G.R. No. 259354, June 13, 2023
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB OF THE PHILIPPINES, AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM WATCH, AND GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a petition praying for the Court to compel the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to: 1) implement the use of digital signatures for the 2022 National and Local Elections (NLE) as mandated by Section 22 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8436, as amended by R.A. No. 9369; 2) disclose critical information; and 3) allow access to various documents, activities, and stations of the COMELEC for the 2022 NLE. The specific access and information sought included witnessing the printing of ballots, scrutinizing defective ballots, observing the configuration and preparation of Secure Digital (SD) cards and Vote Counting Machines (VCMs), accessing technical hubs and data centers, and obtaining transmission diagrams or network architecture details.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the COMELEC to implement the use of digital signatures and to grant access to the specified election-related information, documents, and activities.

RULING

The petition is dismissed.
1. On the writ of mandamus to compel the use of digital signatures: Petitioners are not entitled. The duty is not ministerial, and the Court, in Capalla v. COMELEC, already ruled that digital signatures generated by the VCMs constitute sufficient compliance with the law.
2. On the writ of mandamus to compel access and disclosure:
a. Printing of ballots: The COMELEC may be compelled to allow witnessing as mandated by Section 187 of the Omnibus Election Code, but the issue is moot as the COMELEC had already livestreamed the printing and conducted ballot checking with stakeholders.
b. Defective ballots: The ruling on this specific prayer is not detailed in the provided text of the Separate Concurring Opinion.
c. Configuration of SD cards and VCMs: The COMELEC may not be compelled to allow witnessing of the configuration and preparation, as the Automated Election System (AES) Law only mandates examination and testing after configuration. The issue is moot as the COMELEC scheduled walkthroughs and opened its warehouse for public viewing.
d. Technical hubs and transmission documents: The COMELEC may be compelled to disclose certain transmission documents as the information is of public concern, and the COMELEC failed to show it was exempt. However, the issue is moot as the information has been divulged and the transmission router’s credibility was confirmed.
Justice Caguioa, in his Separate Concurring Opinion, concurs with the dismissal but stresses that the analysis for compelling access should be grounded in the constitutional right to information on matters of public concern (Section 7, Article III and Section 28, Article II of the 1987 Constitution), which is self-executing. Statutes like R.A. No. 9369, which may limit this right, must be narrowly construed. The election-related information sought is undoubtedly of public interest. The constitutional right, not a statutory grant, is the source of the right to demand access, and statutes are only relevant to determine limitations. The prayers were mostly rendered moot by the COMELEC’s subsequent disclosures and the conclusion of the 2022 elections.