Rio, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel a public officer to exercise discretion in a particular way, but it may compel the officer to take action on matters pending before it. The COMELEC may not be compelled by mandamus to grant or deny the opening and recounting of ballot boxes, as this requires the exercise of its discretion and judgment; however, it has a clear legal duty to expeditiously resolve motions pending before it, following its own rules of procedure, and may be compelled by mandamus to do so should it fail.

Petitioners Rio, Jr., Lagman, and Ysaac filed petitions before the COMELEC En Banc seeking, among other reliefs, the review of Smartmatic Philippines, Inc.'s qualifications by the Bids and Awards Committee in view of alleged irregularities in the transmission and reception of election results in the May 9, 2022 elections, and the disqualification of Smartmatic from participating in the procurement for the 2025 Automated Election System. The present controversy stemmed from the same factual background as Smartmatic TIM Corporation and Smartmatic Philippines, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections En Banc, in which the Court granted Smartmatic's petition and held that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion when it disqualified Smartmatic from participating in the public bidding process.

Petitioners Eliseo Mijares Rio, Jr., Augusto Cadeliña Lagman, and Franklin Fayloga Ysaac, together with Leonardo Olivera Odoño, filed a Petition, Supplemental Petition, and Second Supplemental Petition before the COMELEC En Banc in 2023. Among other reliefs, they prayed that the qualifications of Smartmatic Philippines, Inc. be reviewed by the Bids and Awards Committee in view of alleged serious and material irregularities in the transmission and reception of election results in the system Smartmatic developed for the May 9, 2022 elections, and that the COMELEC order the BAC to disqualify Smartmatic from participating in the procurement for the 2025 Automated Election System if the irregularities were not satisfactorily explained.

On August 10, 2023, the COMELEC En Banc directed its law department to review and submit a recommendation on the petitions. The COMELEC Law Department submitted its Compliance on August 31, 2023, opining that there was no legal basis to prohibit Smartmatic from participating in the bidding process. On October 5, 2023, the COMELEC En Banc set the case for hearing on October 17, 2023, and required Smartmatic to comment on the petitions.

On November 29, 2023, the COMELEC En Banc ruled in favor of Rio, Jr. et al., granting the petition and disqualifying Smartmatic from participating in any public bidding process for elections. The Resolution further stated that the COMELEC, in the exercise of its administrative power, may, upon petitioner's instance, order the conduct of the recount of ballots in areas in every region of the country, the procedure and extent of which to be determined, and at no cost to petitioner. However, in Smartmatic TIM Corporation and Smartmatic Philippines, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections En Banc, the Court granted Smartmatic's petition and held that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it disqualified Smartmatic.

On January 19, 2024, Rio, Jr. et al. filed a Motion seeking the opening and recount of at least 30 sealed ballot boxes in the Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Province of Batangas, which were the subject of a pending election protest, pursuant to the November 29, 2023 Resolution. They recommended that the procedure for manual ballot counting under Article XVIII, Section 206 of the Omnibus Election Code be generally followed, subject to conditions including that only one ballot box be opened at a time, that counting be conducted by an Electoral Board in the presence of watchers, that all candidates for national and local positions be included, and that the recount include a forensic analysis of the contents and thermal age of the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail.

On February 12, 2024, Rio, Jr. et al. filed a Reiterative Motion stating that more than two weeks after filing the Motion, they had yet to receive any notice of action from the COMELEC. On April 30, 2024, they filed the instant Petition for Mandamus, alleging that the COMELEC did not act on their Motion and Reiterative Motion and praying that the Court compel the COMELEC to fulfill its ministerial duty to implement the November 29, 2023 Resolution. They argued that all the requisites for the issuance of a writ of mandamus were present, and that the importance of reopening the ballot boxes and recounting the ballots could not be overemphasized since these proceedings would have far-reaching consequences on the country's political and electoral system.

On July 16, 2024, Rio, Jr. et al. filed a Motion for Leave to File and Admit Attached Supplemental Petition, stating that the COMELEC En Banc issued an Order dated July 3, 2024, denying the Motion and Reiterative Motion. They maintained their original prayer for mandamus and added that the Supplemental Petition and original Petition be treated as and converted into a Petition for Certiorari, and that the COMELEC's July 3, 2024 Order be reversed and set aside for being issued with grave abuse of discretion, in the event the Court should consider the Petition for Mandamus to have been rendered moot and academic.

