Chong vs. Senate of the Philippines

The creation of the Advisory Council and the Technical Evaluation Committee under Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of R.A. No. 8436, as amended by Section 9 of R.A. No. 9369, does not violate Section 2(1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, because their functions are merely advisory and recommendatory and do not diminish the COMELEC's exclusive power to enforce and administer election laws.

Glenn A. Chong and Ang Kapatiran Party, represented by Norman V. Cabrera, are the petitioners; the respondents are the Senate of the Philippines, the House of Representatives, the COMELEC, the Advisory Council, the Technical Evaluation Committee, and the Department of Budget and Management. The dispute concerns the automated election system framework established by R.A. No. 8436, which authorized the COMELEC to use an automated election system, and R.A. No. 9369, which amended that law and provided for the creation of the Advisory Council and the Technical Evaluation Committee. Section 2(1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution vests the COMELEC with the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections, and prior cases such as Roque, Jr. vs. COMELEC and BANAT Party-List vs. COMELEC had described the AC and TEC and upheld R.A. No. 9369.

On December 22, 1997, R.A. No. 8436 was enacted, authorizing the adoption of an automated election system in the May 11, 1998 national and local elections and in subsequent electoral exercises. On January 23, 2007, R.A. No. 9369 was signed into law, amending R.A. No. 8436. Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of R.A. No. 9369 provided for the creation of the Advisory Council and the Technical Evaluation Committee. In Roque, Jr., et al. vs. COMELEC, et al., the Court stated that the AC is to recommend, among other functions, the most appropriate, secure, applicable and cost-effective technology to be applied to the automated election system, while the TEC is tasked to certify, through an established international certification committee, not later than three months before the elections, by categorically stating that the automated election system, inclusive of its hardware and software components, is operating properly and accurately based on defined and documented standards.

Almost eight years after the passage of R.A. No. 9369, almost six years after the conclusion of the 2010 elections, and just several months before the 2016 elections, Glenn Chong and Ang Kapatiran Party came to the Court to assail the constitutionality of the creation of the AC and the TEC. According to the petitioners, (a) the AC and the TEC are so patently incompatible with a functioning COMELEC; (b) a mere AC should not be allowed to dictate upon the COMELEC with regard to the technology to be applied in the automated election system; and (c) the recommendation of the AC for the COMELEC to re-use the Precinct Count Optical Scan machines, Consolidation and Canvassing System, peripherals, laptops, equipment, software, etcetera, in the 2016 elections, as well as its past actions, are patent nullities.

In compliance with the Court's Resolution dated June 16, 2015, the respondents submitted their Comment. The respondents essentially stated that (a) the existence of the AC and the TEC does not limit or prevent the exercise of the COMELEC's constitutional mandate to enforce election laws; (b) the AC and the TEC merely ensure that the COMELEC will put in place an effective automated election system that will clearly and accurately reflect the will of the sovereign people; (c) the power to provide these safeguards is within the authority of Congress, whose power includes the power to ensure the faithful execution of its policies; and (d) the assailed provisions of R.A. No. 8436, as amended by Section 9 of R.A. No. 9369, enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. The crux of the petition is whether Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of R.A. No. 8436, as amended by Section 9 of R.A. No. 9369, insofar as they provide for the creation of the AC and the TEC, are unconstitutional for allegedly violating Section 2(1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution. The text recounts no lower court factual findings, the petition having been filed directly with the Supreme Court.

• Encroachment on COMELEC Independence: Petitioners argued that the creation of the AC and the TEC pursuant to Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of R.A. No. 8436 undermined the independence of the COMELEC and infringed upon its power.
• Incompatibility with a Functioning COMELEC: Petitioners maintained that the AC and the TEC are so patently incompatible with a functioning COMELEC.
• Advisory Council's Role: Petitioners argued that a mere AC should not be allowed to dictate upon the COMELEC with regard to the technology to be applied in the automated election system.
• Nullity of AC Recommendation: Petitioners asserted that the recommendation of the AC for the COMELEC to re-use the Precinct Count Optical Scan machines, Consolidation and Canvassing System, peripherals, laptops, equipment, software, etcetera, in the 2016 elections, as well as its past actions, are patent nullities.

