Title
Brillantes, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 163193
Decision Date
Jun 15, 2004
Petitioner challenged COMELEC's Resolution No. 6712, authorizing electronic transmission of election results, arguing it usurped Congress's authority, violated funding laws, and lacked statutory basis. Supreme Court nullified the resolution, citing grave abuse of discretion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30036)

Petitioner

Atty. Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr., a registered voter and taxpayer, who filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 to annul Resolution No. 6712 as issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; sought temporary restraining order and writ of prohibition to enjoin enforcement.

Respondent

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc — promulgated Resolution No. 6712 authorizing electronic transmission, consolidation and dissemination of advanced precinct results (Phase III of the automated election system modernization program), and entered into a contract with PMSI for the project.

Petitioners‑in‑Intervention

Multiple political party leaders and NAMFREL representatives intervened, urging nullification of Resolution No. 6712 and permanent injunction, citing constitutional and statutory infirmities including preemption of Congress’ exclusive canvassing power for President and Vice‑President, lack of appropriation, interference with NAMFREL’s exclusive authority to use election returns for unofficial counts, and noncompliance with notice requirements of Section 52(i) of the Omnibus Election Code.

Key Dates

  • Republic Act No. 8436 enacted Dec. 22, 1997 (authorizing AES).
  • Executive Orders No. 172 (Jan. 24, 2003) and No. 175 (Feb. 10, 2003) allocated funds for AES.
  • COMELEC Resolution No. 6074 (Apr. 15, 2003) awarded Phase II contract (later nullified by this Court on Jan. 13, 2004).
  • COMELEC executed Phase III contract with PMSI (Apr. 15, 2003).
  • COMELEC field test of electronic transmission (Apr. 6, 2004).
  • COMELEC En Banc adopted Resolution No. 6712 (Apr. 28, 2004).
  • Petition filed in the Supreme Court (May 4, 2004); oral arguments May 8, 2004. Decision: Supreme Court (En Banc) rendered June 15, 2004.

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article VII §4 — canvass by Congress; Article VI §29(1) — no disbursement except pursuant to appropriation); Article VI §25(5) on augmentation from savings.
  • Republic Act No. 8436 (1997) — authorization for Automated Election System (AES) covering voting, counting, canvassing/consolidation and Phases I–III as integral components.
  • Republic Acts Nos. 7166 and 8173 — provisions on election returns and the accredited citizens’ arm’s (NAMFREL) exclusive use of election returns for unofficial counts.
  • Omnibus Election Code, Section 52(i) — COMELEC power to prescribe use/adoption of technological devices and requirement to notify accredited political parties and candidates at least 30 days before effectivity.
  • General Appropriations Act (RA 9206, 2003) — appropriations for COMELEC modernization; prohibition on modifying expenditure components absent lawful authority.
  • Penal provision (Article 217, RPC) referenced regarding malversation of public funds.

Antecedents and Procedural Posture

Congress authorized AES by RA 8436 and the Executive allocated funds via EOs for AES. COMELEC divided modernization into Phases I (registration/validation), II (computerized voting/counting), and III (electronic transmission). COMELEC awarded Phase II contract (later nullified by this Court), and separately contracted PMSI for Phase III. After the Court voided the Phase II contract in a separate case, COMELEC nonetheless proceeded to implement Phase III via Resolution No. 6712, despite concerns about Phase I/II implementation, budgetary authority, and constitutional issues raised by Senate and party leaders. The petition challenged Resolution No. 6712 as ultra vires and constitutionally/statutorily infirm.

Core Factual Features of Resolution No. 6712

  • Declared policy that precinct election results of each city/municipality shall be immediately transmitted electronically in advance to COMELEC Manila (NCC).
  • Established National Consolidation Center (NCC) and Electronic Transmission Centers (ETCs) for each city/municipality; PCs allocated at one set per 175 precincts; use of VSATs.
  • Directed DepEd supervisors at polling centers to gather specified copies of Election Returns (Copy 3 for national positions; Copy 2 for local) from BEIs for encoding and transmission.
  • Declared encoding proceedings ministerial and tabulations “advanced unofficial results”; barred objections/protests at ETCs; no printouts at ETC/NCC; results to be disseminated via internet, SMS, electronic billboards — interested parties to print COMELEC‑published results themselves.
  • Required written notice to candidates and parties on dates/places for electronic transmission (set late deadlines: May 5 for local, May 7 for national positions relative to May 10 election).

