G.R. No. 273136 - Mijares Rio, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 273136)

COMELEC proceedings and initial petitions

In 2023, petitioners (Rio, Jr. et al.) and Leonardo Olivera OdoAo filed a Petition and supplemental pleadings before the COMELEC En Banc alleging serious and material irregularities in the transmission and reception of election results produced by Smartmatic’s system during the May 9, 2022 Elections, and seeking review of Smartmatic’s qualifications before the Bids and Awards Committee and possible disqualification from the 2025 Automated Election System procurement. The COMELEC Law Department, on August 31, 2023, submitted a Compliance advising there was no legal basis to prohibit Smartmatic from bidding. The COMELEC set the matter for hearing on October 17, 2023 and required Smartmatic to comment.

COMELEC November 29, 2023 Resolution

Dispositive elements of COMELEC’s November 29, 2023 Resolution

On November 29, 2023, the COMELEC En Banc issued a Resolution whose dispositive portion: (1) purported to disqualify Smartmatic Philippines, Inc. from participating in any public bidding process for elections; and (2) stated that the Commission, “in the exercise of its administrative power,” could, “upon Petitioner’s instance, order the conduct of the recount of ballots in areas in every region in the country, the procedure and extent of which to be determined, and at no cost to Petitioner.” The Resolution therefore both exercised administrative power and explicitly left the conduct, procedure, extent, and timing of any recount to COMELEC determination.

Supreme Court decision affecting COMELEC action

Smartmatic’s petition to the Supreme Court and its effect

Smartmatic and Smartmatic TIM Corporation petitioned the Supreme Court challenging the COMELEC En Banc’s disqualification. In Smartmatic TIM Corporation and Smartmatic Philippines, Inc. v. Commission on Elections En Banc (G.R. No. 270564), the Supreme Court granted Smartmatic’s petition and held that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disqualifying Smartmatic. That ruling undermined the November 29, 2023 Resolution’s disqualification aspect and is part of the procedural context for subsequent motions on recounts.

Motions for opening and recount of ballot boxes

Petitioners’ motions before the COMELEC for recounting ballots

On January 19, 2024, Rio, Jr. et al. filed a Motion seeking the opening and recount of at least thirty sealed ballot boxes in Sto. Tomas, Batangas—boxes subject of a pending election protest—invoking the COMELEC’s November 29, 2023 Resolution. Their proposed recount procedures generally followed the manual counting provisions of Article XVIII, Section 206 of the Omnibus Election Code, with specific procedural recommendations (e.g., one box opened at a time; manual counting by an Electoral Board in presence of watchers; inclusion of all candidates; venue and sequencing details; insertion of ballots into the Vote Counting Machine (VCM) to confirm passage; and forensic analysis of the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT)). On February 12, 2024, they filed a Reiterative Motion noting that COMELEC had not acted on the January 19 Motion.

Petition for mandamus in the Supreme Court

Filing of the petition for mandamus and its central request

On April 30, 2024, petitioners filed a Petition for Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, alleging COMELEC’s inaction on their Motion and Reiterative Motion and praying for a writ of mandamus to compel COMELEC to implement its November 29, 2023 Resolution, specifically to open and recount the designated ballot boxes. Petitioners argued that the ballots are the best evidence and that discrepancies between physical ballots and electronically transmitted results would critically affect the integrity of the 2022 elections.

Supplemental petition and COMELEC’s July 3, 2024 Order

Supplemental petition and COMELEC’s subsequent disposition of the motions

On July 12, 2024 petitioners sought leave to file a Supplemental Petition asserting that on July 3, 2024 the COMELEC En Banc issued an Order denying the January 19 and February 12 motions. Petitioners requested that, if mandamus were rendered moot by COMELEC’s July 3 Order, the supplemental pleading be treated as a petition for certiorari to annul the COMELEC Order for grave abuse of discretion. The COMELEC Order of July 3, 2024 (signed by the same Commissioners) concluded, after review, that the petitioners had abandoned their prayer in the Motions, and that the petitioners had instead pursued a petition for declaration of failure of elections—thus justifying denial on abandonment grounds.

