G.R. No. 222731. March 8, 2016

**G.R. No. 222731. March 8, 2016** is part of the list of SC decisions made by the Supreme Court.

## Case Details

* Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc., and Richard J. Gordon, as Chairman of Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. Vs. Commission on Elections
* G.R. No. 222731. March 8, 2016
* Justice Marvic Leonen
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/march2016/222731.pdf
* Motion for Reconsideration (Denied)
	+ http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/resolutions/2016/03/222731.pdf

## Overview

Automation is hailed as a key "towards clean and credible elections," reducing the long wait and discouraging cheating. In 2010 and 2013, the Commission on Elections enforced a nationwide automated election system using the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines. For the 2016 National and Local Elections, the Commission on Elections has opted to use the Vote-Counting Machine. The vote-counting machine is a "paper-based automated election system," which is reported to be "seven times faster and more powerful than the PCOS because of its updated processor." Likewise, it is reported to have more memory and security features,[19] and is "capable of producing the Voter Verification Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT)." This VVPAT functionality is in the form of a printed receipt and a touch screen reflecting the votes in the vote-counting machine.

## Issue

We see no reason why voters should be denied the opportunity to read the voter's receipt after casting his or her ballot. There is no legal prohibition for the Commission on Elections to require that after the voter reads and verifies the receipt, he or she is to leave it in a separate box, not take it out of the precinct. Definitely, the availability of all the voters' receipts will make random manual audits more accurate.

## Info

It is true that the Commission on Elections is given ample discretion to administer the elections, but certainly, its constitutional duty is to "enforce the law." The Commission is not given the constitutional competence to amend or modify the law it is sworn to uphold. Section 6(e), (f), and (n) of Republic Act No. 8436, as amended, is law. Should there be policy objections to it, the remedy is to have Congress amend it.The Commission on Elections cannot opt to breach the requirements of the law to assuage its fears regarding the VVPAT. Vote-buying can be averted by placing proper procedures. The Commission on Elections has the power to choose the appropriate procedure in order to enforce the VVPAT requirement under the law, and balance it with the constitutional mandate to secure the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot.[73]We see no reason why voters should be denied the opportunity to read the voter's receipt after casting his or her ballot. There is no legal prohibition for the Commission on Elections to require that after the voter reads and verifies the receipt, he or she is to leave it in a separate box, not take it out of the precinct. Definitely, the availability of all the voters' receipts will make random manual audits more accurate.

## Decision

**WHEREFORE**, the Petition for Mandamus is **GRANTED**. The Commission on Elections is **ORDERED**
 to enable the vote verification feature of the vote-counting machines, which prints the voter's choices without prejudice to the issuance of guidelines to regulate the release and disposal of the issued receipts in order to ensure a clean, honest, and orderly elections such as, but not limited to, ensuring that after voter verification, receipts should be deposited in a separate ballot box and not taken out of the precinct.