Issues Framed by the Court

  1. Do petitioners and intervenors have standing?
  2. Are the issues political questions outside judicial review?
  3. If justiciable, is Resolution No. 6712 void for:
    a. Preempting Congress’ exclusive authority under Article VII §4 to canvass Presidential and Vice‑Presidential votes;
    b. Violating Article VI §29(1) (no payment except pursuant to appropriation);
    c. Disregarding RA 8173, RA 8436, RA 7166 which give the accredited citizens’ arm exclusive use of election returns for unofficial counts;
    d. Violating Section 52(i) Omnibus Election Code requiring 30 days’ notice for new technological devices;
    e. Lacking constitutional or statutory basis; and
  4. Would implementation cause trending, confusion and chaos?

Standing (Locus Standi)

The Court held that petitioner and petitioners‑in‑intervention possess standing. Taxpayers have standing to challenge alleged illegal disbursement of public funds; NAMFREL and party representatives have direct, personal interests in the administration of elections and in protecting the accredited citizens’ arm’s statutory prerogatives; the Senate President and Speaker have standing to prevent usurpation of Congress’ exclusive canvassing power.

Justiciability (Political Question Doctrine)

The Court rejected COMELEC’s political question defense. The dispute raised legal questions concerning constitutionality and statutory compliance — matters suitable for judicial review under Article VIII §1 of the 1987 Constitution (duty to determine grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction). The Court noted that questions of legality (whether conditions and limitations of delegated powers were respected) are justiciable.

Merits — Grave Abuse of Discretion Found

The Supreme Court concluded that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing Resolution No. 6712, for the following principal reasons:

  1. Preemption of Congress’ Exclusive Canvassing Authority (Article VII §4)
  • Resolution No. 6712 authorized electronic consolidation and dissemination of advanced precinct results based on COMELEC copies of election returns, which would effect an unofficial canvass of Presidential and Vice‑Presidential votes, thereby preempting Congress’ exclusive constitutional authority to receive certified returns and canvass the votes.
  • The Court emphasized that the Constitution and RA 8436 contemplate Congress as the national board of canvassers for President and Vice‑President; an unofficial COMELEC canvass would be constitutionally impermissible.
  • COMELEC’s later assurances (after objections from Senate and Speaker) that it would refrain from consolidating/publishing Presidential and Vice‑Presidential results did not cure the inherent usurpatory character of the resolution as originally promulgated.
  1. Violation of Appropriation Requirement (Article VI §29(1))
  • Implementation of Resolution No. 6712 necessarily required disbursement of public funds (manpower, equipment, encoding costs, estimated additional P55,000,000 for operationalization) for a project explicitly described as “unofficial.”
  • The General Appropriations Act (RA 9206, 2003) did not appropriate funds for an unofficial electronic tabulation project; appropriations for “modernization of electoral system” were not a valid substitute for a non‑statutorily‑authorized unofficial count.
  • Section 52 of RA 9206 forbids modification of expenditure components absent specific statutory authorization; augmentation from savings is limited and requires law. COMELEC lacked lawful authority to realign or appropriate funds for Resolution No. 6712. The Court noted possible criminal exposure under Article 217 for misappropriation if funds were spent without appropriation.
  1. Infringement on NAMFREL’s Exclusive Statutory Authority to Use Election Returns for Unofficial Count
  • RA 7166 (as amended by RA 8173) and RA 8436 reserve the use of one copy of the election return to the accredited citizens’ arm (NAMFREL) for unofficial counts. COMELEC’s authorization for Reception Officers to open and use COMELEC’s copies for encoding and transmission contravened the statutory allocation and the intended archival role of COMELEC copies (only to be unsealed when COMELEC needs them to resolve election disputes).
  • This practice would break the chain of custody and taint the probative integrity of the returns.
  1. Noncompliance with Section 52(i) of the Omnibus Election Code (30‑day Notice)
  • Section 52(i) requires COMELEC to notify authorized representatives of accredited political parties and candidates in areas affected by adoption of technological devices not less than 30 days prior to effectivity. Resolution No. 6712 became effective immediately on April 28, 2004, making compliance impossible.
  • COMELEC admitted it did not notify individual candidates (hundreds of thousands) and had not shown adequate documentary proof of party notifications; invitations to field tests did not amount to formal notice required by law. The Court held COMELEC violated due process rights of parties and candidates under Section 52(i).
  1. Lack of Constitutional and Statutory Basis; Disconnection from Phases I–II of RA 8436
  • RA 8436 authorizes an

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms