KILUSAN NG MAMAMAYAN PARA SA MATUWID NA BAYAN, A COALITION OF CORPORATE ENTITIES DULY REGISTERED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, WHICH ARE PETITIONERS HEREIN AS WELL, NAMELY, CAPITOL CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP; BUKLOD PAMILYA INCORPORATED; KMP, KOALISYONG PANGKAUNLARAN NG MAMAMAYAN; AND KNK,…
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 259850
- Promulgated: 2023-06-13
- Ponente: ROSARIO, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Petitioners, composed of a coalition of corporate entities and several individuals, filed a Petition for Mandamus seeking to compel the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to issue implementing rules and regulations for various aspects of the automated election system and to conduct public consultations for their formulation. They allege that COMELEC has failed to promulgate rules for mandatory minimum functional system capabilities under Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9369 and that several COMELEC resolutions, particularly Resolution No. 8786 (instructing Board of Election Inspectors to deactivate digital signature system) and Resolution No. 10088 and 10460 (imposing a sweeping ban against cameras in polling places), were issued without the requisite public consultation. The petitioners further argue that the absence of these rules and consultations constitutes grave abuse of discretion and leads to unfaithful implementation of election laws. They also requested a temporary restraining order to stop the use of Smartmatic election equipment for the 2022 elections unless appropriate implementing rules are promulgated. The Court dismissed the petition due to several procedural defects, including petitioners' failure to comply with certain requirements for proof of service, verification and certification against forum shopping, and proper identification of affiants. Some petitioners also lacked proper authorization to participate or failed to execute necessary documents. The Court also noted that not all petitioners demonstrated legal standing. ## Issues 1. Did the petitioners comply with the procedural requirements for filing the Petition for Mandamus? 2. Did the petitioners establish legal standing to file the Petition for Mandamus? 3. Should the Court compel COMELEC to issue implementing rules and regulations and conduct public consultations as prayed for by the petitioners? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Court ruled that the **petitioners failed to comply with the procedural requirements**. The Court noted that petitioners failed to provide proper proof of service to COMELEC, as the affidavit of service did not contain the affiant's competent evidence of identity. The Verification and Sworn Certification Against Forum Shopping for some petitioners lacked signatures or proper identification of affiants, and some corporate and individual petitioners had no duly authorized representatives or failed to execute the required certification. Despite being given an opportunity to rectify these errors, petitioners failed to do so. **Issue 2:** The Court found that **not all petitioners were able to show their legal standing**. The organizational petitioners merely alleged they were juridical corporate entities with the capacity to sue, and that their participation was authorized, which the Court deemed insufficient to meet the requirement of personal and substantial interest. While the remaining individual petitioners, Macatangay, Jr. and Gonzales, were citizens, their failure to allege material injury and the dismissal of the petition on procedural grounds rendered a relaxation of the rule on legal standing unwarranted. The Court referenced **_AES Watch v. COMELEC_** on the requirement of alleging a "personal stake in the outcome of the controversy." **Issue 3:** The Court **dismissed the prayer to compel COMELEC**, finding no grounds to issue a writ of mandamus. The Court held that petitioners failed to substantiate their allegation regarding the absence of implementing rules for crucial safeguards under Section 7 of RA No. 9369. It pointed out that COMELEC has actually availed of measures, such as the conduct of Random Manual Audit and the issuance of Resolution No. 10088, to ensure the integrity of elections. The Court noted that earlier concerns regarding the "for whatever purpose" phrase prohibiting cameras in polling places in Resolution No. 10088 have been addressed as the phrase was already…
Keywords
Article 1191 Civil Code, Republic Act No. 9369 Section 7, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) Section 179, Republic Act No. 7166, Republic Act No. 8436, Administrative Code of 1987 Section 9(1) and (3), Mandatory Minimum Functional System Capabilities for Automated Election System, Digital Signature as Functional Equivalent of Machine Signature, Election Law, Automated Election System, Election Irregularities, COMELEC Resolutions, Writ of Mandamus, Grave Abuse of Discretion, Implementing Rules and Regulations, Public Consultation, Legal Standing, Procedural Infirmities, Forum Shopping, Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT)