CASE DIGEST
AES Watch v. Commission
on Elections
G.R. No. 246332 (Resolution), [December 9,
2020]
EN BANC, LOPEZ, M.V
Appeal to COA's decision; Separation pay of Dismissed Employees; Rules on the Refund of Benefits received under Disallowed amounts
While COMELEC has the authority to
regulate election procedures, including the use of capturing devices, such
regulations should be narrowly tailored to address specific concerns without
unnecessarily infringing on the rights of poll watchers and voters. SC underscores
the importance of balancing the discretionary powers of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) with the protection of constitutionally guaranteed rights
during the electoral process.
In 1997, Republic Act (RA) No. 8436 empowered the COMELEC to adopt an automated election system (AES). RA No. 9369 in 2007 amended provisions allowing the use of paper-based or direct recording electronic election systems. The COMELEC implemented a paper-based AES with optical mark reader machines in the 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019 National Elections. The COMELEC implemented this directive and issued guidelines that the VVPAT must be printed in the form of paper receipts and that the voters can verify their votes through these receipts. This petition challenged the constitutionality of COMELEC's actions in the 2019 National Elections, specifically on the prohibition of capturing devices including digital cameras or cellular phones, for any purpose inside the polling place during the casting of votes. The petitioners, AES-WATCH, et al., contested this prohibition, arguing that it was inconsistent with Section 179 of the Omnibus Election Code. They contended that the sweeping nature of the prohibition, encompassing proceedings during the counting of votes, as well as the transmission and printing of election returns.
Whether or not the COMELEC gravely
abused its discretion in prohibiting of capturing devices purpose inside the
polling place.
YES. The court, while acknowledging the
discretionary powers of COMELEC, delved into the constitutional implications of
the prohibition on capturing devices. It underscored that the use of such
devices during the counting of votes was allowed under Section 179 of the
Omnibus Election Code. The court emphasized the importance of allowing poll
watchers to record any irregularities and voters to object to discrepancies
promptly. However, it also recognized COMELEC's authority to regulate the use
of such devices to ensure the orderly conduct of elections. The court ruled
that the prohibition, as stated in Resolution No. 10460, was unconstitutional
in its broad scope, as it encompassed legitimate activities. While the court
affirmed COMELEC's discretion, it clarified that restrictions on capturing
devices should be narrowly tailored to address specific concerns without unduly
infringing on constitutionally protected rights. The decision aimed at striking
a balance between the need for secure and transparent elections and the
preservation of constitutional rights during the electoral process.
No comments:
Post a Comment