Facts:

The case involves a petition for mandamus filed by AES Watch, Buklod Pamilya, Capitol Christian Leadership, Citizens' Crime Watch, and several other petitioners against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Smartmatic Total Information Management. The petition was filed on April 24, 2019, in connection with the 2019 National Elections in the Philippines. The petitioners sought to compel the COMELEC to review the voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT), employ a different method of digitally signing election results, and remove the prohibition on capturing devices inside polling places.

The background of the case traces back to Republic Act No. 8436, enacted in 1997, which authorized the COMELEC to adopt an automated election system (AES). This was amended by Republic Act No. 9369 in 2007, allowing the use of paper-based or direct recording electronic systems. The COMELEC implemented the AES using optical mark reader machines in the national elections of 2010, 20...

Facts:

Antecedents and Legislative Framework

• 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 transmitting election results.
• In 2007, RA No. 9369 amended RA No. 8436, permitting COMELEC to use either a paper-based or a direct recording electronic election system, and establishing the minimum system capabilities including authentication requirements for electronically transmitted election results.

Implementation of the Automated Election System

• COMELEC implemented the paper-based AES by employing optical mark reader machines.
• The Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines were used in the 2010 and 2013 National Elections.
• Vote Counting Machines (VCM) were employed in the 2016 and 2019 National Elections.
• Members of the electoral board were provided with iButton security keys and personal identification numbers (PINs) used to initiate and close the voting machines, thereby printing and transmitting the election returns.

Challenges Raised by Petitioners and Intervenors

• Petitioners questioned the absence and adequacy of digital signatures on the election returns, contending that iButtons and PINs merely served as machine identifiers rather than as personal electronic signatures of electoral board members.
• Concerns were raised regarding the voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT):
• Petitioners argued that the VVPAT must allow voters to verify that their votes are accurately recorded.
• They criticized COMELEC’s measures as non-compliant with the minimum system capabilities mandated by law.
• The petitioners also challenged the prohibition on the use of capturing devices (e.g., digital cameras, cellular phones) inside the polling place during vote casting, asserting it might inhibit transparency and the recording of irregularities.

Reference to Prior Jurisprudence and COMELEC Resolutions

• In Capalla v. COMELEC, the Court held that the PCOS machines were capable of producing digitally signed transmissions.
• In Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. v. COMELEC, the Court emphasized that:
• The minimum system capabilities (including a voter's receipt-based VVPAT) are mandatory safeguards for election integrity.
• The paper audit trail must be distinct from the physical ballot and is meant to enable individual voter verification.
• COMELEC issued Resolution No. 10088, and later Resolution No. 10460 for the 2019 National Elections, which:
• Enabled the vote verification feature of VCMs by printing voter receipts.
• Provided mechanisms for voters to register objections if discrepancies were noted in the VVPAT.
• Modified earlier guidelines by deleting the phrase “for whatever purpose” regarding the use of capturing devices.

Proposals and Interventions by Various Parties

• AES-WATCH, along with other groups and individuals, filed a petition for mandamus aimed at:
• Compelling COMELEC to review the VVPAT system and employ an alternative method for digitally signing election results.
• Removing the prohibition on the use of capturing devices inside the polling place.
• Intervening parties such as United Filipino Consumers & Commuters (UFCC) and Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. supported the petition with additional arguments:
• UFCC and individual intervenors argued for a complete list of MAC and IP addresses of COMELEC’s devices to ensure data integrity.
• Bagumbayan-VNP Movement contended that the prohibition of capturing devices would impede poll watchers’ ability to monitor the process and register objections on VVPAT discrepancies.

COMELEC’s Position and Subsequent Developments

• The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that:
• COMELEC had substantially complied with the directives laid down in earlier cases by enabling the printing of voter receipts.
• The “camerambola” proposal (a manual audit procedure through photographing each VVPAT) was impractical and unnecessary given the random manual audit process already in place.
• There was no legal basis for allowing capturing devices during the casting of votes given the constitutional mandate of ballot secrecy.
• With the conclusion of the 2019 National Elections, the issues raised (such as the digital signature method and capturing device prohibition) were deemed moot and academic.

Issue:

• Whether COMELEC’s use of iButtons and PINs as the method for generating digital signatures in the electronic transmission of election results satisfies the statutory and jurisprudential requirements for authenticating election returns.
• Whether COMELEC failed to fully implement the voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) as mandated by the minimum system capabilities under RA No. 8436, as amended.
• Whether the prohibition on the use of capturing devices inside the polling place during vote casting is unconstitutional or inconsistent with the rights of poll watchers as provided in Section 179 of the Omnibus Election Code.
• Whether the petitioners and intervenors possess the requisite legal standing, demonstrating a personal and substantial interest, to challenge COMELEC’s election procedures.
• Whether the remedy of mandamus is applicable to compel COMELEC to adopt the “camerambola” method or other alternative measures for securing election results and digital authentication of transmitted data.
• Whether COMELEC’s discretionary decisions regarding the implementation of its election systems constitute an unlawful neglect of its statutory duty.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)