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 for Mandamus to compel the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to implement specific election transparency measures. The measures sought included: (1) implementing individual digital signatures for members of the Electoral Board on electronically transmitted election returns; (2) allowing observers to witness the printing of ballots and the configuration and preparation of Secure Digital (SD) cards and Vote Counting Machines (VCMs); and (3) allowing the inspection of transmission hubs, servers, and data centers. Prior to the resolution of the case, the COMELEC voluntarily fulfilled the petitioners’ request regarding the observation of ballot printing and the disclosure of transmission documents. The case, therefore, presented moot issues but was taken up by the Court to establish guiding principles for future elections.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of mandamus should issue to compel the COMELEC: (1) to implement individual digital signatures; (2) to allow observation of the configuration and preparation of SD cards and VCMs; and (3) to allow inspection of transmission hubs, servers, and data centers.

RULING

The Separate Concurring Opinion concurred with the ponencia’s dismissal of the Petition but expressed partial disagreement on specific points.
1. On Individual Digital Signatures: The Opinion concurred that the COMELEC cannot be compelled to implement individual digital signatures in the specific manner requested by petitioners. The law mandates the use of digitally signed electronic election returns, but the COMELEC has discretion in its mode of implementation. The current practice of having VCMs affix the digital signatures, rather than individual Electoral Board members, constitutes substantial compliance given logistical constraints, as recognized by the law which allows the COMELEC to adopt the most suitable technology.
2. On Observing Configuration/Preparation of SD Cards and VCMs: The Opinion respectfully disagreed with the ponencia’s limitation that observation rights apply only after devices are configured. It held that the right to examine and test the automated election system under the law is broad enough to encompass witnessing the configuration and preparation phase of SD cards and VCMs, as this is essential for assessing system reliability and ensuring transparency.
3. On Inspecting Transmission Hubs, Servers, and Data Centers: The Opinion also disagreed with the ponencia’s denial of this request based on protecting ballot secrecy and sanctity. It ruled that allowing inspection of these transmission infrastructures is mandatory for the COMELEC. Transparency in these processes does not threaten ballot secrecy, which concerns the association of a voter’s identity with their vote, not the collective processing of ballots. The right to participate in such election transparency activities is aligned with the constitutional right to information on matters of public concern.
4. On the Remedy of Mandamus: The Opinion reiterated the requisites for mandamus: a clear legal right, a correlative ministerial duty, and an actual neglect in performing that duty. While the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to ensure transparency, it retains discretion in determining reasonable security measures. The primordial consideration should be the public’s right to participate in election transparency, subject only to clearly and convincingly shown reasonable security reasons.
The Separate Concurring Opinion voted to DISMISS the Petition, aligning with the ponencia’s dispositive conclusion but based on a broader interpretation of the COMELEC’s duty to allow transparency in the automated election system’s configuration, preparation, and transmission infrastructure phases.