G.R. No. 259850 , June 13, 2023
KILUSAN NG MAMAMAYAN PARA SA MATUWID NA BAYAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners, a coalition of corporate entities and individuals, filed a petition. The Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Leonen concurs with the ponencia’s decision to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds and for failure to show that the Commission on Elections failed to comply with the requirements of Republic Act No. 8436 , as amended by Republic Act No. 9369 . The opinion raises several points: (1) The minimum system capabilities for automated elections under the law are mandatory. (2) The law provides for an Advisory Council composed of public and private sector representatives to assist in developing an evaluation system for the automated election system. Petitioners’ allegations imply that the Commission on Elections complied with the law but question its alleged rejection of the Advisory Council’s recommendations. (3) Some of the resolutions questioned by petitioners pertain to the 2010 and 2019 elections, making those issues moot. The Commission on Elections has addressed the raised matters in its issuances for the 2022 elections. Specifically, the opinion notes revisions from earlier resolutions on digital signatures and the timing of the random manual audit selection.

ISSUE

The primary issues addressed in the Separate Concurring Opinion are: (1) Whether the Commission on Elections’ compliance with the mandatory minimum system capabilities for automated elections and its consultation with the Advisory Council are sufficient under the law. (2) Whether the Commission on Elections’ alleged rejection of the Advisory Council’s recommendations is a proper subject for mandamus. (3) Whether the petitioners’ challenges to specific Commission on Elections resolutions from 2010 and 2019 are moot.

RULING

The Separate Concurring Opinion concurs in the dismissal of the petition. It rules that: (1) The minimum system capabilities under Republic Act No. 8436 , as amended, are mandatory. The Commission on Elections, with the assistance of the Advisory Council, must develop an evaluation system to ascertain these capabilities are met. Petitioners impliedly admitted the Commission on Elections complied with the law by consulting the Advisory Council. (2) The acceptance or rejection of the Advisory Council’s recommendations is a policy decision within the Commission on Elections’ powers. Without a showing that its rejection amounted to unlawful neglect of a duty, mandamus will not lie. (3) The petitioners’ challenges to resolutions concerning the 2010 and 2019 elections are moot. The Commission on Elections has addressed these issues in its subsequent resolutions for the 2022 elections, such as revising the procedure for digital signatures and adjusting the time for the random manual audit selection.