I.

Which body as jurisdiction over an election case against a person who

was declared a victor in a congressional race and swore into office
before the Speaker of the House of Representatives days prior to the
official commencement of its session?

The Commission on Election (COMELEC) has the jurisdiction over an

election case against a person who was declared a victory in the
congressional race and swore into office before the Speaker of the House
Representatives days prior to the official commencement of its session.

Section 17 of Article VI of 1987 Constitution clearly states that “The

Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral
Tribunal, which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of their respective Members.” It was held by the
Supreme Court that the requisites such as: (1) valid proclamation; (2) a
proper oath; and (3) assumption of office should be present to be considered
as member of the House of Representatives. However, in the case where a
person who was indeed proclaimed and already taken his oath but hasn’t
yet assumed his office, the COMELEC still has the jurisdiction over the case
(Reyes v. COMELEC)1.

In the case at bar, the victor in the congressional race has already sworn
into office before the Speaker of the House Representatives days prior to
the official commencement of its session. Pursuant to Section 6, Rule II of
the Rules of House of Representatives, “Members shall take their oath or
affirmation collectively or individually before the Speaker in open session.
The oath of office administered by the 18th Congress of the Republic of the
Philippines Speaker in open session to all Members present is a ceremonial
affirmation of prior and valid oaths of office administered to them by duly
authorized public officers.2”

Hence, in this case where the person made his oath before the Speaker
of the House of Representatives was not sufficient because the oath must
be made also in open session which is a requisite to enable him to enter
into the performance of his functions as a duly member of the House. The
absence of proper oath and assumption of offices means that the victor is
still not a member of the House of Representative, therefore, this election
case is still in the jurisdiction of COMELEC.

II. According to the Comelec, only a registered voter who accomplished

the biometrics requirements may vote. Given this, are “registration”
and “biometrics” part of the qualifications of a voter?

No, registration and biometrics are not part of the qualifications of a voter
but merely a form which regulates the exercise of right to suffrage.

1
Reyes vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013
2
Rules of the House of Representatives (congress.gov.ph/hrep.house.rules)
 It was provided under Section 1, Article V of the 1987 Constitution that:

“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.” 3

It was held by the Supreme Court in case of Kabataan Party-List, et. al, vs
COMELEC4 that the biometrics validation imposed under RA 10367, and implemented
under COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9721, 9863, and 10013 is not a "qualification" to
the exercise of the right of suffrage, but a mere aspect of the registration procedure,
of which the State has the right to reasonably regulate. It was institutionalized
conformant to the limitations of the 1987 Constitution and is a mere complement to the
existing Voter's Registration Act of 1996. Furthermore, it was held in case of
AKBAYAN-Youth vs Comelec5 that the act of registration is an indispensable
precondition to the right of suffrage. It is part of the right to vote and an indispensable
element in the election process.

The State, in the exercise of its inherent police power, may enact laws to
safeguard the act of voter's registration for the ultimate purpose of conducting honest,
orderly, and peaceful election. Thus, in the case at bar, biometrics and registration are
not part of the qualifications of a voter under the Constitution but necessary requisites
provided under enacted laws which merely regulates the exercise of one’s right to
vote.

3
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines- Article V, officialgazette.gov.ph
4
Kabataan Party-List, et. al, vs COMELEC, G.R. NO. 189868, December 15, 2009
5
Akbayan-Youth v. COMELEC, Supra note 81, at 636.