus standi ang most of those who petitioned in this
case and also there were parties who are not “…” and they’re not being impleded would not resolve the
case in its entirety.

Ping-ay and Ramirez and some of the petitioners have standing, they are real parties interest because
they are as the court said clear. Why? Ping-ay is a member/consumer of this electric cooperative and
Ramirez is a spouse of a cooperative member. So they have standing. They stand to be
insured/benefitted with the decision, therefore, kay kung matanggal ning charge, it would mean lesser
costs for these electronic cooperatives and therefore lesser charges for the consumers. Again, the
matter is not of transcendental importance because as we said already the is no constitutional or
statutory prohibitions as well as there is no party. There is absence of the requirement that it lacks any
other party with a more direct and specific interest. There are parties with a more direct and specific
interest but they were not impleaded.