G.R. No. 246332 , December 09, 2020
AES Watch, et al., Petitioners, vs. Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Smartmatic Total Information Management, Respondents.

FACTS

This is a petition for mandamus filed by various groups and individuals seeking to compel the COMELEC to: (1) review the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) from the 2019 elections; (2) employ a different method of digitally signing election results; and (3) remove the prohibition on using capturing devices inside polling places. The petitioners anchored their claims on alleged irregularities and non-compliance with the Automated Election System (AES) law, Republic Act No. 9369 . They argued that the VVPAT, as implemented via voter receipts, was not properly reviewed, that the digital signature system was flawed, and that the ban on capturing devices infringed on the right to information.
The COMELEC, in implementing the AES, utilized Vote-Counting Machines (VCMs) and issued resolutions governing the process. For the 2019 elections, COMELEC Resolution No. 10488 enabled the printing of voter receipts as the VVPAT but prohibited the use of capturing devices inside polling places to prevent vote-buying and ensure ballot secrecy. The petitioners contended these actions constituted a grave abuse of discretion and a violation of the law.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion warranting the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel it to: (1) review the VVPAT; (2) change the digital signature method; and (3) lift the prohibition on capturing devices inside polling places.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that mandamus is a remedy to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not to control discretion. The COMELEC’s actions were exercises of its constitutional and statutory mandate to administer elections. First, the review of the VVPAT is a discretionary audit function of the COMELEC, not a ministerial duty enforceable by mandamus. The Court had previously, in Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. v. COMELEC, ordered the enabling of the VVPAT feature, which the COMELEC complied with by issuing voter receipts. Second, the method of digitally signing election results involves technical discretion on system implementation, which the Court will not interfere with absent proof of grave abuse. The petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of a flawed system with clear evidence. Third, the prohibition on capturing devices is a valid exercise of the COMELEC’s power to issue rules for the conduct of elections, aimed at protecting ballot secrecy and preventing vote-buying, which are compelling state interests. The ban is a reasonable regulation and does not violate the right to information, as the official election processes and results remain accessible to the public through lawful means. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC’s choices, as they fell within its broad administrative authority to ensure free, orderly, and honest elections.