Bagumbayan-Vnp Movement v. Commission On Elections

JR., J.:

The Consolidated Case Before this Court are three (3) separate petitions which this Court ordered consolidated in a Resolution1 dated August 12, 2014. In G.R. No. 206719 , Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. (Bagumbayan) and Senator Richard J. Gordon (Senator Gordon) filed a Special Civil Action for Mandamus2 lodged with the Court under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, for the purpose of compelling the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to comply with the provisions of Section 14 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8436,3 as amended by R.A. No. 9369.4 The Court notes that a petition to declare former Chairman of the COMELEC, Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. (Chairman Brillantes) in contempt for presumably failing to comply with his commitments to this Court as manifested during oral arguments on May 8, 2013, in connection with the petition in G.R. No. 206719 , was filed and docketed as G.R. No. 207755. While the petition was filed separately, under Section 45 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, the Court exercised its discretion and ordered the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision.

As such, the Court will, likewise, rule on the charge of contempt alongside ruling on the merits of the instant petition. In G.R. No. 206784 , the petitioners Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), et al. filed a Special Civil Action for Mandamus6 lodged with the Court under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, for the purposes of compelling COMELEC to use digital signatures in the electronic election returns, and provide for the basic security safeguards, which include the source code review, vote verification, and the random audit, in compliance with R.A. No. 9369. The Parties Petitioner Bagumbayan is a non-stock, non-profit corporation that operates through Bagumbayan-Volunteers for a New Philippines, a national political party which has been duly registered with the COMELEC since 2010.

Petitioner Senator Gordon is a Filipino citizen of legal age, a registered voter, a taxpayer, and a resident of Olongapo City. He is currently a Senator of the Republic of the Philippines. Petitioner Tan Dem is a people's organization created for the purpose of defending democracy in the Philippines, while petitioners Evelyn L. Kilayko, Teresita D. Baltazar, Pilar L. Calderon, Elita T. Montilla, and Andrea H. Cedo, are Filipino citizens, and registered voters and taxpayers.

They will be collectively referred to as petitioners Tan Dem, et al. Respondent COMELEC is a government agency created under Section 1(1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution. It is vested by the fundamental law and by statute with the power and the duty to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections in the country. Respondent Chairman Brillantes is the former Chairman of the COMELEC, and held such post at the time of the filing of this petition.

The Antecedent Facts For G.R. No. 206719 and G.R. No. 207755 On December 22, 1997, Congress enacted R.A. No.

8436, otherwise known as the Election Modernization Act of 1997 , which authorized the COMELEC to adopt an automated election system (AES) for the process of voting, counting of votes and canvassing/consolidation of results of the national and local elections.7 On January 23, 2007, R.A. No. 9369 was signed into law, amending among others certain provisions of R.A. No. 8436, pertinently Section 10 of the latter, to read: SEC. 12. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: SEC.

14. Examination and Testing of Equipment or Device of the AES and Opening of the Source Code for Review. - The Commission shall allow the political parties and candidates or their representatives, citizens' arm or their representatives to examine and test the equipment or device to be used in the voting and counting on the day of the electoral exercise, before voting start.

Test ballots and test forms shall be provided by the Commission. Immediately after the examination and testing of the equipment or device, parties and candidates or their representatives, citizen's arms or their representatives, may submit a written comment to the election officer who shall immediately transmit it to the Commission for appropriate action. The election officer shall keep minutes of the testing, a copy of which shall be submitted to the Commission together with the minute of voting.

Once an AES technology is selected for implementation, the Commission shall promptly make the source code of that technology available and open to any interested political parry or groups which may conduct their own review thereof. (Underscoring and emphasis Ours) To facilitate the review process as mandated by the law, the COMELEC promulgated Minute Resolution No. 10-01388 on February 10, 2010, adopting the guidelines recommended by the COMELEC Advisory Council and the Technical Evaluation Council (TEC). This resolution set the guidelines for the conduct of the source code review, and was done a month before the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections.

