VALIDITY OF A VOTE WITHOUT A THUMBMARK
Philippine election-law perspectives, 2025
1. Why the thumbmark ever mattered
For most of the 20th-century “manual” elections, the voter’s thumbmark served three fraud-deterrence functions:
- Ballot authenticity. A fresh thumbprint on the detachable ballot coupon (or on the voter’s affidavit in the precinct book) helped show that the ballot was legitimately issued to a registered voter.
- Voter identity. It verified that the person who registered is the same person who voted, complementing signatures that illiterate voters could not supply.
- Audit trail in protests. When ballots are re-examined in an electoral protest, a legible thumbprint links a questioned ballot to a name in the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List (EDCVL) or in the old “Posted Computer List.”
2. Statutory framework
| Instrument | Key provisions on thumbmarks | Present status |
|---|---|---|
| Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881, 1985) | § 201–203 require the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI, now EB) to obtain the voter’s thumbmark on the ballot coupon; § 196 lets blind/physically weak voters be assisted. | Still applies only to elections conducted manually (currently barangay/SK special polls or failure-of-election re-runs). |
| Voter’s Registration Act (R.A. 8189, 1996) | § 12 mandates both signature and thumbprints in the voter’s registration record; COMELEC may deactivate records without biometrics. | Still in force, but biometrics now captured digitally. |
| Automated Election Law (R.A. 8436 as amended by R.A. 9369, 2007) | Silent on thumbmarks for ballots; shifts security to barcodes and UV marks. | Governs national & local regular elections. |
| Mandatory Biometrics Registration Act (R.A. 10367, 2013) | “No Bio, No Boto” policy—registration without fingerprints was prohibited after 2016. | Upheld in Kabataan Party-List v. COMELEC (2015). |
| Assisted Voting for PWDs & Seniors (R.A. 10366, 2012) | Allows assistance if voter cannot affix signature/thumbmark; EB records the fact. | Implemented every automated poll. |
| COMELEC Resolutions (e.g., 10549 [2019] barangay/SK manual rules; 10917 [2024] AES General Instructions) | Specify where a thumbmark must appear (manual) or that voter signs/thumbmarks the EDCVL (automated). | Periodically updated but follow the same pattern. |
3. Supreme Court jurisprudence
| Case | G.R. No. & date | Core ruling on thumbmarks |
|---|---|---|
| Aratuc v. COMELEC | L-49705, 08 Feb 1979 | Absence of thumbmarks caused suspicion, but votes still counted once voter intent was clear; irregularities by officials must not disenfranchise. |
| Loong v. COMELEC | 106760, 24 Feb 1994 | Ballots lacking the BEI Chairman’s thumbmark were valid; the omission was an official’s fault, not the voter’s. |
| Almazan v. COMELEC | 212617, 25 Aug 2015 | “No Bio, No Boto” deactivation sustained; biometrics (including fingerprints) relate to registration, not to the validity of a cast ballot. |
| Kabataan Party-List v. COMELEC | 221318, 16 Dec 2015 | Confirmed constitutionality of disenfranchising voters who skipped mandatory biometric capture, but stressed that once a ballot is cast the focus is voter intent, not thumbmark formalities. |
Principle distilled: A ballot is void only when the irregularity is attributed to the voter and obscures voter intent; lapses by election officers (e.g., failure to collect or imprint a thumbmark) do not nullify an otherwise intelligible vote.
4. Automated elections: thumbmark function diminished
Since 2010 the Philippines has used optical mark-scan ballots for regular elections. These ballots have no space for a thumbmark. Security now rests on:
- pre-printed serial numbers, barcodes, UV security marks;
- digital signatures of Electoral Boards;
- Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS/VCM) audit logs.
The voter still signs or thumbmarks the EDCVL for precinct verification, but the presence or absence of that mark does not affect the ballot’s validity once it is inside the machine. Objections must instead target:
- illegal substitution (someone else voted);
- pre-shaded or multiple ballots.
5. Manual elections that remain
Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections—as well as rare manual special polls after failures—still follow B.P. 881. The EB detaches the ballot coupon bearing the voter’s thumbprint and places it in Envelope A for possible protest examination.
A vote without a ballot-coupon thumbprint may be challenged only if:
- a pattern of missing thumbprints shows ballot-box stuffing; and
- challengers prove by competent evidence that genuine voters did not cast those ballots.
Isolated defects are routinely excused under Loong and Aratuc.
6. Special categories and exceptions
| Situation | Thumbmark rule |
|---|---|
| Persons with disabilities / senior citizens | If unable to sign/thumbmark, an assistor writes “Unable to sign” and signs on the voter’s behalf; ballot remains valid. |
| Illiterates (few cases today) | May thumbmark instead of signing; but if even thumbmark is impossible, same assisted-voting rule applies. |
| Overseas & local absentee voting | Ballots are mailed or cast at posts without thumbmarks; identity is verified through passport/biometric records. |
| Voters using the Voter Registration Verification Machine (VRVM) | Fingerprint is scanned digitally; the system flags deactivated voters automatically. |
7. Evidentiary value in election contests
In manual recounts (barangay, special, or protests covering pre-2010 elections), a missing thumbprint raises but does not conclude the presumption of ballot authenticity. Protestants must:
- Correlate the ballot with an entry in the voters’ list without thumbprint;
- Show that the same name appears to have voted more than once or is of a dead/absent person;
- Establish a pattern significant enough to alter results (Loong standard).
In automated contests, lawyers focus on digital logs, ballot images, and vote-count discrepancies—thumbmarks are rarely litigated.
8. Practical tips for practitioners (2025)
- Document early. Poll watchers should note in minutes every instance where the EB fails to require thumbmarks (manual precincts) or bypasses VRVM alerts.
- Gather corroborating IDs. If you plan to challenge ballots, secure death certificates, absentee logs, CCTV footage, or VRVM rejection reports; thumbmark absence alone is weak.
- Understand precinct type. Arguing “no thumbmark, no vote” is futile in automated precincts. Tailor objections to machine data.
- Advise assisted voters. Ensure Form CE-AAV (Assisted Voter’s Form) is properly filled; courts view this as adequate substitute for a thumbprint.
9. Bottom-line doctrine
A Philippine vote is generally valid even if the required thumbmark is missing— unless the absence is attributable to the voter and renders the ballot’s authorship or intent uncertain.
The law distinguishes registration requirements (where missing biometrics can deactivate a voter prospectively) from ballot formalities (where inadvertent official error should not void a cast vote). In regular automated elections today, the thumbmark no longer touches the ballot itself, so challenges must shift to biometric verification logs and digital audit trails.
Always verify the latest COMELEC resolutions for the specific election involved; procedural details (e.g., the form numbers to be thumb-marked) change from cycle to cycle.