Daily TribuneWhile the Court held that the issues had been mooted since the Comelec had voluntarily fulfilled the petitioners’ requests prior to the resolution of the case, it nevertheless proceeded to rule on the issues.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Commission on Elections may be compelled through a writ of mandamus to allow the witnessing of the printing of ballots and to disclose the complete transmission diagram and data communications network architecture of vote counting machines.
In an en banc decision through Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC, nonetheless, denied the petition for a writ of mandamus filed against the Comelec for the use of digital signatures in relation to the 2022 national and local elections.
The petition was filed by the National Press Club of the Philippines, Automated Election System Watch and Guardians Brotherhood Inc.
The petitioners wanted the poll body to disclose information on and allow access and inspection of the following: Printing of ballots at the National Printing Office, including the examination of the ballots already printed and the reported defective ballots; configuration, preparation, and testing of the secure digital cards to be used in the VCMs through COMELEC-accredited observers in its Sta. Rosa, Laguna warehouse; preparation, testing, and deployment of the VCMs; National Technical Support Center and technical hubs and transmission diagram or data/communications network architecture, including all details of the transmission of the transmission router server and/or the “Meet-Me-Room” and all devices and equipment that will be used to transmit election results.
While the Court held that the issues had been mooted since the Comelec had voluntarily fulfilled the petitioners’ requests prior to the resolution of the case, it nevertheless proceeded to rule on the issues.
It said it took into consideration the paramount public interest involved, including the formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public, as well as the nature of the case.
Reiterating its 2012 ruling in Capalla v. Comelec, the Court held that the Comelec is not required to have the election returns digitally signed by the Board of Election Inspectors because the digital signatures generated by the VCMs are sufficient compliance to Republic Act 8436, or the Automated Election System Law, as amended.
“One of the hallmarks of the automated election system is the digital signature of BEI members on the election returns, and of members of the Board of Canvassers on the certificates of canvass. However, since automated elections began in the Philippines in 2010, the digital signatures on the election returns have come from the VCMs and not from the teachers who comprise the BEI,” said the Court.
The Court also cited its previous ruling in AES Watch v. Comelec that the adoption of another method to digitally sign the election results is subject to the Comelec’s sound judgment.
“The exercise of discretion on how to implement the chosen AES must be accorded with the presumption of regularity and should be respected,” stressed the Court.
The Court held that the Comelec is duty-bound under Section 187 of the Omnibus Election Code to allow designated watchers to witness the printing of the ballots.