Legal standard for mandamus and ministerial duty

Requisites for issuance of a writ of mandamus

The Supreme Court recited the five requisites for mandamus: (1) plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act demanded; (2) it is defendant’s duty to perform the act as mandated by law; (3) defendant unlawfully neglects performance of that duty; (4) the act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary; and (5) there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The Court reiterated that mandamus may only command performance of ministerial acts—those which require no exercise of judgment—or, where discretion exists, may compel only that the authority act, but not dictate how discretion should be exercised. The Court relied on its precedents (National Press Club v. COMELEC; Subrabas v. Abas; Ampatuan Jr. v. De Lima) for these principles.

Analysis: existence of a ministerial duty and clear legal right to recount

Court’s analysis on whether petitioners showed a ministerial duty or clear right

The Court found petitioners failed to identify any law that specifically mandates a recount of physical ballots for the 2022 National and Local Elections or that prescribes a recount procedure leaving no discretion to COMELEC. The November 29, 2023 COMELEC Resolution itself used permissive language—stating the Commission “may, upon Petitioner’s instance, order the conduct of the recount” and that the “procedure and extent” were “to be determined.” Because the requested recount involved discretionary determinations by COMELEC as to whether, where, and how to recount ballots, the act sought was discretionary rather than purely ministerial. Petitioners therefore lacked the required specific, clear, and complete legal right enforceable by mandamus.

COMELEC delay and official inaction

Court’s observation on COMELEC’s delay and obligations under its rules

Although the petition for mandamus failed on the ministerial-duty ground, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Lazaro-Javier’s view that COMELEC committed official inaction by resolving the January 19 and February 12 motions far beyond the period prescribed by its own rules. COMELEC Rules of Procedure (1993), Rule 18, Sections 7 and 9, require cases or matters submitted to the Commission En Banc to be decided within thirty (30) days from the date deemed submitted. The Court observed that it took COMELEC 166 days to resolve the January 19 Motion and 142 days for the Reiterative Motion—periods grossly exceeding the thirty-day rule. The Court emphasized that COMELEC has a clear legal duty to expeditiously resolve motions pending before it, following its rules; failure to do so can render it subject to mandamus to compel action, but not to dictate the substance of the discretionary exercise.

Limitations on mandamus to direct

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 273136)

Case Caption, Decision and Authorship

G.R. No. 273136; Decision dated August 20, 2024 (En Banc).
Petitioners: Eliseo Mijares Rio, Jr., Augusto CadeliAa Lagman, and Franklin Fayloga Ysaac (collectively, Rio, Jr. et al.).
Respondent: Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc.
Decision authored by Justice Marquez.
Concurrence by Chief Justice Gesmundo and Justices Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Kho, Jr., and Singh.
Procedural vehicle: Petition for mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; supplemental pleadings later filed.

Factual Background and Origin of the Controversy

The controversy arises from petitions and motions filed before the COMELEC En Banc in EM Case No. 23-003 by Rio, Jr. et al. (joined in the original proceedings by Leonardo Olivera OdoAo).
Rio, Jr. et al. filed an original Petition, a Supplemental Petition, and a Second Supplemental Petition in 2023, contesting matters related to the votes and the Automated Election System used in the May 9, 2022 Elections.
Among the reliefs sought before the COMELEC En Banc was a review of Smartmatic Philippines, Inc.'s (Smartmatic) qualifications by the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) and, if irregularities were not satisfactorily explained, the disqualification or declaration of ineligibility of Smartmatic to participate in procurement for the 2025 Automated Election System.
The factual and procedural background overlaps with the case Smartmatic TIM Corporation and Smartmatic Philippines, Inc. v. Commission on Elections En Banc (G.R. No. 270564, April 16, 2024), which addressed COMELEC’s disqualification of Smartmatic.