Years later, this time for the 2013 National and Local elections, the TEC submitted to the COMELEC on February 12, 20139 the former's resolution on the certification of the validity of AES for the 2013 elections. As required by Section 9 of R.A. No. 9369, SLI Global Solutions (SLI), certified and categorically stated that "the AES, including its hardware and software components, are operating properly, securely, and accurately, in accordance with the provisions of the Act,"10 and that the same could be used by the voters, board of election inspectors (BEI), local and national boards of canvassers, as well as the COMELEC in the aforementioned elections. On March 1, 2013,11 the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 9651, the guidelines promulgated by COMELEC in order to fulfill its mandate to make the source code available.

According to Resolution No. 9651, several requirements12 must be submitted by interested parties before they may be allowed to partake in the source code review. Subsequently, on March 14, 2013, COMELEC likewise promulgated Resolution No. 9657, which stated that to afford the COMELEC enough time to evaluate the request for source code review, and the credentials of the reviewer, there is a need to set a deadline within which the request, together with the credentials of its reviewer, should be filed, and where to file the same. Resolution No.

9657 resolved that the request for the conduct of the source code review by the political parties and interested groups, together with the credentials of the reviewer, shall be filed no later than April 1, 2013.13 As a result of the aforementioned issuances, several parties, Parti do Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas Bayan, Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino, the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting and the Liberal Party, in separate letters to the COMELEC, requested for participation in the source code review.14 From April 10 to 24, 2013, these parties conducted the source code review for the Consolidated Canvassing System and Elections Management System, but not for the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) source code, as the same had not yet been released due to negotiations between the COMELEC, Dominion Voting Systems (Dominion), and Smartmatic TIM (Smartmatic) over an issue involving a disagreement with the latter two institutions.

This disagreement started on September 6, 2012,15 when Smartmatic filed an action with the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in the United States against Dominion, to which the latter filed a counterclaim. According to COMELEC, this termination birthed two (2) consequences: first, Smartmatic lost its access to the program systems of Dominion, which signified that any counting error committed in the following elections could not be corrected; and second , Smartmatic failed to deliver to the COMELEC the source code, pursuant to Section 14 of R.A. No. 8436, a failure that meant the said source code would not be reviewable by any party or candidate participating in the 2013 elections. The foregoing caused a delay in the availability of the source code, and thus, it was only on May 5, 2013 when a representative from SLI arrived in the Philippines with a copy of the PCOS source code that was subjected to the trusted build.16 On May 3, 2013, ten (10) days before the start of the elections, the petitioners filed the instant Petition for Mandamus (With Extremely Urgent Prayer to Set Petition for Oral Arguments), to compel COMELEC to obtain the source code and to make the same available for review of the petitioners and other similarly situated parties.

The Court, thus, set the case for oral arguments on May 8, 2013. During the oral arguments, Chairman Brillantes manifested before the Court that first, the COMELEC had already acquired the PCOS source code, and second, that the same will be deposited in escrow at the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), thus making it available for review,17 subject to compliance with certain requirements. The pertinent submission is highlighted, to wit: JUSTICE LEONEN: Lastly, Mr. Chair and counsel.

When the parties registered to review the source code, the parties that you mentioned to review the source code, the source code was not there. And understandably there may have been other interested persons or parties that would've wanted to line up in order to review the source code. But they were confused as to the signals that they were getting from both the media and the COMELEC.

Understandably because you had to keep a few things to yourself in terms of executive privilege in order to be able to come out with the result that you just did at 3:00PM this afternoon. So there are parties that perhaps were not too encouraged to actually register, have (heir credentials examined by the COMELEC. And therefore would the COMELEC consider this situation and therefore perhaps you could amend your COMELEC Resolution so that in the interest of full transparency and credibility of this election, more qualified technicians or experts from different standpoints will be able to help you assure that the elections is [sic] truly credible, free, fair, and honest.

C. BRILLANTES: We will consider very seriously, your Honor. In fact, if you would ask my own personal opinion as Chairman of the Commission on Elections, I will have no objection to opening it up to everybody else.

Because I am not really worried about any malicious contents of the source code. We will even accommodate again Senator Gordon. I back out, maybe I'll just back out, personally I'll back out my statement that we will not allow him.