• Requisites of Mandamus: Petitioners argued that all the requisites for the issuance of a writ of mandamus were present in the instant case, and that the COMELEC had a ministerial duty to implement its November 29, 2023 Resolution.
• Importance of the Recount: Petitioners argued that the importance of reopening the ballot boxes and recounting the ballots could not be overemphasized since these proceedings would have far-reaching consequences on the country's political and electoral system, noting that the COMELEC itself recognized that "the best evidence in an election are always the ballots."
• Integrity of the Election Results: Petitioners argued that should the recount reveal that the results of the physical count differ from the results printed in the election returns generated by the Vote Counting Machines, the reliability and integrity of the results of the entire 2022 National and Local Elections would be put into serious question.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: In the alternative, petitioners prayed that the Supplemental Petition and original Petition be treated as a Petition for Certiorari and that the COMELEC's July 3, 2024 Order be reversed and set aside for being issued with grave abuse of discretion.

N/A — The decision does not recount the COMELEC's arguments in opposition to the petition for mandamus, aside from the contents of its July 3, 2024 Order denying the motions.

• Ministerial Duty to Recount: Whether the COMELEC had a ministerial duty to implement its November 29, 2023 Resolution by opening and recounting ballot boxes, such that a writ of mandamus may issue to compel its performance.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued its Order dated July 3, 2024 denying the Motion and Reiterative Motion.

• Ministerial Duty to Recount: No. The recount of physical ballots requires the exercise of the COMELEC's discretion and judgment, and petitioners failed to establish any ministerial duty on the part of the COMELEC or any clear, complete, and specific legal right to a recount. The writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an official to do anything which is not his or her duty to do.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it issued its July 3, 2024 Order, which found that petitioners abandoned their prayer in the Motion and Reiterative Motion by opting to apply for a petition for declaration of failure of elections.

• Ministerial Duty to Recount: The Court enumerated the requisites for a writ of mandamus: (1) the plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act demanded; (2) it must be the duty of the defendant to perform the act because it is mandated by law; (3) the defendant unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law; (4) the act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary; and (5) there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Citing National Press Club of the Philippines vs. Commission on Elections, the Court defined a ministerial duty as one whose discharge requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment, and held that mandamus can be awarded only when the petitioner's legal right to the performance of the particular act is clear and complete. Citing Subrabas vs. Abas, the Court distinguished ministerial from discretionary acts: an act is ministerial if performed in a prescribed manner without regard for the exercise of judgment, while an act is discretionary if the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him or her the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed. Applying these principles, the Court found that petitioners simply generalized that all the requisites for mandamus were present without identifying or substantiating them. They did not point to any law specifically requiring the conduct of a recount of the physical ballots in the 2022 elections, much less prescribing the manner of the recount such that no discretion is left to the COMELEC. Moreover, the dispositive portion of the November 29, 2023 Resolution expressly stated that the COMELEC "may, upon Petitioner's instance, order the conduct of the recount of ballots," with the "procedure and extent of which are to be determined." Thus, the recount required the exercise of the COMELEC's discretion and judgment, and the petition for mandamus lacked merit.

• Official Inaction: The Court noted that the COMELEC En Banc already acted on the Motion and Reiterative Motion on July 3, 2024. Nonetheless, the Court shared the view of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier that the COMELEC was guilty of official inaction when it decided the motions way beyond the period prescribed by its own rule that any case or matter submitted to or heard by the Commission En Banc shall be decided within 30 days from the date it is deemed submitted for decision or resolution. From the filing of the Motion and Reiterative Motion on January 19, 2024, and February 12, 2024, it took the COMELEC 166 and 142 days, respectively, to resolve the motions. Citing Ampatuan Jr. vs. De Lima, the Court explained that mandamus may be resorted to in order to compel a respondent tribunal to take action, but it cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way discretion is to be exercised, or to compel the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of judgment or discretion. The Court thus reminded the COMELEC that it has a clear legal duty to expeditiously resolve motions pending before it, following the COMELEC rules of procedure, and that should it fail to do so, it may be compelled by mandamus to resolve such motions, but it may not be compelled to exercise its discretion in a certain way.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court held that the Supplemental Petition, prayed to be treated as a Petition for Certiorari, likewise failed for lack of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC when it issued its July 3, 2024 Order. The COMELEC found that petitioners abandoned their prayer in the Motion and Reiterative Motion, as instead of allowing the Commission to exercise its sound discretion, petitioners relied on their own conclusion that the COMELEC was no longer interested in complying with its voluntary undertaking, and opted to apply for the remedy of a petition for declaration of failure of elections. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in this determination.

• Mandamus and Ministerial Duty — A writ of mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, one whose discharge requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment. The writ will not issue to compel an official to do anything which is not his or her duty to do, or to give to the applicant anything to which he or she is not entitled by law. In this case, the Court held that the recount of physical ballots required the exercise of the COMELEC's discretion and judgment, as the November 29, 2023 Resolution expressly stated that the COMELEC "may" order the recount and that the "procedure and extent" were "to be determined," and thus no ministerial duty existed.

• Mandamus and Discretionary Acts — An act is discretionary if the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him or her the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed. In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus may only be resorted to in order to compel the respondent tribunal to take action, but it cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way discretion is to be exercised, or to compel the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of judgment or discretion. The Court applied this doctrine in reminding the COMELEC that it may be compelled to resolve pending motions but not to grant or deny the opening and recounting of ballot boxes.

• Clear Legal Right Requirement — Only specific legal rights are enforceable by mandamus, which requires that the right sought to be enforced must be certain and clear, and the writ will not issue in cases where the right is doubtful. The Court found that petitioners failed to establish a clear, complete, and specific legal right to a recount as prayed for in their motions before the COMELEC.

• "The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) may not be compelled by mandamus to exercise its discretion in a certain way, i.e., to grant or deny the opening and recounting of ballot boxes. However, it has a clear legal duty to expeditiously resolve motions pending before it, following its own rules of procedure." — This opening statement articulates the core ratio decidendi of the case, distinguishing between the COMELEC's discretionary power over the recount and its ministerial duty to resolve pending motions within its prescribed periods.

• "The duty is ministerial only when its discharge requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment. Mandamus can be awarded only when the petitioner's legal right to the performance of the particular act, which is sought to be compelled, is clear and complete." — This passage, quoted from National Press Club of the Philippines vs. Commission on Elections, defines the controlling standard for determining when mandamus lies, which the Court applied to reject the petition.

• "In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus may only be resorted to in order to compel respondent tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person to take action, but it cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way discretion is to be exercised, or to compel the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of judgment or discretion." — This passage, quoted from Ampatuan Jr. vs. De Lima, states the canonical limitation on mandamus with respect to discretionary acts, which the Court used to frame its reminder to the COMELEC.

• Smartmatic TIM Corporation and Smartmatic Philippines, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections En Banc, G.R. No. 270564, April 16, 2024 — Related prior litigation from which the present controversy stemmed; the Court granted Smartmatic's petition and held that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying Smartmatic from the public bidding process.

• National Press Club of the Philippines vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 259354, June 13, 2023 — Cited for the definition of mandamus and the concept of ministerial duty; controlling authority on the requisites for the writ.

• Subrabas vs. Abas, G.R. No. 253103, October 6, 2020 — Cited for the distinction between ministerial and discretionary acts; the Court relied on this distinction in finding that the recount was a discretionary act.

• Ampatuan Jr. vs. De Lima, 708 Phil. 153 (2013) — Cited for the principle that mandamus may compel action but not the manner of exercising discretion; the Court used this to frame its reminder to the COMELEC.

• Province of Maguindanao Del Norte vs. Bureau of Local Government Finance, G.R. No. 265373, November 13, 2023 — Cited for the requisites of mandamus and the requirement that the right sought to be enforced must be certain and clear.

• Rule 65, Rules of Court — The procedural basis for the Petition for Mandamus filed by petitioners; the Court applied the requisites for the writ as developed in jurisprudence.

• Rule 18, Sections 7 and 9, COMELEC Rules of Procedure (1993) — Section 7 prescribes that any case or matter submitted to or heard by the Commission En Banc shall be decided within 30 days from the date it is deemed submitted for decision or resolution, except a motion for reconsideration of a decision or resolution of a Division in Special Actions and Special Cases which shall be decided within 15 days. Section 9 defines when a case or matter is deemed submitted for decision. The Court cited these provisions in finding that the COMELEC resolved the motions 166 and 142 days after filing, beyond the prescribed period.

• Article XVIII, Section 206, Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) — The provision on public and uninterrupted counting of votes, which petitioners recommended be generally followed in the recount, subject to their proposed conditions.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., concurred. The Court noted that it shared the view of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier that the COMELEC was guilty of official inaction when it decided the motions beyond the period prescribed by its own rules.

N/A — The decision does not mention any dissenting opinion.