COMELEC Internal Proceedings and November 29, 2023 Resolution

On August 10, 2023, the COMELEC En Banc directed its Law Department to review and submit a recommendation on the petitions filed by Rio, Jr. et al.
On August 31, 2023, the COMELEC Law Department submitted its Compliance, advising there was no legal basis to prohibit Smartmatic from participating in bidding.
On October 5, 2023, COMELEC set the case for hearing on October 17, 2023 and required Smartmatic to comment on the petitions.
On November 29, 2023, COMELEC En Banc issued a Resolution whose dispositive portion:
- GRANTED the Petition filed by Rio, Jr. et al.;
- DISQUALIFIED and DISALLOWED Smartmatic Philippines, Inc. from participating in any public bidding process for elections;
- FURTHER RESOLVED that in the exercise of its administrative power, COMELEC may, upon petitioner’s instance, order the conduct of recounts of ballots in areas in every region in the country, with the procedure and extent to be determined, and at no cost to petitioner.
The November 29, 2023 Resolution was signed by Chairperson George Erwin M. Garcia and Commissioners Socorro B. Inting, Marlon S. Casquejo, Aimee P. Ferolino, Rey E. Bulay, Ernesto Ferdinand P. Maceda, Jr., and Nelson J. Celis. Commissioner Aimee P. Ferolino filed a Separate Opinion.

Subsequent Supreme Court Ruling on Smartmatic (Related Precedent)

In Smartmatic TIM Corporation and Smartmatic Philippines, Inc. v. Commission on Elections En Banc (G.R. No. 270564, April 16, 2024), the Supreme Court:
- Granted Smartmatic’s petition;
- Held that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disqualifying Smartmatic from public bidding for the elections.
The Supreme Court’s grant to Smartmatic affected the legal landscape of the November 29, 2023 Resolution’s disqualification pronouncement.

Petitioners’ Motions for Opening and Recount of Ballot Boxes (January–February 2024)

On January 19, 2024, Rio, Jr. et al. filed a Motion seeking the opening and recount of at least thirty sealed ballot boxes in the Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Province of Batangas, which were subject of a pending election protest, invoking COMELEC’s November 29, 2023 Resolution.
The Motion recommended that the manual ballot counting procedure under Article XVIII, Section 206 of the Omnibus Election Code be generally followed, subject to specific procedural recommendations:
- 4.1 Only one ballot box shall be opened at a time.
- 4.2 Manual counting shall be conducted by an Electoral Board or similar body appointed by COMELEC, in the presence of watchers appointed by the parties.
- 4.3 Manual counting shall include all candidates for national and local positions.
- 4.4 Counting shall be held in a venue designated by COMELEC, preferably where the boxes are stored.
- 4.5 Manual counting to start on January 25, 2024, or as soon thereafter as COMELEC can prepare, and continue day to day until all 30 boxes counted, unless sooner terminated by the parties.
- 4.6 To ensure the ballots are original, ballots should first be inserted into the Vote Counting Machine (VCM) to see if they pass through the machine before counting.
- 4.7 The recount shall include a forensic analysis of the contents and thermal age of the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT), described by petitioners as the "best source of raw data for votes" per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bagumbayan Volunteers for a New Philippines v. COMELEC.
On February 12, 2024, Rio, Jr. et al. filed a Reiterative Motion stating that more than two weeks after the Motion they had received no notice of action by COMELEC and repeated their prayer for a recount as detailed.

Petition for Mandamus Before the Supreme Court (April 30, 2024 Filing)

On April 30, 2024, Rio, Jr. et al. filed the instant Petition for Mandamus alleging that COMELEC did not act on their Motion and Reiterative Motion and praying the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel COMELEC to implement its November 29, 2023 Resolution and to perform its ministerial duty to cause the recount.
Petitioners asserted that all requisites for mandamus were present, and emphasized:
- The high importance of reopening ballot boxes and recounting ballots, with potential far-reaching consequences for the country’s political and electoral system.
- The principle that “the best evidence in an election are always the ballots,” which COMELEC itself recognized.
- A recount could reveal discrepancies between physical counts and election returns generated and transmitted by VCMs, potentially placing in serious question the reliability and integrit