I think we should invite him tomorrow so he can see and maybe he can see his friends in the UNA who are also reviewing it, so that they can review the source code and we would give them all the chance after the elections because we are not in the process of winding up and finishing all of the electoral needs in order to somehow ensure that we shall have a very', very clean and honest elections this coming May 13. And after which we believe that anybody or everybody who would want to can review the source code as it will be made available by Dominion and it will be deposited in the Central Bank. JUSTICE LEONEN: Just to clarify...but you were saying that you were going to invite Senator Gordon?

C. BRILLANTES: Tomorrow. JUSTICE LEONEN: Tomorrow ?] Thank you. x x x x JUSTICE PEREZ: Just one suggestion, Mr. Chair.

Are you willing or will you be able to. reduce this manifestation which you just made, including the commitments that accompanied the manifestation? Can this be reduced to a unanimous resolution of the COMELEC because it's not only this Court which is interested with what you said.

x x x. C. BRILLANTES: Yes, your Honor. We would try insofar as the review of the 2010.

Now opening it up to others who did not even apply to have the source code like Senator Gordon and his political party. And by the way, when we said his political party is not accredited, I am saying that it is not accredited to review the source code. It is an accredited political party but it is not accredited to review the source code because it did not apply.

We're willing to put this on a writing but 1 will have to get the votes of my six (6) other commissioners. Your Honor, we have one already here. I hope Commissioner Lim will join me.

We have five (5) other commissioners. We shall take it up tonight. JUSTICE SERENO: But there is no separate accreditation procedure?

C. BRILLANTES: No, your Honor. JUSTICE SERENO: As long as you apply and comply with all the other requirements under the Resolution, the right to inspect would be automatic? C. BRILLANTES: No, since the elections would be finished, your Honor by ...

[interrupted] JUSTICE SERENO: No, no. Assuming it's not too late. Assuming this Monday is not the elections, it would have been automatically granted as the representative of VNP-Bagumbayan.

Assuming he complied with the requirements of your Resolution in March 2013. C. BRILLANTES: We will allow. I said we wanted to relax it because we have a deadline.

[x x x] JUSTICE SERENO: I also saw the resolution and if the resolution is to be followed, actually, it's very difficult to follow. You actually just gave all the parties seventeen (17) days to list all the credentials of their reviewer, to specify all the hardware tools that they will need in order to conduct the review. And your required accreditation by the reviewer of so many software expertise.

I don't know whether that kind of capability can ever be in only one person. Perhaps it can be a team of reviewers that we would need. C. BRILLANTES: Yes, your Honor.

JUSTICE SERENO: Because remember you were asking for certifications and those certifications are not easy to come by. So I suggest that you really give them time to comply with all the documentary requirements. C. BRILLIANTES: We would do that, your Honor.

We will amend our resolution to allow others. But this has to be implemented after the elections, your Honor. JUSTICE SERENO: Okay.

x x x x JUSTICE SERENO: Both parties are given simultaneous time of twenty (20) days to file their memoranda. That will mean therefore that your deadline to file the same will expire on May 28. Please comply with it.

And Mr.

Chairman, in that memorandum you will be filing on your behalf kindly include your compliance with the undertakings that you had made before this Court including a report on how you have proceeded, how were you able to call the parties, and how the possibility of the review has been conducted and the discussion with the parties as well.18 (Emphasis Ours) The very next day, the COMELEC and the BSP entered into an agreement for the escrow of the source code to be used in the 2013 elections. The source code was placed in a compartment inside the Currency Management Sub-Sector vault of the BSP for safekeeping, and the COMELEC, along with representatives from both SLI and Dominion, conducted the preliminary conference to the source code review, which included orientation on security protocols, working hours, the scope and duration of the review, the review process, proper report and documentation, house rules, and other matters agreed upon by all of the parties present.19 Representatives from several parties, sans the petitioners, attended the conference.

This continued until the next day, when the parties agreed to postpone the conduct of the source code review to give way to the May 13, 2013 elections. On May 23, 2013, the COMELEC wrote a letter to the counsel of the petitioners allowing the petitioners to participate in the source code review. The contents state: Dear Atty. Reyes: This is with respect to your communication inquiring with the [COMELEC] pertinent information relating to the source code review on the precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machines.

The undersigned would like to inform you that the Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, headed by Hon. Richard J. Gordon, may be allowed by the COMELEC to conduct the source code review provided that it well be held after all the accredited political parties and citizen's arms and following its submission of the credentials of its source code reviewers pursuant to the qualifications enumerated in COMELEC Resolution No. 9651 promulgated on March 1, 2013. Although some political parties and citizen's arms have already started reviewing the source code of the PCOS machines, please be informed that the same has been suspended, in the meantime, to give priority to the May 13, 2013 Automated National and Local Elections. The source code review on the PCOS machines will resume right after the elections.

Further, as you may be aware, the PDP-Laban (PDP) and Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino (PMP) - both under the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) coalition-are already given authority by the COMELEC to conduct source code review on the Consolidated Canvassing System (CCS), Elections Management System (EMS) and on the PCOS machines. Alternatively, as one of the senatorial candidates of the UNA coalition, Former Senator Gordon is also welcome should he decide to join the aforementioned two (2) political parties in reviewing the source code of the PCOS machines. In view of the foregoing, you may directly get in touch with the Project Management Office (PMO), through its Director Atty. Jose M. Tolentino, Jr., at (02) 527-5583.

With warm regards, I remain, SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR. Chairman20 (Emphasis and underscoring Ours) Thereafter, the petitioners filed the instant petition, reiterated in a Memorandum dated May 28, 2013 praying that the COMELEC obtain the source code and immediately make a complete copy of the source code available for the review of the petitioners and other similarly situated parties.

Likewise, the petitioners prayed that the Court enjoins the COMELEC by way of a Temporary Restraining Order from removing the PCOS machine used for the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections from the latter1 s respective precincts, schoolhouses, or present whereabouts and transferring them to the COMELEC's own or maintained storage facilities and/or opening up or, otherwise, tampering with the components, contents, and software encoded into the said machines.21 Concurrently, the petitioners filed on July 9, 201322 a Verified Petition docketed as G.R. No. 207755, praying that then-COMELEC Chairman Brillantes be found guilty of Indirect Contempt under Rule 71, Section 3(b) and (d) of the Rules of Court, and accordingly fined. The grounds for the same were centered on the petitioners' claim that Chairman Brillantes failed to comply with his commitments to the Court as manifested during the May 8, 2013 oral arguments.

These commitments included making the source code available for review, and granting more time to parties to comply with the requirements to do so. As the facts attendant to the charge arose exclusively from the factual milieu gleamed from the instant petition, the Court will resolve both claims on their respective merits. For G.R. No. 206784 Petitioners Tan Dem, et al. allege23 that the COMELEC erred in promulgating Resolution No. 8786, or the "Revised General Instructions for the BEI On the Voting, Counting, and Transmission of Results in Connection With the May 10, 2010, National and Local Elections,"

approved on March 4, 2010, which reversed Section 38 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8739, or the "General Instructions for the BEIs on the Voting, Counting, and Transmission of Results in Connection with the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections." In Resolution No. 8739, it was required for the members of the BEI to insert their respective security keys intended for the digital signature in the iButton security key receptacle. However, COMELEC Resolution No. 8786 directed all the BEIs nationwide not to sign the election returns transmitted electronically with their digital signatures.24 Due to the foregoing, Tan Dem, et al. filed a separate Petition for Mandamus against the COMELEC, praying that Mandamus would be granted ordering the COMELEC to use digital signatures in the electronic transmission of electronic election returns, to provide and open the source code for review by interested groups, to provide for vote verification in the casting of votes, to provide for randomness in the selection of precincts for the manual audit, and to postpone the elections until such time that provisions for the use of digital signatures, review of the source code, vote verification and randomness of manual audit are set in place.25 Tan Dem, et al. also pray that, should the elections be held without the digital signatures and the basic security safeguards, the Court order the COMELEC to manually count the votes in the physical ballots to validate the results contained in the electronic election returns, provided, there are no signs of tampering of said physical ballots and thereby, postpone the proclamation of the candidates, or order, if the candidates are proclaimed using the electronic election returns, declare the proclaimed candidates as de facto public officers, and order the COMELEC to re-effect the manual counting, and thereby affirm or revoke the proclamation of candidates, as appropriate upon completion of the manual count.26 The Issues The issues for resolution by the Court are four-fold: First , whether or not the petitioners have locus standi in this case; Second , whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the Writ of Mandamus to compel COMELEC to open up the source code review for the elections immediately for the review of the petitioners and other similarly situated parties; Third , whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the Writ of Mandamus (a) to compel COMELEC to use digital signatures in the electronic transmission of electronic election returns; (b) to provide for vote verification in the casting of votes, and provide for randomness in the selection of precincts for the manual audit; and (c) to postpone the elections until such time that provisions for the use of digital signatures, review of the source code, vote verification and randomness of manual audit are set in place; and Fourth and finally , whether or not Chairman Brillantes is guilty of indirect contempt.

Ruling of the Court After a careful review of the pleadings, the facts and evidence on record, as well as certain subsequent events which transpired in the period from the filing of this case to this present time, the Court finds that the consolidated petition must be dismissed. I. The petitioners have the prerequisite locus standi to file the Petition for Mandamus. In their Memorandum,27 petitioners Bagumbayan and Senator Gordon state that they have locus standi to file the instant petition.

They assert that Bagumbayan is a duly registered political party, while Senator Gordon was a candidate for Senator at the time of the filing, during the May 16, 2013 national and local elections.28 Furthermore, they posit that when a Mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, pursuant to Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission ,29 the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere feet that Senator Gordon is a citizen of the country. On the other hand, while the respondents concede that Senator Gordon has legal standing due to his status as a Filipino voter, they allege that the same does not apply to Bagumbayan.30 The respondents posit that "even if Bagumbayan had legal standing to conduct a source code review, it failed to establish in its petition its capacity to conduct said review, as it did not submit the qualifications of its reviewer."31 The Court agrees with the petitioners.

Locus standi , or legal standing, is defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental ac that is being challenged.32 The gist of the question on standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.33 This requirement of standing relates to the constitutional mandate that the Court settle only actual cases or controversies.34 In Mandamus cases, jurisprudence is clear that the requirement of proper standing is properly addressed if the petitioning party has a clear and unmistakable right to compel the performance of the ministerial duty.35 The Court finds that the requirement is satisfied by the petitioners.

The petitioners have filed for Mandamus in their capacity as interested parties, Bagumbayan as a political party, and Tan Dem, et. al., as a people's organization created for the purpose of defending democracy in the Philippines. R.A. No. 9369 grants them the right as members of "any interested political party or group"

to conduct their own review of the source code. Here, a clear and unmistakable right exists as it is the ministerial duty of the COMELEC to make available the source code for purposes of examination and test by any political party or candidate, or even their representatives, as expressly stated by the law itself, to wit: SEC. 12.

Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: SEC. 14. Examination and Testing of Equipment or Device of the AES and Opening of the Source Code for Review.

- The Commission shall allow the political parties and candidates or their representatives, citizens' arm or their representatives to examine and test.

(Emphasis Ours) The Court does not subscribe to the argument of the respondents that Bagumbayan lost that right when it failed to submit the qualifications of its reviewer, and which allegedly contravened the resolutions of the COMELEC. Section 12 of R.A. No. 9369 does not contain any provision or stipulation stating that the existence of the right to inspect may only come about after an interested party complies with any subsequent guidelines promulgated by the COMELEC. To rule otherwise would mean an unauthorized expanding or even the creation of unreasonable qualifications prerequisite to the review, which goes against both the spirit and letter of the law.

Notably, pursuant to the Legaspi36 case, a cause of action exists on the simple basis that they are Filipino citizens and voters asserting a public right. The Court held therein: In the case before Us, the respondent takes issue on the personality of the petitioner to bring this suit. It is asserted that, the instant Petition is bereft of any allegation of Legaspi's actual interest in the civil service eligibilities of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas...

But what is clear upon the face of the Petition is that the petitioner has firmly anchored his case upon the right of the people to information on matters of public concern, which, by its very nature, is a public right. It has been held that: