Bagumbayan - VNP Movement Vs Comelec E-Commerce and or Poli

Supreme Court E-Library
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 685

Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc., et al. vs. COMELEC
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 206719. April 10, 2019]
BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, INC., and RICHARD

J. GORDON, on his behalf and on behalf of other citizens
of the Republic of the Philippines similarly situated,
petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
respondent.
[G.R. No. 206784. April 10, 2019]
TANGGULANG DEMOKRASYA (TAN DEM), INC.,

EVELYN L. KILAYKO, TERESITA D. BALTAZAR,
PILAR L. CALDERON, ELITA T. MONTILLA, and
ANDREA H. CEDO, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, respondent.
[G.R. No. 207755. April 10, 2019]
BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, INC., and RICHARD

J. GORDON, on his behalf and on behalf of other citizens
of the Republic of the Philippines similarly situated,
petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
HON. SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; THE

JUDICIARY; JUDICIAL REVIEW; LOCUS STANDI;
DEFINED; 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.— Locus standi, or legal
standing, is defined as a personal and substantial interest in a
686 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct
injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged.
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. This requirement of standing
relates to the constitutional mandate that the Court settle only
actual cases or controversies.
2. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS;
MANDAMUS; THE PETITIONING PARTY MUST HAVE
A CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE RIGHT TO COMPEL
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MINISTERIAL DUTY;
SATISFIED.— 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. 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.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; A PETITION FOR MANDAMUS IS PROPER
IF THERE ARE DIRE CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC
WELFARE AND FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF PUBLIC
POLICY, AND IT MAY ALSO BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION TO AVOID FUTURE LITIGATION
AND IN FURTHERANCE OF THE BROADER INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITIES; ANY POLITICAL PARTY
OR CANDIDATE OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, AND
INTERESTED PARTIES MAY COMPEL THE COMELEC
TO ALLOW THEM TO EXAMINE AND TEST THE
SOURCE CODE, REGARDLESS IF THEY ACTUALLY
FOLLOWED THE SUBSEQUENT GUIDELINES AS
PROMULGATED BY THE COMELEC.— The Court does
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 687

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
Legaspi case, a cause of action exists on the simple basis that
they are Filipino citizens and voters asserting a public right.
x x x. It is important to note that a Petition for Mandamus has
often been held to be proper if there are dire considerations of
public welfare and for the advancement of public policy. It
may also be taken into consideration to avoid future litigation
and in furtherance of the broader interest of justice and equities.
The law states that the COMELEC must allow political parties,
candidates, and interested parties to examine and test the source
code, regardless if those mentioned actually followed the
subsequent guidelines as promulgated. Therefore, a cause of
action to compel the COMELEC exists for Bagumbayan, as
well as for any political party or candidate or their representative,
as seen from the express mandate of the law. Thus, all the
petitioners complied with the requirement of standing.
4. ID.; CIVIL PROCEDURE ACTIONS;CAUSE OF ACTION;
A CASE IS CONSIDERED MOOT AND ACADEMIC
WHEN IT CEASES TO PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE
CONTROVERSY BY VIRTUE OF SUPERVENING
EVENTS, SO THAT A DECLARATION THEREON
WOULD BE OF NO PRACTICAL VALUE, AND AS A
RULE, COURTS DECLINE JURISDICTION OVER SUCH
A CASE, OR DISMISS IT ON GROUND OF MOOTNESS;
PETITIONERS’ PRAYER FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
TO COMPEL COMELEC TO ONCE AGAIN OPEN UP
THE SOURCE CODE REVIEW FOR THE UPCOMING
ELECTIONS IMMEDIATELY FOR THE REVIEW OF
THE PETITIONERS AND OTHER SIMILARLY
SITUATED PARTIES, MUST BE DISMISSED, AS THE
SAME HAS CEASED TO BECOME A JUSTICIABLE

CONTROVERCY AND HAS BECOME MOOT AND

ACADEMIC WITH THE ISSUANCE OF THE NEW
RESOLUTION NO. 10423, OR THE GUIDELINES ON THE
CONDUCT OF THE LOCAL SOURCE CODE REVIEW
OF THE AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEMS FOR THE
13 MAY 2019 NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BY
INTERESTED PARTIES AND GROUPS.— As a matter of
great importance, the Court takes judicial notice of the recent
Resolution No. 10423 promulgated on September 21, 2018,
or the Guidelines on the Conduct of the Local Source Code
Review of the Automated Election Systems for the 13 May
2019 National and Local Elections by Interested Parties and
Groups. As a result of this new issuance, the dictates of
procedural due process behoove the Court to dismiss the prayer
for the Writ of Mandamus as to the source code. The Court
holds that there has ceased to be a justiciable controversy. A
justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy
that is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one
that is conjectural or merely anticipatory. In relation to the
foregoing, a case is considered moot and academic when it
ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of
supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of
no practical value, and as a rule, courts decline jurisdiction
over such a case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness. The
reasoning behind the dismissal of a case for being declared
moot and academic is clear. Especially for pragmatic reasons,
courts will not determine a moot question in a case in which
no practical relief can be granted. It is deemed unnecessary to
indulge in an academic discussion of a case presenting a moot
question as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal
effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced. In this
case, the supervening event is found in the superseding of the
assailed resolutions on the source code review with a new
resolution, which pertains to the source code review for the
upcoming 2019 elections. x x x. As this Resolution No. 10423
now governs the conduct of the upcoming elections, and any
automated election from here on out unless it, itself, is superseded
by another, the cause of action of the petitioners has ceased to
exist. Despite its aforementioned misgivings about the conduct
of the COMELEC at the time the consolidated petition was
filed, the Court cannot turn a blind eye to this important
development in the case’s factual milieu, the issuance of the
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 689

new Resolution No. 10423. Thus, as to the source code review,

with a mention that the COMELEC should be more circumspect
when it comes to its rule-making power, the Court rules that
the claims of the petitioners are moot and academic.
5. POLITICAL LAW; ELECTIONS; REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8436,
AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9369 (AN ACT
AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS TO
USE AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM); A MACHINE
SIGNATURE OF A PRECINCT COURT OPTICAL SCAN
(PCOS) MACHINE MAY VALIDLY BE CONSIDERED
THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF THE “DIGITAL
SIGNATURE,” AS IT REPRESENTS THE IDENTITY OF
THE INDIVIDUAL, SAID SIGNATURE NATURALLY
BEING CREATED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PERSON
HIM OR HERSELF INPUTTING THE DETAILS.— The
Court rules that the electronic transmission through the method
promulgated by the COMELEC, as well as the authentication
of the results, are valid under the law. According to A.M. No.
01-7-01 -SC, or the Rules on Electronic Evidence, promulgated
by the Court and alluded to with regard to the above mentioned
authentication process, a “digital signature” refers to an electronic
signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic
document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric
or public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial
untransformed electronic document and the signer’s public key
can accurately determine: (i) whether the transformation was
created using the private key that corresponds to the signer’s
public key; and (ii) whether the initial electronic document had
been altered after the transformation was made, and that for
purposes of the Rules, a digital signature is considered an
electronic signature. An electronic signature is likewise defined
as “any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic
form representing the identity of a person and attached to or
logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic
document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted
by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the
intention of authenticating, signing or approving an electronic
data message or electronic document.” As gleamed from the
wording of the law, the signature may be any distinctive mark
or characteristic that represents the identity of a person. Thus,
a machine signature of a PCOS machine may validly be

considered the functional equivalent of the aforementioned

“digital signature,” as it represents the identity of the individual,
said signature naturally being created specifically for the person
him or herself inputting the details.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; “RANDOMNESS” REFERS TO THE RANDOM
CHOICE OF THE PRECINCT PER CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT, AND NOT THE DISCLOSURE OF THE
PRECINCTS.— Regarding the accusation of Tan Dem, et al.
that there was a complete lack of randomness in the manual
audit as the COMELEC ordered the selection and disclosure
of the subject precincts, in contravention to two COMELEC
resolutions, the same is utterly groundless. The law is clear
that the “randomness” being advocated by Tan Dem, et al. refers
to the random choice of the precinct per congressional district,
and not the disclosure of the precincts which were in fact shown
to have been randomly selected.
7. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CONTEMPT;
CONTEMPT OF COURT IS A DEFIANCE OF THE
AUTHORITY, JUSTICE OR DIGNITY OF THE COURT,
SUCH CONDUCT AS TENDS TO BRING THE
AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW
INTO DISRESPECT OR TO INTERFERE WITH OR
PREJUDICE PARTIES-LITIGANT OR THEIR WITNESSES
DURING LITIGATION; NOT PRESENT.— The Court does
not agree with the petitioners’ claim that former COMELEC
Chairman Brillantes acted in a way that would make him liable
for indirect contempt. The petitioner allege that the respondents’
refusal to abide by the Court’s Resolution dated May 8, 2013
constitutes indirect contempt x x x. x x x [T]he order of the
Court was for Chairman Brillantes to include in his memorandum
the various undertakings he made in open court. The Court’s
review of the records reveals that the respondents did not renege
on these undertakings. x x x. In deciding that Chairman Brillantes
is not liable for indirect contempt, the Court focuses solely on
the undertakings that were directly promised to the Court, not
those which the petitioner feels were promised. x x x. The
Court reminds the petitioners that contempt of court is defined
as a disobedience to the Court by acting in opposition to its
authority, justice and dignity. It signifies not only a willful
disregard or disobedience of the court’s orders, but such conduct
which tends to bring the authority of the court and the
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 691

administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede

the due administration of justice. Contempt of court is a defiance
of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such conduct
as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law
into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties-litigant
or their witnesses during litigation. In the case at bar, none of
the above circumstances are present.
8. ID.; ID.; ID.; INDIRECT CONTEMPT; INDIRECT
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS PARTAKE OF THE
NATURE OF A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION; HENCE,
STRICT RULES THAT GOVERN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS ALSO APPLY TO A PROSECUTION
FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT; THE ACCUSED IS TO BE
AFFORDED MANY OF THE PROTECTIONS PROVIDED
IN REGULAR CRIMINAL CASES, AND PROCEEDINGS
UNDER STATUTES GOVERNING THEM ARE TO BE
STRICTLY CONSTRUED.— This Court also notes that
indirect contempt proceedings partake of the nature of a criminal
prosecution; hence, strict rules that govern criminal prosecutions
also apply to a prosecution for criminal contempt; the accused
is to be afforded many of the protections provided in regular
criminal cases; and proceedings under statutes governing them
are to be strictly construed. Moreover, in contempt proceedings,
if the answer to the contempt charge is satisfactory, the contempt
proceedings end. The Court finds that the respondents were
able to properly show their compliance with their undertakings,
both in their contemporaneous and subsequent actions, as well
as in their responsive pleadings to the charge of the petitioners.
As a result, the Court is satisfied that the respondents did not
commit any acts which would signify possible disobedience
and disrespect to the Court, and thus, Chairman Brillantes is
not liable for indirect contempt.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Gordon Dario Reyes Hocson Viado & Blanco Law Firm for
petitioners in G.R. Nos. 206719 and 207755.
Demosthenes Donato & Jose Ventura Aspiras for petitioners
in G.R. No. 206784.

Mario Bernardo Cerro, co-counsel for petitioners in G.R.

No. 206784.
Roque & Butuyan Law Offices for movants Dr. Pablo R.
Manalastas, et al.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
DECISION
REYES, A., 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
1
Rollo (G.R. No. 206784), p. 121.
2
Rollo (G.R. No. 206719), pp. 3-17.
3
AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS TO USE
AN AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM IN THE MAY 11, 1998
NATIONAL OR LOCAL ELECTIONS AND IN SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL
AND LOCAL ELECTORAL EXERCISES, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved on December 22, 1997.
4
AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8436, ENTITLED AN
ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS TO USE AN
AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM IN THE MAY 11, 1998 NATIONAL
OR LOCAL ELECTIONS AND IN SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL AND
LOCAL ELECTORAL EXERCISES, TO ENCOURAGE TRANSPARENCY,
CREDIBILITY, FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY OF ELECTIONS,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 881, AS
AMENDED, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7166 AND OTHER RELATED
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 693

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 Mandamus 6
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
ELECTION LAWS, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES. Approved on January 23, 2007.
5
Section 4. Proceedings for indirect contempt are either initiated motu
proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order
or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he
should not be punished for contempt, or, in all other cases, commenced by
a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of
documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the
requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court
concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal
action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact
but said petition shall be docketed, heard, and decided separately, unless
the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge
and the principal action for joint hearing and decision.
6
Rollo (G.R. No. 206784), pp. 2-23.

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:
7
Rollo (G.R. No. 206719), p. 90.
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 695

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 party
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, 2013 9
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,
8
Id.
9
Id. at 91-92.

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
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
The following are interested political party or groups who may conduct
a source code review for the May 13, 2013 Automated National and Local
Elections:
1. Interested political party which means a political party, a sectoral
party or a coalition of parties duly registered and/or accredited by the
COMELEC;
2. Independent candidates who are running for a nationwide national
position;
3. Interested group which means any legitimate organization or group
duly accredited by the COMELEC, including its duly accredited citizens’
arms, which possesses the technical capability and expertise in conducting
the source code review. For the purpose, the following shall be not be allowed
to conduct a review of the source code:
a. Any religious sect or denomination, organization or association,
organized for religious purposes;
b. Any group or organization which is receiving monetary or any
form of financial support from any foreign government, or foreign
political party, foundation, or organization, whether directly or through
any of its officers or members, or indirectly through third parties.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that all interested political parties,
independent candidates for nationwide national positions, duly accredited
interested groups, including the Commission’s duly accredited citizens’ arms
mentioned above, must comply with the following guidelines embodied in
COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 13-0027, COMELEC Minute Resolution
No. 10-0138 and the COMELEC Advisory Council’s (CAC) Resolution
No. 2013-007, as follows:
1. Entities interested in conducting a source code review must signify
their interest in writing for approval of the COMELEC, and submit the credentials
of their source code reviewers, who shall meet the following qualifications;
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 697

by interested parties before they may be allowed to partake in

the source code review.
a. Must at least have a 4-year bachelor’s degree in any IT-related field,

preferably with specialization in computer systems security or
cryptography;
b. Must have at least two (2) related publications (journal articles or
international conference proceedings) or has at least five (5) years computer
systems development experience as a professional specializing in computer
systems security;
c. For the PCOS, the reviewer must have a C/C++ certification, a Client-
Server applications architecture understanding, a proficiency in MS
SQLSERVER 2005 or above and a Basic TCP/ICP knowledge, as
evidenced by related industry certification consistent with internationally
accepted standards;
d. For the CCS, the reviewer must have a Java Certification, a proficiency
in Ubuntu, a proficiency in Linux Security, a proficiency in Apache
Tomcat, a proficiency in MySQL, a proficiency in JSP, a proficiency in
Network Security, a proficiency in Oracle, a proficiency in Shell Scripting
and a basic TCP/IP knowledge, as evidenced by related industry
certification consistent with internationally accepted standards.
2. Reviewer must submit, along with his/her qualifications, the following:
a. A reasonable minimum computer hardware specification to be used
for the source code review;
b. A list of Software tools, including preferred operating system and
development tools that will be used for the review. Should these tools
require licenses, reviewer must submit the proper licenses. If the software
is not readily available, the reviewer must submit the installer; and
c. The methodologies which they propose to use for the review.
3. Entities approved by the COMELEC shall sign a non-disclosure
agreement before they are allowed to conduct the source code review;
4. COMELEC shall provide a secure and enclosed location/facility for
the conduct of the source code review and all entries and exits into the
facility shall be properly recorded. In order to strengthen the transparency
and integrity of the review, the COMELEC shall provide video and audio
recordings in the facility. These video recordings, without audio, may be
fed live adjacent to the secured location open to the media, political parties,
electoral reform organizations and other interested parties;
5. A read-only copy of the source code shall be provided on secured
COMELEC workstations in the secured location/facility;
6. COMELEC shall endeavor to provide the computer hardware as preferred
by the reviewer, along with the requested software. The COMELEC may

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,
Partido 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,
optionally allow a reviewer to bring his/her own computer hardware, with

the communications and USB port facilities thereafter deactivated, provided
that the COMELEC shall erase all software and data from the hardware
before and after the review;
7. To ensure that the source code under review is identical to that used
in the trusted build, COMELEC shall provide a clean computer system to
be used by the reviewer to re-compile the source code to verify if the source
code under review and the source code used in the trusted build are the same;
8. The COMELEC shall make accessible the software engineers
responsible in writing/creating/and or maintaining the software being reviewed,
the expenses of which shall be shouldered by the parties conducting the
review;
9. No copy of the source code, documentation, any material supplied
by the COMELEC or any part thereof may be taken out from the secured
location/facility whether physically or electronically;
10. No electronic device of any kind, including but not limited to laptops,
mobile phones, cameras, USB drives and other storage devices, shall be
permitted inside the secured location/facility;
11 Each entity that conducts a source code review shall submit a report
to the COMELEC within five (5) working days and provide a copy thereof
to the CAC;
RESOLVED FINALLY, that the COMELEC may modify the guidelines
abovementioned as it may deem fit and necessary.
13
Rollo (G.R. No. 206719), p. 92.
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 699

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.
14
Id. at 91-92.
15
Id. at 91.
16
Id. at 93.

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
17
Id.
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 701

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.
xxx xxx xxx
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 xxx 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.
xxx xxx xxx
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)
18
Id. at 139-143.
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 703

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.
19
Resolution No. 9987, Section 13.

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 latter’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-
20
Rollo (G.R. No. 206719), p. 121.
21
Id. at 149-150.
22
Rollo (G.R. No. 207755), pp. 3-10.
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 705

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
23
Rollo (G.R. No. 206784), p. 4.
24
Id. at 5.

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
25
Id. at 16.
26
Id.
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 707

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
27
Rollo (G.R. No. 206719), pp. 125-153.
28
Id. at 146.
29
234 Phil. 521 (1987).
30
Rollo (G.R. No. 206719), p. 47.

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:
31
Id. at 48.
32
Galicto v. H. E. President Benigno Aquino III, et al., 683 Phil. 141,
170 (2012).
33
Id.
34
Id.
35
Heirs of Spouses Venturillo v. Judge Quitain, 536 Phil. 839, 846 (2006).
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 709

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:
* * * when the question is one of public right and the object
of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty,
the people are regarded as the real party in interest and the
relator at whose instigation the proceedings are instituted need
not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result,
it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such
interested in the execution of the laws x x x.
36
Supra note 29.

From the foregoing, it becomes apparent that when a mandamus

proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the requirement
of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner
is a citizen, and therefore, part of the general “public” which possesses
the right.37
It is important to note that a Petition for Mandamus has often
been held to be proper if there are dire considerations of public
welfare and for the advancement of public policy.38 It may also
be taken into consideration to avoid future litigation39 and in
furtherance of the broader interest of justice and equities.40 The
law states that the COMELEC must allow political parties,
candidates, and interested parties to examine and test the source
code, regardless if those mentioned actually followed the
subsequent guidelines as promulgated. Therefore, a cause of
action to compel the COMELEC exists for Bagumbayan, as
well as for any political party or candidate or their representative,
as seen from the express mandate of the law. Thus, all the
petitioners complied with the requirement of standing.
II. Petitioners are not entitled to the
Writ of Mandamus to compel
COMELEC to once again open up
the source code review for the
upcoming elections immediately
for the review of the petitioners
and other similarly situated
parties, as the same has ceased to
become a justiciable controversy
and has become moot and
academic.
As the thrust of its Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, the
petitioners firmly advance their narrative that the COMELEC
failed to comply with Section 14 of R.A. No. 8436, as amended
37
Id. at 529-530.
38
Hon. Jose, etc., et al. v. Zulueta and CA, 112 Phil. 470, 475 (1961).
39
St. Peter Memorial Park, Inc. v. Campos, Jr., 159 Phil. 781, 791 (1975).
40
Marahay v. Judge Melicor, 261 Phil. 33, 37 (1990).
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 711

by Section 12 of R.A. No. 9369. The brunt of the petitioners’

grievances lies in the alleged procrastination and negligence
in both obtaining the source code, as well as the delay in making
the same available for review to all concerned.41 This delay is
attributed to the requirements for review as found in the assailed
resolutions issued by the COMELEC, which go against the
mandate of R.A. No. 8436 to “promptly make the source code
of that technology available and open to any interested political
party or groups which may conduct their own review thereof.”
By introducing requirements deemed as difficult to obtain
and fulfill before the source code would be reviewable by an
interested party, the petitioners advocate that the respondents,
in effect, ensured that the source code could not promptly be
made reviewable, which would then go against the express
provisions of the pertinent statute. Thus, the petitioners pray
for Mandamus that would direct the COMELEC to allow the
source code review even if there is a lack of compliance or
even complete non-compliance for the requirements for review
as promulgated by the COMELEC.
To counter the petitioners’ claim, the respondents put forth the
defense that the strict nature of the guidelines is necessary in order
to safeguard the process, and that the COMELEC has the power
to regulate the conduct of the review through its guidelines.42
The respondents also posit the view that Resolution No. 9651,
being the product of official acts, enjoys the presumption of
regularity which all parties interested in reviewing the source
codes must observe.43
As a matter of great importance, the Court takes judicial
notice44 of the recent Resolution No. 10423 promulgated on
41
Rollo (G.R. No. 206719), p. 132.
42
Id. at 316.
43
Id. at 317-318.
u-— 44
Rule 139, Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory.— A court shall
take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence

September 21, 2018, or the Guidelines on the Conduct of

the Local Source Code Review of the Automated Election
Systems for the 13 May 2019 National and Local Elections
by Interested Parties and Groups.
As a result of this new issuance, the dictates of procedural
due process behoove the Court to dismiss the prayer for the
Writ of Mandamus as to the source code. The Court holds that
there has ceased to be a justiciable controversy.
A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or
controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination,
not one that is conjectural or merely anticipatory.45 In relation
to the foregoing, a case is considered moot and academic when
it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of
supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of
no practical value, and as a rule, courts decline jurisdiction
over such a case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness.46
The reasoning behind the dismissal of a case for being declared
moot and academic is clear. Especially for pragmatic reasons,
courts will not determine a moot question in a case in which
no practical relief can be granted.47 It is deemed unnecessary
to indulge in an academic discussion of a case presenting a
moot question as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical
legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced. 48
In this case, the supervening event is found in the superseding
of the assailed resolutions on the source code review with a
and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government

and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of
the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time,
and the geographical divisions. (Emphasis Ours)
45
Velarde v. Social Justice Society, 472 Phil. 285, 302 (2004).
46
Mendoza, et al. v. Mayor Villas, et al., 659 Phil. 409, 417 (2011).
47
Lanuza, Jr. v. Yuchengco, 494 Phil. 125, 133 (2005).
48
Id.
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 713

new resolution, which pertains to the source code review for

the upcoming 2019 elections. In Resolution 10423, it is observed
that the COMELEC modified the qualifications for the local
source code reviewer, to wit:
Sec. 5. Qualifications. The source code reviewer must be duly-
authorized by the interested party or group and must be knowledgeable
in computer programming languages and must be able to understand
computer language preferably on the following programming languages
and systems: C/C++, Java application development, Bash, Object
Oriented Programming Language, Unix-like systems, and linux
operating system.
The prescribed qualification is to ensure that the code reviewer
can understand and appreciate the source codes of the AES to be
reviewed. The interested parties and groups are expected to choose
their reviewers based on this consideration.
Sec. 6. Number of Reviewers; Limitations. Each interested party
or group may appoint primary and secondary code reviewers for each
system. However, depending on the availability of space at any given
time, each party or group may be limited to field only one (1) qualified
reviewer at a given time.
The Court also observes that the application process contained
in Resolution No. 10423 contains several steps before an
interested party may actually get around to reviewing the source
code. To wit:
IV. APPLICATION FOR THE LOCAL SOURCE CODE REVIEW
SEC. 7. Procedure. The interested party or group must submit a
written request addressed to the Local Source Code Review Ad-hoc
Committee signifying its intent to participate including its attachments.
The written request must be signed by the duly-authorized
representative of the party or group.
SEC. 8. Written Request; Contents. The written request shall contain
the following details:
i. Name of the interested party or group;
ii. Intent to participate in the conduct of the local source code
review;

iii. Name of the local source code reviewer/s and the latter’s
credentials;
iv. Signature of the duly-authorized representative of the
interested party or group.
For this purpose, interested parties and groups shall completely fill-
out Annex “A” of this resolution.
SEC. 9. Annexes to the written request. The written request shall
attach the resume of the local source code reviewer specifically
mentioning his or her experience in computer programming or related
field. Said resume shall be under oath.
For IT Groups, a favorable recommendation from the CAC and/or
the DICT shall also be attached.
For Civil Society Organizations, a brief summary of the electoral
reforms initiated or supported shall also be attached.
In the event that the interested parties or groups cannot submit the
complete requirements, a reasonable explanation must also be attached.
SEC. 10. Approval. All requests filed within the specified period
shall be subject to the approval of the Local Source Code Review
Ad-hoc Committee. The approval or denial shall be based on the
following:
i. Request and its attachments;
ii. Presence of Qualifications;
iii. Date and time of the request received, if applicable; and
iv. Availability of slots/space in the source code review room.
The approval or denial of the request shall be sent to the e-mail address
of the interested party or group used in the application.
The approval of the request shall also be posted in the official website
of the Commission on Elections.
As this Resolution No. 10423 now governs the conduct of
the upcoming elections, and any automated election from here
on out unless it, itself, is superseded by another, the cause of
action of the petitioners has ceased to exist.
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 715

Despite its aforementioned misgivings about the conduct of

the COMELEC at the time the consolidated petition was filed,
the Court cannot turn a blind eye to this important development
in the case’s factual milieu, the issuance of the new Resolution
No. 10423. Thus, as to the source code review, with a mention
that the COMELEC should be more circumspect when it comes
to its rule-making power, the Court rules that the claims of the
petitioners are moot and academic.
III. The Writ of Mandamus does
not lie to compel COMELEC to
grant the other items being
petitioned for.
As for those subjects not related to the source code review,
the Court finds that Mandamus does not lie as regards the other
claims of the petitioners, specifically to compel the COMELEC
to use digital signatures in the electronic transmission of
electronic election returns, to provide for vote verification in
the casting of votes, and 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.
Petitioners Tan Dem, et al., maintain in their submitted petition
that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
approving and proceeding with the conduct of automated
elections for the year 2013, without the digital signatures
allegedly required by R.A. No. 9369 in order to authenticate
and consider the electronic election returns as “official election
results” to be “used as the basis for the canvassing of votes
and the proclamation of a candidate,”49 and proceeding without
the security safeguards, particularly the lack of the source code
review by interested groups, the lack of vote verification, and
the lack of randomness in the manual audit.50
49
Rollo (G.R. No. 206784), p. 7.
50
Id.

As to the issue on the digital signatures, Tan Dem, et al.

state that the COMELEC removed the requirement of digital
signatures, in supposed violation of the automated election laws.
The petitioners disagree that the “machine signature” of a PCOS
machine may be the functional equivalent of the aforementioned
“digital signature.”51 First, property such as a PCOS machine
cannot be a valid substitute because, as property, it cannot assume
the identity of a person, only the latter able to acquire rights
and to be the object of legal relations.52
Likewise, the COMELEC was alleged to have disabled the
vote verification of the PCOS machines that would have shown
the actual votes as aptly scanned and read. Instead, the PCOS
machines merely displayed the statement “Congratulations. Your
vote has been registered.” According to Tan Dem, et al., these
statements only confirm that the voting process was finished,
but not necessarily that the votes were actually read and recorded,
as the votes were never displayed for confirmation.
Finally, Tan Dem, et al. accuse the COMELEC of failing to
comply with the Random Manual Audit (RMA) as laid down
in COMELEC Resolution No. 8837 and COMELEC Resolution
No. 9595, for the May 2010 and May 2013 elections, respectively.
The COMELEC purportedly ordered that the precincts of audits
be selected and disclosed at least six hours before the close of
polls during the May 2010 elections, while ordering the selection
and disclosure of the subject precincts, at least four days and
two days before the close of polls during the May 2013 elections.
This allegedly rendered the RMA highly questionable as it diluted
the intended probability of the audit, as well as made the selection
of the subject precincts predictable.53
On the other hand, the COMELEC advocates that it duly
complied with the requirements for the use of digital signatures,
51
Id. at 8.
52
Id.
53
Id. at 14.
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 717

the verification system, the conduct of the source code, and

the RMA, and thus, Mandamus will not lie in this case. 54
As to the contention of Tan Dem, et al. that digital signatures
were not used in the transmission of electronic returns, the
COMELEC advocates the view that it had already been held
and decided by the Court that the machines used in the elections
are capable of producing digitally-signed transmissions, as
clarified in Archbishop Capalla, et al. v. COMELEC. 55
As for the allegations of Tan Dem, et al. that the COMELEC
disabled the vote verification function of the PCOS machines
to only show “Congratulations. Your vote has been registered,”
instead of showing the actual votes scanned and read. COMELEC
counters that there is nothing in the law that requires the actual
votes scanned and read to be shown after the voter has registered
his or her vote, and to compel COMELEC to adopt a procedure
not mandated by the law is beyond the realm of Mandamus.56
Finally, as for the allegation that there was a complete lack
of randomness in the manual audit, COMELEC states that Tan
Dem, et al. misconstrue the law, and that the term “random”
pertains to the randomness of the selection of the precincts
subject of the audit, not that the audit was to be done secretly
or by surprise. 57
As was the case in the discussion of the source code, the
Court likewise notes the recent promulgation of Resolution No.
10458, or the General Instructions for the conduct of Random
Manual Audit relative to the 13 May 2019 Automated National
and Local Elections and subsequent elections thereafter, on
December 5, 2018, Resolution No. 10460, or the General
Instructions on the constitution, composition and appointment
of the Electoral Board; use of the Vote Counting Machines;
54
Id. at 53.
55
687 Phil. 617 (2012).
56
Rollo (G.R. No. 206784), p. 65.
57
Id. at 69.

the process of testing and sealing of the Vote Counting

Machines; and the voting, counting and transmission of election
results, on December 6, 2018, and Resolution No. 10487, or
the VCM Operation procedures for (A) Final Testing and
Sealing (FTS) (B) Election Day and (C) Transmission of
Election Results in connection with the 13 May 2019 National
and Local Elections, on January 23, 2019. The latter Resolution
No. 10487, in particular, supplanted Resolution No. 10460.
The promulgation of these means that the previous cause of
action, as regards the conduct of the COMELEC, removes the
justiciable controversy existing in the consolidated petition,
especially as it is these resolutions that now govern the conduct
of the specific items being assailed. Regardless, even if the
petitioners’ contentions that the COMELEC erred are taken
into consideration, the same is without merit. The Court rules
that the electronic transmission through the method promulgated
by the COMELEC, as well as the authentication of the results,
are valid under the law. According to A.M. No. 01-7-01 -SC,58
58
Rule 2, DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONSTRUCTION
Section 1. Definition of terms.— x x x
xxx xxx xxx
(e) “Digital Signature” refers to an electronic signature consisting of
a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data message
using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having the
initial untransformed electronic document and the signer’s public key can
accurately determine:
(i) whether the transformation was created using the private key that
corresponds to the signer’s public key; and
(ii) whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the
transformation was made.
(f) “Digitally signed” refers to an electronic document or electronic
data message bearing a digital signature verified by the public key listed in
a certificate.
xxx xxx xxx
(j) “Electronic signature” refers to any distinctive mark, characteristics
and/or sound in electronic form, representing the identity of a person and
attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 719

or the Rules on Electronic Evidence, promulgated by the Court59

and alluded to with regard to the above mentioned authentication
electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted

by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of
authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic
document. For purposes of these Rules, an electronic signature includes
digital signatures.
xxx xxx xxx
(n) “Private Key” refers to the key of a key pair used to create a
digital signature.
(o) “Public Key” refers to the key of a key pair used to verify a digital
signature.
RULE 5, AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
Section 1. Burden of proving authenticity. — The person seeking to
introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of
proving its authenticity in the manner provided in this Rule.
Section 2. Manner of authentication.— Before any private electronic
document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must
be proved by any of the following means:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported
to have signed the same;
(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices
as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication
of electronic documents were applied to the document; or
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the
satisfaction of the judge.
RULE 6, ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES
Section 1. Electronic signature.— An electronic signature or a digital
signature authenticated in the manner prescribed hereunder is admissible
in evidence as the functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a
written document.
Section 2. Authentication of electronic signatures.— An electronic
signature may be authenticated in any of the following manner:
(a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a
digital signature and verify the same;
(b) By any other means provided by law; or
(c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the
genuineness of the electronic signature.
Section 3. Disputable presumptions relating to electronic signatures.—
Upon the authentication of an electronic signature, it shall be presumed
that:

process, a “digital signature” refers to an electronic signature

consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or an
electronic data message using an asymmetric or public
cryptosystem such that a person having the initial untransformed
electronic document and the signer’s public key can accurately
determine: (i) whether the transformation was created using
the private key that corresponds to the signer’s public key; and
(ii) whether the initial electronic document had been altered
after the transformation was made, and that for purposes of the
Rules, a digital signature is considered an electronic signature.
An electronic signature is likewise defined as “any distinctive
mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic form representing
the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated
with the electronic data message or electronic document or any
methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person
and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of
authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data message
or electronic document.” 60
(a) The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it correlates;

(b) The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention
of authenticating or approving the electronic document to which it is
related or to indicate such person’s consent to the transaction embodied
therein; and
(c) The methods or processes utilized to affix or verify the electronic
signature operated without error or fault.
Section 4. Disputable presumptions relating to digital signatures.— Upon
the authentication of a digital signature, it shall be presumed, in addition
to those mentioned in the immediately preceding section, that:
(a) The information contained in a certificate is correct;
(b) The digital signature was created during the operational period of
a certificate;
(c) No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or revocable;
(d) The message associated with a digital signature has not been altered
from the time it was signed; and
(e) A certificate had been issued by the certification authority indicated
therein.
59
Promulgated on July 17, 2001.
60
A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, Rule 2, Section 1(j).
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 721

As gleamed from the wording of the law, the signature may

be any distinctive mark or characteristic that represents the
identity of a person. Thus, a machine signature of a PCOS
machine may validly be considered the functional equivalent
of the aforementioned “digital signature,” as it represents the
identity of the individual, said signature naturally being created
specifically for the person him or herself inputting the details.
It is critical to note that the Court En Banc has already
recognized that the PCOS machines produce digital signatures.
In Archbishop Capalla, 61 the Court clarified during the oral
arguments that there is no infirmity as regards the signature of
a PCOS machine being the equivalent of a digital signature.62
61
Supra note 55.
62
Id. at 683-688.
JUSTICE CARPIO: Okay, let us define first what a digital signature
means.
ATTY. LAZATIN: The Rules of Court, Your Honor, defines “digital
signature” as the first one it is electronic signature consisting of
a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data
message using an asymmetric or public Cryptosystem such that a
person having (the initial untransformed electronic document and
the signers public key can accurately determine: (i) whether the
transformation was created using the private key that corresponds
to the signers public key; and (ii) whether the initial electronic
document has been altered alter the transformation was made.
JUSTICE CARPIO: Therefore, digital signature requires private key and
public key...
ATTY. LAZATIN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO: ...and this private key and public key are generated
by an algorithm, correct?
ATTY. LAZATIN: Yes, that’s right. Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO: And there is another algorithm which, if you match...
if you put together the private key and the message, will generate
the signature.
ATTY. LAZATIN: That’s right. Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO: And the third algorithm, that if you put together the
public key and the signature it will accept or reject the message,
that’s correct?

The Court, in that case, categorically stated that the PCOS

machines produce digitally-signed signatures, and the Court
sees no need to disturb that finding absent any compelling
evidence to the contrary adduced by the petitioners.
As for the contention of Tan Dem, et al. that the COMELEC
removed the vote verification function of the PCOS machines,
the Court had already previously granted the Writ of Mandamus
to order the COMELEC to enable the vote verification feature
which printed the voter’s choices, in the aforementioned case of
Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. v. COMELEC.63 As a result of
ATTY. LAZATIN: That’s correct, Your Honor.

xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. LAZATIN: That’s correct, Your Honor. But the machine. Your
Honor, as I mentioned, is capable of accepting any number of digital
signatures whether self-generated or by a third-party certification
authority, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO: Okay. So, whoever is in possession of that iButton
and in possession of the four (4) PINS, the set of PINs, for the
other BEI number, can send a transmission?
JUSTICE CARPIO: The moment you are in possession of the iButton
and the four (4) sets of PINs
ATTY. LAZATIN: That’s correct. Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO: If they can send an electronic transmission dial’s
digitally signed and when received by the COMELEC and matched
with the public key will result with an official election return,
correct?
ATTY. LAZATIN: That’s correct. In the same way. Your Honor, that
even if someone keeps his key or private key. Your Honor, if he
is under threat he will also divulge it, Your Honor. It’s the same.
JUSTICE CARPIO: Okay, so whoever wants to send it, he will have to
get the private key from the BEI Chairman and the PIN numbers
from the other members...
JUSTICE CARPIO: ...before they can send the electronic transmission.
JUSTICE CARPIO: Okay. That clarifies things. x x x.
63
782 Phil. 1306 (2016).
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 723

the Decision, the COMELEC made available the vote verification

feature during the 2016 elections, and the “voter’s receipts” were
indeed recorded, considering that the verification machine and
voter receipts achieve practically the same objective, as embodied
in COMELEC Resolution No. 10096 dated April 21, 2016. Thus,
there is no need to allow Mandamus in this particular instance.
Finally, regarding the accusation of Tan Dem, et al. that
there was a complete lack of randomness in the manual audit
as the COMELEC ordered the selection and disclosure of the
subject precincts, in contravention to two COMELEC resolutions,64
the same is utterly groundless. The law is clear that the “randomness’”
being advocated by Tan Dem, et al. refers to the random choice
of the precinct per congressional district, and not the disclosure
of the precincts which were in fact shown to have been randomly
selected. According to Section 29 of R.A. No. 8436:
SEC. 29. Random Manual Audit. — Where the AES is used, there
shall be a random manual audit in one precinct per congressional
district randomly chosen by the Commission in each province and
city. Any difference between the automated and manual count will
result in the determination of root cause and initiate a manual count
for those precincts affected by the computer or procedural error.
The Court notes that the COMELEC was able to comply
with the legal requirement by developing a system that replaced
the previous manual method of random selection, and resulted
in the random selection of 234 sample clustered precincts.65
And, as previously mentioned, the point is moot with the
promulgation of Resolution No. 10458, which will govern the
May 13, 2019 elections and the subsequent elections.
IV. Chairman Brillantes is not
liable for indirect contempt.
Finally, the Court does not agree with the petitioners’ claim
that former COMELEC Chairman Brillantes acted in a way
that would make him liable for indirect contempt.
64
Rollo (G.R. No. 206784), p. 14.
65
Id. at 69.

The petitioners allege that the respondents’ refusal to abide

by the Court’s Resolution dated May 8, 2013 constitutes indirect
contempt, as afore-outlined. Said Resolution stated, to wit:
After hearing the issues and arguments raised, the Court Resolved,
in open court, to require the parties to SUBMIT simultaneously their
respective MEMORANDA within twenty (20) days from date or until
May 28, 2013.
The Chief Justice, in open court, DIRECTED the Chairperson of
the COMELEC to include in his memorandum report of his
COMPLIANCE with the undertakings he had made before this Court,
including a report on how the COMELEC had proceeded to obtain
and secure the source code of all the computerized voting machines
used in the elections, how it was able to call the parties to make the
same available for their review and how the review was conducted,
as well as the discussions it had made with the parties.
Thereafter, with or without the parties’ respective memoranda,
the case shall be deemed SUBMITTED for resolution.66
Put simply, the order of the Court was for Chairman Brillantes
to include in his memorandum the various undertakings he made
in open court. Clearly, the only set undertakings promised by
Chairman Brillantes were the following: first, to allow review
after an interested party applies and complies with all the
requirements for review under the resolution, as queried by
former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, and as confirmed
during the oral arguments; second, categorically stating that he
and the COMELEC would amend the resolutions to allow
interested parties more time to comply with the documentary
requirements, while mentioning that this would need to be
implemented after the elections; and third, that the respondents
would accommodate the petitioners’ request to review the source
code. All of which shall be reported in the memorandum.
The petitioners’ accusations on the charge of indirect contempt
fail to persuade. Under the law, a person guilty of any of the
following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
66
Id.
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 725

(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of

his official duties or in his official transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order,
or judgment of a court, including the act of a person who,
after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property,
for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession,
or in any manner disturbs the possession given to the person
adjudged to be entitled thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes
or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt
under Section 1 of this Rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and
acting as such without authority;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served; and
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in
the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of
a court held by him.67
The Court’s review of the records reveals that the respondents

did not renege on these undertakings. As to the first undertaking,
while the Court questioned and ultimately found that the
guidelines promulgated by the respondents went against the
law in allowing the source code review, for purposes of the
charge of indirect contempt, the Court finds that the respondents
discharged their duty in making the same available for review.
This is evidenced by the fact that other parties complied with
the requirements and were able to review the source code, a
fact that the petitioners do not contest.
As to the second undertaking, the respondents promulgated
Resolution No. 9657, its purpose solely to grant interested parties
time to comply with the documentary requirements, to wit:
67
RULES OF COURT, Rule 71, Section 3.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the powers vested in it by the

Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, [R.A.] No. 9369, and other
election laws, the [COMELEC] has RESOLVED, as it hereby
RESOLVES, that the request for the conduct of source code review,
together with the credentials of the reviewer, shall not be filed not
later than 01 April 2013, during regular office hours, at the Office
of the Clerk of the Commission, [COMELEC], 8F Palacio del
Gobernador Condominium, Intramuros, Manila, free from filing fee.68
As to the third, the Court agrees with the respondents that

Chairman Brillantes’ manifestations in open court, as well as
its letter dated May 23, 2013, all sufficiently show that he made
the effort to comply with the directive. It was the petitioners
who failed to follow up on the respondents’ initiative and
invitation. While the petitioners indeed wrote a letter, this was
done on the day itself of the review. It is not surprising, thus,
that the respondents were unable to respond to the letter sent
by the petitioners requesting for the immediate appraisal of
the source code and the details appurtenant to the review. After
all, the letter is dated May 9, 2013, the same day the review
was scheduled, at 9:00 a.m., something the petitioners
acknowledge. Both events occurred at around the same time
on the same day, and it is impossible for the respondents to
have replied to the same. It is ironic that the petitioners
conveniently allege the lack of time to comply with the
requirements of COMELEC, yet expect the respondents to reply
the very same morning to a letter sent.
As for the SMS message allegedly sent by Senator Gordon
asking for the time and venue of the source code review, there
is nothing in the records that confirms the same. If the SMS
message indeed existed, it was incumbent on the petitioners to
produce it. This they failed to do, and as such, the Court cannot
put any stock into this allegation.
In deciding that Chairman Brillantes is not liable for indirect
contempt, the Court focuses solely on the undertakings that
were directly promised to the Court, not those which the petitioner
68
Rollo (G.R. No. 206719), pp. 108-109.
VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 727

feels were promised. The Court does not subscribe to the

arguments of the petitioners as articulated in their petition and
reply, as to the propriety69 of the source code being reviewed
only after four days which is allegedly a lack of time. Likewise,
the petitioners’ speculations that there was no subsequent source
code review or even was a source code to review for both the
2010 and the 2013 elections,70 lose its sheen when one considers
that other interested parties were able to review the code without
a single complaint.
The Court reminds the petitioners that contempt of court is
defined as a disobedience to the Court by acting in opposition
to its authority, justice and dignity.71 It signifies not only a
willful disregard or disobedience of the court’s orders, but such
conduct which tends to bring the authority of the court and the
administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede
the due administration of justice. Contempt of court is a defiance
of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such conduct
as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law
into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties-litigant
or their witnesses during litigation.
In the case at bar, none of the above circumstances are present.
This Court also notes that indirect contempt proceedings partake
of the nature of a criminal prosecution; hence, strict rules that
govern criminal prosecutions also apply to a prosecution for
criminal contempt; the accused is to be afforded many of the
protections provided in regular criminal cases; and proceedings
under statutes governing them are to be strictly construed.72
Moreover, in contempt proceedings, if the answer to the contempt
charge is satisfactory, the contempt proceedings end.73 The Court
finds that the respondents were able to properly show their
69
Rollo (G.R. No. 207755), p. 91.
70
Id. at 98.
71
Roxas, et al. v. Judge Tipon, et al., 688 Phil. 372, 382 (2012).
72
Esperida, et al. v. Jurado, Jr., 686 Phil. 775, 783 (2012).
73
Id.

Tan vs. Office of the Local Civil Registrar of the City of Manila, et al.
compliance with their undertakings, both in their contemporaneous

and subsequent actions, as well as in their responsive pleadings
to the charge of the petitioners. As a result, the Court is satisfied
that the respondents did not commit any acts which would signify
possible disobedience and disrespect to the Court, and thus,
Chairman Brillantes is not liable for indirect contempt.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petitioners’ prayer
for Mandamus. The consolidated petition, insofar as the source
code is concerned, is DISMISSED on the ground of being
MOOT AND ACADEMIC as a result of the supervening event
which is the COMELEC’s promulgation of Resolution No. 10423.
The Court, likewise, DISMISSES the Petition for Mandamus
insofar as the other allegations of the petitioners on matters
not involving the source code review, and DISMISSES the
Petition for Indirect Contempt, both for utter lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Bersamin, C.J., Carpio, Peralta, Leonen, Caguioa, Gesmundo,
Reyes, J. Jr., Hernando, Carandang, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ.,
concur.
Del Castillo and Jardeleza, JJ., on official leave.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., on leave.
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 211435. April 10, 2019]
RAMON CORPUS TAN, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE

LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF THE CITY OF
MANILA, and the NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE
OF QUEZON CITY (now PHILIPPINE STATISTICS
AUTHORITY), respondents.

Bagumbayan - VNP Movement Vs Comelec E-Commerce and or Poli

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bagumbayan - VNP Movement Vs Comelec E-Commerce and or Poli

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 - VNP Movement Vs Comelec E-Commerce and or Poli

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court E-Library

VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 685

[G.R. No. 206719. April 10, 2019]

BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, INC., and RICHARD

[G.R. No. 206784. April 10, 2019]

TANGGULANG DEMOKRASYA (TAN DEM), INC.,

[G.R. No. 207755. April 10, 2019]

BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, INC., and RICHARD

1. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; THE

686 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 687

not subscribe to the argument of the respondents that

688 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

CONTROVERCY AND HAS BECOME MOOT AND

VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 689

new Resolution No. 10423. Thus, as to the source code review,

690 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

considered the functional equivalent of the aforementioned

VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 691

administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede

692 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

Mario Bernardo Cerro, co-counsel for petitioners in G.R.

REYES, A., JR., J.:

The Consolidated Case

VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 693

The Court notes that a petition to declare former Chairman

ELECTION LAWS, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER

694 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

Philippines, a national political party which has been duly

VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 695

SEC. 14. Examination and Testing of Equipment or Device of the

696 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

in accordance with the provisions of the Act,”10 and that the

VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 697

by interested parties before they may be allowed to partake in

a. Must at least have a 4-year bachelor’s degree in any IT-related field,

698 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

Subsequently, on March 14, 2013, COMELEC likewise

optionally allow a reviewer to bring his/her own computer hardware, with

VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 699

requested for participation in the source code review.14 From

700 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

During the oral arguments, Chairman Brillantes manifested

VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 701

702 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

granted as the representative of VNP-Bagumbayan. Assuming he

VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 703

704 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

Further, as you may be aware, the PDP-Laban (PDP) and Pwersa ng

VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 705

COMELEC Chairman Brillantes be found guilty of Indirect

706 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

interested groups, to provide for vote verification in the casting

VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 707

that provisions for the use of digital signatures, review of the

708 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

petition its capacity to conduct said review, as it did not submit

VOL. 851, APRIL 10, 2019 709

SEC. 12. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended