Case Digest (G.R. No. 273136)
Facts:
The case involves petitioners Eliseo Mijares Rio, Jr., Augusto CadeliAa Lagman, and Franklin Fayloga Ysaac who filed a Petition for Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against the respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc. The controversy arose from the COMELEC's November 29, 2023 Resolution that granted petitioners' motion to recount ballots in certain sealed ballot boxes from the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections. The petitioners requested the Court to compel COMELEC to implement this resolution and conduct the recount as prescribed. Earlier, Rio, Jr. et al. and another party filed petitions before the COMELEC seeking to review the qualifications of Smartmatic Philippines, Inc. due to alleged irregularities in the transmission and reception of election results. On November 29, 2023, the COMELEC En Banc disqualified Smartmatic Philippines, Inc. from election-related bidding and allowed petitioners to request recounts at no cost. However, later the COMCase Digest (G.R. No. 273136)
Facts:
- Background:
- Petitioners Eliseo Mijares Rio, Jr., Augusto CadeliAa Lagman, and Franklin Fayloga Ysaac (Rio, Jr. et al.) filed a Petition for Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc.
- They sought a writ of mandamus to compel COMELEC to implement its November 29, 2023 Resolution which ordered a recount of ballots to resolve substantive issues raised in their motions related to EM Case No. 23-003.
- Origin of Controversy:
- Rio, Jr. et al. and Leonardo Olivera Odrao filed petitions before the COMELEC En Banc challenging the participation of Smartmatic Philippines, Inc. (Smartmatic) in the 2025 Automated Election System procurement due to alleged irregularities in the 2022 elections.
- COMELEC Law Department opined there was no legal basis to disqualify Smartmatic.
- COMELEC En Banc initially disqualified Smartmatic and authorized recount of ballots.
- Related Supreme Court Decision:
- In a separate case (Smartmatic TIM Corporation and Smartmatic Philippines, Inc. v. COMELEC), the Court ruled that COMELEC erred in disqualifying Smartmatic.
- Motions for Recount:
- On January 19, 2024, petitioners filed a motion to open and recount at least 30 sealed ballot boxes from Batangas.
- They recommended a procedure resembling manual counting under the Omnibus Election Code with detailed procedural safeguards.
- On February 12, 2024, a reiterative motion was filed as COMELEC had not acted on the initial motion.
- Petition for Mandamus:
- On April 30, 2024, petitioners filed the instant petition alleging COMELEC's failure to act on their motions.
- They argued the recount was crucial to verifying election integrity and that no other remedy was adequate.
- Supplemental Petition:
- On July 16, 2024, petitioners filed a supplemental petition after COMELEC issued an order on July 3, 2024 denying the motions.
- They asked the Court to treat the supplemental petition as a Petition for Certiorari to challenge the COMELEC order for grave abuse of discretion.
Issues:
- Whether petitioners have a clear legal right to compel COMELEC by writ of mandamus to conduct the opening and recounting of the ballot boxes under the November 29, 2023 Resolution.
- Whether the act of COMELEC in ordering a recount of ballots is ministerial or discretionary.
- Whether mandamus is proper to compel COMELEC to act on pending motions within its prescribed period under COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
- Whether the Supplemental Petition filed should be entertained as a Petition for Certiorari.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)