A.C. No. 12121 - Malecdan vs. Baldo

Petitioners—Ricardo L. Penson, Hans Christian M. SeAeres, Rizalito L. David, and Baldomero C. Falcone—filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The petition targeted the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), acting as the National Board of Canvassers (NBOC) for Senators and Party-List Representatives, challenging its issuance of several resolutions.
The assailed issuances include:

NBOC Resolution No. 004-13 dated May 18, 2013 (first proclamation of winning senatorial candidates based on National Canvass Report No. 16).
NBOC Resolution No. 0010-13 dated June 5, 2013 (final proclamation declaring 12 winning candidates as duly elected Senators).
Senatorial Canvass Report No. 17 (which tallied and recorded the vote counts).

The background stems from Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8436, known as the "Election Modernization Act of 1997," which introduced the concept of an Automated Election System (AES).
The AES was authorized to be used for voting, counting of votes, and canvassing/consolidation of results in national and local elections, as provided in Section 6 of R.A. No. 8436.
The composition and mandate of the NBOC for Senators were defined in R.A. No. 8436 (further amended by R.A. No. 9369 or the "Automation Law" in 2007), mandating that COMELEC sitting en banc would canvass the results and proclaim winning candidates.
The R.A. No. 9369 also provided the option for a paper-based or direct recording election system and, crucially, mandated the conduct of a Random Manual Audit (RMA) in one precinct per congressional district to verify the integrity of the automated system.

During the May 13, 2013 national and local elections, COMELEC-NBOC implemented the AES along with the RMA procedure by:

Randomly selecting cities/municipalities for the RMA using the Automated Random Selection Program (ARSP).
Selecting 234 clustered precincts (one per legislative district) for the audit process.
Issuing COMELEC Resolution No. 9595 to set the guidelines on the conduct of the RMA by the Random Manual Audit Team (RMAT).

After collecting and consolidating the electronically transmitted certificates of canvass, COMELEC-NBOC issued its first resolution proclaiming the 12 senatorial candidates based on the preliminary results (NCR 16) with the assertion that the remaining votes would not materially alter the outcome.
On June 5, 2013, with the issuance of the second resolution and Senatorial Canvass Report No. 17, the 12 candidates were officially declared as winning and duly elected, despite still having uncanvassed votes.

Petitioners argued that COMELEC-NBOC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in a number of ways:

Premature proclamation of the winning senatorial candidates despite questionable accuracy of the canvassed returns, particularly due to discrepancies between the RMA results and manually counted votes.
Termination of the canvassing process on the premise that the remaining uncanvassed votes were immaterial, without disclosing the total votes and the quantum of uncanvassed ballots.
Failure to comply with the authentication requirement for electronically transmitted election results; specifically, the digital signing of the election returns.
Ignoring the Technical Evaluation Committee’s (TEC) findings regarding alleged “dagdag bawas” (automated manipulations) and failing to audit additional precincts as recommended.
Violation of constitutional transparency by not publicly disclosing details of the RMA conduct, audit results, and the TEC’s Root Cause Analysis Report.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing COMELEC-NBOC, filed a comment asserting both procedural and substantive defenses:

Procedurally, the OSG argued that the petition fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) as specified in Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution—since the controversy involved election contests concerning the qualifications of newly proclaimed senators.
It further contended that the petition was not a proper vehicle for a certiorari action as the resolutions in question emanated from quasi-judicial functions not amenable to such review when an appeal exists.
Substantively, the OSG maintained that the issuance of the resolutions was not tainted by grave abuse of discretion, noting that the discrepancies alleged did not amount to sufficient grounds to overturn or delay the proclamations.

Petitioners-intervenors (including Glenn A. Chong, Melchor G. Magdamo, Nelson J. Celis, Wendell A. Unlayao, and Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, represented by Martin B. DiAo) also filed a petition-in-intervention, reiterating many of the main issues and emphasizing additional points such as non-compliance with requirements pertaining to the source code review of PCOS machines and the absence of a voter-verified paper audit trail.

Whether the COMELEC-NBOC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction by issuing the resolutions that proclaimed the 12 winning senatorial candidates.
Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy given that petitioners had an available plain, speedy, and adequate remedy—the filing of an election protest before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET).

Whether the premature proclamation of the winning candidates was justified on the basis of the preliminary canvassing results (NCR 16) despite the existence of uncanvassed votes.
Whether the COMELEC-NBOC’s determination that the remaining uncanvassed votes would not materially alter the outcome was sufficiently substantiated.
Whether the alleged discrepancies between the RMA and manual count, including the purported “automated dagdag bawas,” undermined the integrity of the canvassing process.

Whether COMELEC-NBOC breached statutory provisions such as those requiring the authentication of electronically transmitted election results (digital signatures) and the proper disclosure of relevant audit documents.
Whether non-compliance with transparency requirements and the failure to implement additional recommended audits constituted a grave abuse of discretion.