Title
Supreme Court
Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 222731
Decision Date
Mar 8, 2016
Petitioners sought mandamus to compel COMELEC to implement VVPAT for 2016 elections, citing RA 8436 as amended. SC ruled VVPAT mandatory, ensuring election transparency and accuracy.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 222731)

Key Dates

• December 22, 1997: Enactment of Republic Act No. 8436 authorizing automated elections.
• 2007: Republic Act No. 9369 amends RA 8436, introducing safeguards including VVPAT.
• 2010 & 2013: Nationwide use of PCOS machines without paper audit feature.
• 2016: COMELEC’s adoption of Vote-Counting Machines (VCMs) capable of producing VVPAT but not enabled.
• February 11, 2016: COMELEC Resolution No. 10057 prescribes general voting procedures without VVPAT.
• March 8, 2016: Supreme Court grants mandamus.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution, Article XI(C), Section 2 – COMELEC’s mandate.
• Republic Act No. 8436, as amended by RA 9369, Section 6(e), (f), (n) – Minimum System Capabilities requiring provision for voter-verified paper audit trail, system auditability, and a voter verification system.
• Rules of Court, Rule 65, Section 3 – Writ of mandamus.

Evolution of Automated Elections

Republic Act No. 8436 inaugurated the use of automated election systems (AES) in 1998; RA 9369 reinforced transparency and credibility by mandating safeguards in Section 6, including VVPAT. The Commission employed Precinct Count Optical Scan machines in 2010 and 2013, then procured VCMs for 2016 with built-in VVPAT capability.

COMELEC’s Refusal to Enable VVPAT

Despite technical capacity, the COMELEC En Banc voted 7-0 against activating VVPAT, citing:

  1. Risk that physical receipts could facilitate vote-buying;
  2. Lengthened voting time (approximately 13 seconds per receipt, potentially extending precinct operation by several hours);
  3. Possibility of disgruntled candidates instructing supporters to challenge receipts.
    Resolution No. 10057 (February 11, 2016) detailed voting procedures without any paper audit trail mechanism.

Petition for Mandamus

Petitioners filed a special civil action for mandamus directly with the Supreme Court to compel COMELEC to comply with the statutory duties under RA 8436, as amended. They argued that:
• The word “must” in Section 6 imposes a mandatory, ministerial duty.
• There is no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy.
• Non-activation of VVPAT violates Section 28 of RA 9369, penalizing interference with election devices.

Procedural Posture

The Court required COMELEC to file its comment within five days; COMELEC and the Solicitor General sought extension to gather documents. The Court denied the motion for extension, emphasizing the urgency of securing voters’ rights to verify accurate vote recording.

Issues for Resolution

Whether COMELEC may be lawfully compelled by writ of mandamus to:

  1. Enable the VVPAT feature of the VCMs, providing printed receipts of votes cast; and
  2. Issue guidelines regulating the release and disposal of such receipts.

Court’s Analysis

• Mandamus is proper when a public officer neglects a duty clearly enjoined by law and no other remedy exists.
• Under Article XI(C), Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, COMELEC must enforce and administer election laws, including RA 8436, as amended.
• The declaration of policy in RA 8436 Sec. 1 affirms the State’s commitment to “free, orderly, honest, peaceful, credible and informed elections” through an AES that ensures transparency, secrecy, and sanctity of the ballot.
• Section 6(e), (f), and (n) s

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

    About Privacy Terms