Title
AES Watch vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 246332
Decision Date
Dec 9, 2020
The case challenged COMELEC's 2019 AES implementation, focusing on VVPAT compliance, digital signatures, and poll watcher device bans. The Court upheld COMELEC's actions, ruling no grave abuse of discretion and dismissing the petition as moot.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 246332)

Facts:

Antecedents of Automated Election System (AES): In 1997, Republic Act (RA) No. 8436 authorized the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to adopt an automated election system (AES) using appropriate technology for voting and electronic devices to count votes. This was amended by RA No. 9369 in 2007, allowing the COMELEC to use a paper-based or direct recording electronic system. The law also set minimum system capabilities and required authentication of electronically transmitted election results. The COMELEC implemented optical mark reader machines in the 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019 National Elections.

Previous Legal Challenges: Several groups questioned the AES implementation. In Capalla v. COMELEC, concerns were raised about the absence of digital signatures on the 2010 election results. The Court ruled that the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines could produce digitally signed transmissions. In Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. v. COMELEC, the petitioner sought to compel the COMELEC to enable the voter verification feature in the 2016 elections. The Court ruled that the voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) was mandatory and that the COMELEC must comply with the law’s requirements.

2019 Election Issues: In the 2019 elections, AES-WATCH, et al., filed a petition for mandamus, claiming that the COMELEC had not adopted measures for the VVPAT’s "auditability." They proposed a "camerambola" method and sought to declare the prohibition on poll watchers from using capturing devices as unconstitutional.

Issue:

  1. Whether AES-WATCH, et al., and Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc., have legal standing.
  2. Whether mandamus can compel the COMELEC to implement the proposed "camerambola" method.
  3. Whether the prohibition on poll watchers from using capturing devices is constitutional.
  4. Whether the COMELEC complied with the VVPAT requirement under RA No. 8436, as amended.
  5. Whether the election results were adequately authenticated using iButtons and PINs.
  6. Whether the petition was moot after the conclusion of the 2019 National Elections.

Ruling:

  1. Legal Standing: AES-WATCH, et al., and Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc., have legal standing, but United Filipino Consumers & Commuters, Froilan Dollente, and Teofilo Parilla do not.
  2. Mandamus: Mandamus will not lie to control the judgment of an independent constitutional body like the COMELEC absent grave abuse of discretion.
  3. Constitutionality of Prohibition: The prohibition on capturing devices during the casting of votes is constitutional and consistent with the Omnibus Election Code.
  4. VVPAT Compliance: The COMELEC complied with the VVPAT requirement by enabling the printing of voter receipts and allowing voters to verify their votes.
  5. Digital Signatures: The iButtons and PINs are functional equivalents of the electoral board members’ electronic signatures, and the election results were adequately authenticated.
  6. Mootness: The petition was rendered moot by the conclusion of the 2019 National Elections.

Ratio:

  1. Legal Standing: A party must have a personal and substantial interest in the case to have legal standing. AES-WATCH, et al., raised issues of "transcendental importance," and Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc., had a material interest as a political party.
  2. Mandamus: Mandamus is only available to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not to control discretionary acts of a constitutional body like the COMELEC.
  3. Constitutionality: The prohibition on capturing devices during the casting of votes is necessary to maintain the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot, as required by the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code.
  4. VVPAT Compliance: The VVPAT requirement is substantially complied with when the voter’s receipt is printed, and the voter can physically verify their votes. The COMELEC issued guidelines to regulate the release and disposal of the receipts.
  5. Digital Signatures: The iButtons and PINs used by the electoral board are functional equivalents of digital signatures, as recognized in Capalla v. COMELEC and Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. v. COMELEC.
  6. Mootness: The issues raised in the petition became moot after the conclusion of the 2019 National Elections, as they pertained to specific election day proceedings that had already concluded.

Conclusion:

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit and mootness. The COMELEC exercised its discretion in implementing the AES, and there was no grave abuse of discretion in its actions. The Court upheld the COMELEC’s measures to ensure the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot and the transparency of the election process.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.