G.R. No. 140992 - Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.

Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8436, authorizing the use of an automated election system (AES) for voting, counting, and canvassing in national and local elections.
The law mandated the COMELEC to acquire automated counting machines, computer equipment, and to adopt new electoral materials, aiming to modernize the electoral process.
Initially intended for implementation in the 1998 presidential elections in select areas, technical issues such as ballot reading errors caused delays and subsequent elections (e.g., May 2001) used manual counting.

On October 29, 2002, COMELEC adopted a modernization program consisting of three phases:

Funding for the entire program was secured via Executive Orders by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, with an approved budget of P2,500,000,000 and an additional supplemental allocation of P500 million.

On April 15, 2003, COMELEC awarded the contract for Phase II of the AES to Mega Pacific Consortium; however, the contract and corresponding resolution were later nullified by the Court.
Simultaneously, COMELEC entered into a separate contract with Philippine Multi-Media System, Inc. (PMSI) for Phase III – the electronic transmission, consolidation, and dissemination of advanced (or “quick count”) election results.
The technological design envisaged a National Consolidation Center (NCC), multiple Electronic Transmission Centers (ETCs) in cities and municipalities, and specific procedures for encoding, transmitting, and publicly disseminating precinct data.

Despite the nullification of Phase II and implementation issues in Phase I, COMELEC proceeded with its modernization program by issuing Resolution No. 6712 on April 28, 2004.
The resolution authorized the immediate electronic transmission of precinct election results (“advanced” or “unofficial” quick count) via the established network of ETCs and the NCC, even as it maintained that the system was merely consolidating data rather than canvassing votes.
Faced with budgetary, operational, and legal reservations—including concerns over the chain of custody of election returns and the potential for discrepancies between the unofficial and official counts—the Commission nonetheless approved the resolution just days before the May 10, 2004 elections.

A petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed by Atty. Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr., a registered voter and taxpayer, challenging COMELEC’s Resolution No. 6712 on grounds of grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners-in-intervention included major political figures and parties (e.g., Senate President Franklin M. Drilon, Speaker Jose De Venecia, NAMFREL representatives) with vested interests in ensuring that the constitutional prerogatives regarding vote canvassing and the integrity of election returns were not usurped.
The resolution raised several concerns:

Its potential to preempt the exclusive authority of Congress to canvass votes for President and Vice-President;
Its reliance on an “unofficial” count derived from the election returns, which are meant to be sealed until used for dispute resolution; and
Its financing using funds that were not explicitly appropriated for such an initiative.

During a COMELEC En Banc meeting on April 27, 2004, several Commissioners expressed reservations regarding:

The adequacy of the funds to operationalize the electronic transmission (with figures citing the need for an additional P55,000,000).
The technical and operational implications of employing an electronic quick count system alongside the official manual canvass.

Despite these concerns and prior objections from key political figures—most notably Senate President Drilon—the resolution was promptly approved, prompting the filing of the petition to challenge its legality.

Whether the petitioner and the petitioners-in-intervention, as taxpayers and key election stakeholders, have the requisite standing to challenge the executive or administrative act of COMELEC.
Whether the issues raised, despite their political sensitivities, fall under the Court’s power to decide on matters of legality and abuse of discretion.

Whether Resolution No. 6712 preempts the exclusive constitutional authority of Congress to canvass the votes for President and Vice-President, as mandated by Article VII, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution.
Whether the disbursement of public funds for an “unofficial” electronic quick count violates the constitutional provision that no money shall be paid from the treasury except pursuant to a law-made appropriation (Article VI, Section 29).
Whether the resolution disregards relevant statutory provisions, particularly:

Republic Acts Nos. 8436, 8173, and 7166—granting only the “citizen’s arm” (literal representation by NAMFREL) the authority to conduct unofficial vote counts; and
Section 52(i) of the Omnibus Election Code, which mandates notifying political parties and candidates at least 30 days prior to adopting new technological or electronic devices for electoral purposes.

Whether implementing the electronic transmission of unofficial results, alongside the official manual count, would lead to discrepancies that might cause confusion and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.
Whether the interdependence of the three phases of the modernization program requires that Phase III (electronic transmission) should be contingent upon the successful and complete implementation of Phases I and II.