• No Limitation on COMELEC Mandate: Respondents countered that the existence of the AC and the TEC does not limit or prevent the exercise of the COMELEC's constitutional mandate to enforce election laws.
• Effective Automated Election System: Respondents argued that the AC and the TEC merely ensure that the COMELEC will put in place an effective automated election system that will clearly and accurately reflect the will of the sovereign people.
• Congressional Authority: Respondents maintained that the power to provide these safeguards is within the authority of Congress, whose power includes the power to ensure the faithful execution of its policies.
• Presumption of Constitutionality: Respondents argued that the assailed provisions of R.A. No. 8436, as amended by Section 9 of R.A. No. 9369, enjoy the presumption of constitutionality.

• Constitutionality of the Advisory Council and Technical Evaluation Committee: Whether Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of R.A. No. 8436, as amended by Section 9 of R.A. No. 9369, insofar as they provide for the creation of the Advisory Council and the Technical Evaluation Committee, are unconstitutional for allegedly violating Section 2(1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution.

• Constitutionality of the Advisory Council and Technical Evaluation Committee: No. The assailed provisions are not unconstitutional; the AC and TEC perform merely advisory and recommendatory functions and do not diminish the COMELEC's exclusive authority to enforce and administer election laws.

• Constitutionality of the Advisory Council and Technical Evaluation Committee: The challenge rested on the premise that the AC and TEC encroach on the COMELEC's mandate under Section 2(1), Article IX-C. Examination of the assailed provisions showed that the AC's functions are merely to recommend, provide advice and/or assistance, and participate as nonvoting members with respect to the COMELEC's fulfillment of its mandate and authority to use the automated election system, subject in all instances to the approval and final decision of the COMELEC. The TEC's exclusive function is to certify, through an established international certification entity chosen by the COMELEC from the AC's recommendations, that the automated election system, including its hardware and software components, is operating properly, securely, and accurately in accordance with law. Section 9 of R.A. No. 9369, which amended Section 9 of R.A. No. 8436, expressly provides that nothing in the role of the Council or any outside intervention or influence shall be construed as an abdication or diminution of the Commission's authority and responsibility for the effective development, management and implementation of the automated election system and the Act; petitioners omitted this paragraph when quoting the provision. The AC and TEC were created to aid the COMELEC in fulfilling its mandate and authority to use an effective automated election system for free, orderly, honest, peaceful, credible and informed elections, and their actions neither bind nor prohibit the COMELEC from enforcing and administering election laws. They are not permanent: the AC is convened not later than 18 months prior to the next scheduled electoral exercise and deactivated six months after completion of canvassing, while the TEC is immediately convened within 10 days after the effectivity of R.A. No. 9369 and must make its certification not later than three months before the electoral exercise. Petitioners failed to discharge the burden of overcoming the presumption of constitutionality because they presented no substantial evidence. The constitutionality of R.A. No. 9369 had already been upheld in BANAT Party-List vs. COMELEC, where the Court sustained it against a challenge under Section 26(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Every law is presumed valid, courts adopt a liberal interpretation in favor of constitutionality, and a law may be struck down only upon a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution; doubt must be resolved in favor of validity. The power to enforce and administer R.A. No. 8436, as amended by R.A. No. 9369, remains exclusively lodged in the COMELEC, and the AC and TEC may not substitute their own opinion for the judgment of the COMELEC. Congress created them not to encroach upon the COMELEC's exclusive power but to ensure that the COMELEC is guided and assisted by experts and to ensure clean elections by having disinterested parties monitor the procurement of systems that operate properly, securely, and accurately; Congress merely checks and balances the COMELEC's power without substituting its own wisdom.

• Presumption of Constitutionality — Every law is presumed valid; courts adopt a liberal interpretation in favor of constitutionality, and the petitioner bears the burden of proving a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. If doubt exists as to the sufficiency of proof, the Court must sustain the legislation. In this case, petitioners failed to present substantial evidence, so the assailed provisions were upheld.
• Non-Encroachment on COMELEC's Constitutional Mandate — Section 2(1), Article IX-C vests the COMELEC with the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections. The creation of the AC and TEC does not violate this mandate where their functions are merely advisory and recommendatory, their actions do not bind or prohibit the COMELEC, and final decision remains with the COMELEC. The Court applied this by examining the statutory functions and finding no abdication or diminution of COMELEC authority.
• Checks and Balances in the Automated Election System — Congress may create auxiliary bodies to guide and assist the COMELEC and to monitor its procurement of an automated election system, provided they do not substitute their own wisdom for the COMELEC's. The AC and TEC were designed to ensure expert guidance and clean elections, not to encroach on the COMELEC's exclusive power.
• Advisory and Recommendatory Functions — The AC's functions are to recommend, advise, assist, and participate as nonvoting members; the TEC's function is to certify the automated election system through an international certification entity chosen by the COMELEC. These functions are subject to the COMELEC's approval and final decision. The Court relied on this characterization to reject the constitutional challenge.
• Temporary Nature of the AC and TEC — The AC is convened not later than 18 months before the next scheduled electoral exercise and deactivated six months after completion of canvassing; the TEC is convened within 10 days after the effectivity of R.A. No. 9369 and certifies not later than three months before the electoral exercise. Their non-permanent character supported the conclusion that they do not diminish COMELEC's authority.

• "Nothing in the role of the Council or any outside intervention or influence shall be construed as an abdication or diminution of the Commission's authority and responsibility for the effective development, management and implementation of the AES and this Act." — This statutory paragraph, which petitioners omitted when quoting the provision, expressly preserves the COMELEC's authority and was central to the Court's rejection of the claim that the AC diminishes the COMELEC's mandate.
• "The Court, however, finds that the petitioners' thesis finds no support in the evidence presented. A careful examination of the assailed provisions would reveal that the AC and the TEC's functions are merely advisory and recommendatory in nature." — This passage states the core factual and legal characterization that defeats the constitutional challenge: the AC and TEC do not exercise binding authority over the COMELEC.
• "In sum, the Congress created the [AC] and the TEC not to encroach upon the exclusive power of the COMELEC to enforce and administer laws relating to the conduct of the elections, but to (1) ensure that the COMELEC is guided and assisted by experts in the field of technology in adopting the most effective and efficient [AES]; and (2) to ensure clean elections by having disinterested parties closely monitor the COMELEC in procuring systems that operate properly, securely, and accurately." — This summarizes the ratio decidendi: the AC and TEC serve as aids and checks, not as substitutes for the COMELEC's exclusive power.
• "To strike down a law as unconstitutional, the petitioners have the burden to prove a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution." — This states the controlling standard for constitutional challenges and explains why the petition failed absent substantial evidence.

• Roque, Jr., et al. vs. COMELEC, et al., 615 Phil. 149 (2009) — Cited for the description of the AC's and TEC's functions: the AC recommends the most appropriate, secure, applicable, and cost-effective technology, while the TEC certifies that the automated election system, including hardware and software, is operating properly and accurately based on defined and documented standards.
• Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) Party-List vs. COMELEC, 612 Phil. 793 (2009) — Cited as prior precedent sustaining the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9369 against a challenge under Section 26(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution; the Court relied on it to reinforce the presumption of constitutionality.
• Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP), et al. vs. The Secretary of Budget and Management, et al., 686 Phil. 357, 372 (2012), citing Fariñas vs. The Executive Secretary, 463 Phil. 179, 197 (2003) — Cited for the rule that every law is presumed valid and that courts adopt a liberal interpretation in favor of constitutionality.
• Smart Communications, Inc. vs. Municipality of Malvar, Batangas, 727 Phil. 430, 447 (2014), citing Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP), et al. vs. The Secretary of Budget and Management, et al. — Cited for the burden on petitioners to prove a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution and the rule that doubt must be resolved in favor of sustaining legislation.

• Section 2(1), Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the COMELEC shall enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall. Petitioners claimed the AC and TEC violated this provision; the Court held that the COMELEC's exclusive power remains intact because the AC and TEC functions are merely advisory and recommendatory.
• Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11, R.A. No. 8436, as amended by Section 9 of R.A. No. 9369 — These provisions create the Advisory Council and the Technical Evaluation Committee and define their composition and functions. The Court examined them and found that they do not encroach on the COMELEC's mandate.
• Section 9, R.A. No. 9369 — Amended Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of R.A. No. 8436. It includes the paragraph stating that nothing in the role of the Council or any outside intervention or influence shall be construed as an abdication or diminution of the Commission's authority and responsibility for the effective development, management and implementation of the automated election system and the Act. The Court relied on this express reservation of COMELEC authority.
• Section 26(1), Article VI, 1987 Constitution — Mentioned in the discussion of BANAT Party-List vs. COMELEC, where the Court sustained the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9369 against a challenge that its title was misleading. It is not the provision directly invoked by petitioners here, but it forms part of the precedent upholding the law.

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Leonen, and Caguioa, JJ., concurred. Leonardo-De Castro and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., were on official business; Jardeleza, J., was on official leave.