Bagumbayan Et Al v. COMELEC Case Digest

Consolidated Case:
Bagymbayan-VNP Movement chuchuchu

Tandem
Bagumbayan
Vs. Comelec
FACTS:
 Petitioner Bagumbayan is a non-stock, non-profit corporation, a national political party

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. At the time of the consolidated petition, he is 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
 Respondent COMELEC is a government agency created duly 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 the
post at the time of the filing of this petition.
 On January 23, 2007 the R.A. 9369 (Election Modernization Act of 1997) was signed into
law. Section 14 of this article allows political parties and candidates or their
representatives to examine the equipment to be used in the election process before the
start of the voting period. It also states that COMELEC shall make available the source
code for the said parties’ review.
 On March 1, 2013, COMELEC promulgated Resolution 9651 which contains guidelines to
make the source code available to interested parties who are able to submit
requirements set by the resolution. After 13 days, COMELEC also promulgated Resolution
9657 which requires a deadline (April 1, 2013) for the submission of said requirements in
Resolution 9651 to afford COMELEC time for evaluation. These two resolutions were
critiqued by Justice Sereno stating that the resolutions were very difficult to follow due to
the short time frame and the multiple credentials needed in order to be qualified to
review the source code. COMELEC stated that the guidelines were necessary in order to
safeguard the process.
 Several electoral parties were able to review the source codes for the Consolidated
Canvassing System (CCS) and Elections Management System (EMS) but not the Precinct
Count Optical Scan (PCOS) before the hearing of the consolidated case.
 Prior issues between Smartmatic and Dominion, institutions behind the PCOS source
code, were the reason why the PCOS source code were not readily available at the time
of the petition.
 On May 23, 2013, COMELEC wrote to the counsel of the petitioners stating that the
source code review for the CCS, EMS and the PCOS will be available right after the
elections. Interested parties were able to apply for and review the said source codes.
Petitioners were unable to apply for the review of the source code until the same day of
the hearing and thus could not be granted by COMELEC to review the source codes.
 From September 2018 to January 2019, Resolution nos. 10423, 10458, 10460 and 10487
were promulgated. These collectively loosened the qualifications and application
procedure of those who wish to review the source code. These also updated the
guidelines with regards to the conduct of the Random Manual Audit (RMA) and the
electronic voting procedure and its security.
ISSUES:
 Whether or not the petitioners have locus standi in the case

 Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the Writ of Mandamus to compel
COMELEC to open up the source code review for elections immediately for interested
parties
 Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the Writ of Mandamus (a) to compel
COMELEC to use digital signatures and (b) to provide for vote verification in the casting of
the votes, and to provide randomness in the selection of precincts and (c) to postpone
the elections until the provisions for A and B are set in place
 Whether or not Chairman Brillantes is guilty of indirect contempt
RULING
 Petitioners have locus standi as R.A. no. 9369 grants the members of any interested
political party or group to conduct their own review of the code. It also does not state
that the right to inspect the code may come only after complying with set guidelines
promulgated by COMELEC
 Petitioners are not entitled to the Writ of Mandamus with regards to the source code
review as the issue has become moot and academic with the promulgation of Resolution
nos. 10423, 10458, 10460 and 10487.
 The Writ of Mandamus does not lie to compel COMELEC to grant the other items being
petitioned for. The Court found COMELEC to duly complied with the requirements for the
use of digital signatures, verification and the Random Manual Audit (RMA) as the
justiciable controversy of these issues have been addressed by Resolution nos. 10423,
10458, 10460 and 10487.
 Chairman Brillantes is not liable for indirect contempt as (a) he allowed interested parties
to the source code, (b) revision of the application procedure and qualifications allowed
interested parties more time to comply (c) COMELEC would accommodate the
petitioner’s request to review the source code. Thus the petition was dismissed due to
utter lack of merit.

Bagumbayan Et Al v. COMELEC Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bagumbayan Et Al v. COMELEC Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bagumbayan Et Al v. COMELEC Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consolidated Case:

Bagymbayan-VNP Movement chuchuchu

 Petitioner Bagumbayan is a non-stock, non-profit corporation, a national political party

 Whether or not the petitioners have locus standi in the case

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.