G.R. No. 217725 - Chong vs. Senate of the Philippines

In 1997, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8436 was enacted on December 22, 1997, to authorize the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to use an Automated Election System (AES) in the May 11, 1998 national and local elections and in subsequent electoral exercises.
On January 23, 2007, R.A. No. 9369 was signed into law to amend R.A. No. 8436. This amendment introduced and detailed Sections 8, 9, 10, and 11, which provided for the creation of two new bodies: the Advisory Council (AC) and the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC).

Creation and Functions of the Advisory Council (AC) and Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC)

The AC is mandated to advise COMELEC on the most appropriate, secure, applicable, and cost-effective technology for the AES.

It is tasked with recommending technology and providing assistance during stages such as planning, testing, and review of the AES.
Its members are drawn from various government agencies, the academe, and professional organizations, with strict qualifications ensuring independence and competence.

The TEC is charged with certifying, through an established international certification committee, that the AES (including its hardware and software) operates properly, securely, and accurately.

Its certification function is to be performed not later than three months before the electoral exercise and is backed by a series of documented results, including field tests and code verifications.

Both bodies were established to assist and monitor, not to substitute, the COMELEC’s constitutional mandate.

Petitioners—Glenn A. Chong and Ang Kapatiran Party—filed a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition, seeking to declare Sections 8, 9, 10, and 11 of R.A. No. 8436, as amended by R.A. No. 9369, unconstitutional.
They contended that:

The creation of the AC and the TEC encroaches upon COMELEC’s exclusive power to administer and enforce election laws as provided in Section 2(1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution.
A mere advisory council should not have the authority to dictate technological choices for the AES.
Past recommendations by the AC—such as re-using previously employed election machinery—are inherently flawed and legally null.

The respondents, which include the Senate, the House of Representatives, COMELEC, and other related government bodies, argued that:

The presence of the AC and TEC does not diminish or usurp COMELEC’s constitutional mandate.
Their roles are purely advisory and recommendatory—the final decision-making power remains with COMELEC.
The creation of these bodies provides essential checks and balances to ensure that the AES is implemented effectively, accurately reflecting the will of the people.

The respondents emphasized the presumption of constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress and cited precedent and established legal doctrines.

Although the amendments were enacted several years before the petition (with R.A. No. 9369 being in effect for nearly eight years and following the 2010 elections), the petitioners raised their challenge just months before the 2016 elections.
The petition was filed as a pre-enforcement measure to forestall any potential violation of the constitutional allocation of powers between the COMELEC and the auxiliary bodies.

Whether Sections 8, 9, 10, and 11 of R.A. No. 8436, as amended by Section 9 of R.A. No. 9369, are unconstitutional.
Whether the creation of the Advisory Council and the Technical Evaluation Committee violates Section 2(1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution by effectively encroaching upon COMELEC’s exclusive authority to enforce election laws.

Whether the advisory and recommendatory functions of the AC and the certification function of the TEC unduly influence and limit COMELEC’s independent decision-making.
Whether these functions, by advising or certifying aspects of the AES, amount to a substitution of COMELEC’s wisdom and power.

Whether the petitioners have met the burden of overcoming the well-established presumption that laws enacted by Congress are constitutional unless proven otherwise by clear and unequivocal evidence.