The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Advisory Council (AC) and the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) in the case of Glenn A. Chong and Ang Kapatiran Party vs. Senate of the Philippines, et al. The Court ruled that the creation of these bodies, designed to provide expertise and oversight in the implementation of automated election systems (AES), does not infringe upon the Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC) constitutional mandate. This decision affirms the power of Congress to introduce checks and balances that ensure the effective and transparent execution of election laws, safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process while respecting the COMELEC’s autonomy.
Can Congress Fine-Tune Election Oversight Without Usurping COMELEC’s Authority?
The case arose from a petition filed by Glenn Chong and Ang Kapatiran Party, who argued that Sections 8, 9, 10, and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8436, as amended by R.A. No. 9369, were unconstitutional. Specifically, they contested the creation of the Advisory Council (AC) and Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC), claiming these bodies encroached on the COMELEC’s constitutional duty to administer and enforce election laws, as outlined in Section 2(1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution. The petitioners alleged that the AC and TEC dictated the technology used in the AES, undermining the COMELEC’s independence. The respondents, however, maintained that these bodies served merely to advise and ensure the effective implementation of the AES, aligning with Congress’s power to oversee the execution of laws.
The Supreme Court’s analysis centered on the precise roles and functions assigned to the AC and TEC. The Court emphasized that the AC’s primary function is to recommend suitable technology for the AES, while the TEC certifies the proper operation of the AES, including its hardware and software components. Both bodies operate in an advisory capacity, with the COMELEC retaining the ultimate authority to make decisions and enforce election laws. The Court underscored the importance of maintaining the COMELEC’s independence while allowing for expert input and oversight to strengthen the electoral process. The legislative intent was not to diminish the COMELEC’s authority but to enhance its capabilities through informed advice and technical validation. As the Court stated, the role of the council should not be construed as an abdication or diminution of the Commission’s authority and responsibility for the effective development, management and implementation of the AES.
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.
The Court also highlighted the non-permanent nature of the AC and TEC, noting that they are convened and deactivated in relation to specific electoral exercises. This temporary arrangement further supports the view that these bodies are designed to provide targeted support to the COMELEC rather than to permanently supplant its authority. The Court also pointed out that the petitioners failed to provide substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of constitutionality that applies to all laws passed by Congress. The Court has consistently held that laws are presumed valid, and the burden of proof rests on those who challenge their constitutionality. This legal principle reinforces the judiciary’s deference to the legislative branch unless a clear and unequivocal violation of the Constitution is demonstrated.
Moreover, the Court referenced its earlier ruling in Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) Party-List v. COMELEC, which upheld the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9369. That case addressed concerns about the law’s compliance with the constitutional requirement that a law’s title accurately reflect its contents. The Court’s consistent affirmation of R.A. No. 9369’s validity underscores its commitment to supporting legislative efforts aimed at improving the electoral system.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the creation of the AC and TEC does not violate the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the COMELEC retains exclusive authority to enforce and administer election laws, and the AC and TEC cannot substitute their judgment for that of the COMELEC. The purpose of these bodies is to assist the COMELEC in ensuring the effectiveness, security, and accuracy of the AES. The Court viewed the AC and TEC as mechanisms that provide checks and balances on the COMELEC’s power, ensuring transparency and accountability in the electoral process. The Court stated that the Congress created the AC and 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 ensure that the COMELEC is guided and assisted by experts in the field of technology in adopting the most effective and efficient AES. As such, it is apparent that, through the AC and the TEC, the Congress merely checks and balances the power of the COMELEC to enforce and administer R.A. No. 8436, as amended by R.A. No. 9369. It does not, however, substitute its own wisdom for that of the COMELEC.
| What was the key issue in this case? | The central issue was whether the creation of the Advisory Council (AC) and Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) under R.A. No. 8436, as amended, unconstitutionally encroached upon the COMELEC’s mandate to administer and enforce election laws. |
| What is the role of the Advisory Council (AC)? | The AC recommends the most appropriate technology for the automated election system (AES) and provides advice and assistance during the planning, development, and evaluation stages. Its functions are advisory and subject to the COMELEC’s approval. |
| What is the function of the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC)? | The TEC certifies that the AES, including its hardware and software components, operates properly, securely, and accurately, based on established standards. This certification is done through an international certification entity. |
| Are the AC and TEC permanent bodies? | No, the AC and TEC are not permanent bodies. They are convened and deactivated in relation to specific electoral exercises to provide targeted support to the COMELEC. |
| Did the Supreme Court find the creation of the AC and TEC unconstitutional? | No, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the AC and TEC. It found that these bodies do not infringe upon the COMELEC’s authority but rather serve to assist and provide checks and balances in the electoral process. |
| What was the basis for the petitioners’ claim of unconstitutionality? | The petitioners argued that the AC and TEC dictated the technology used in the AES, undermining the COMELEC’s independence and infringing upon its constitutional mandate. |
| What evidence did the petitioners present to support their claim? | The Supreme Court noted that the petitioners failed to provide substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of constitutionality that applies to laws passed by Congress. |
| What is the significance of the BANAT case in this context? | The Supreme Court referenced its earlier ruling in BANAT v. COMELEC, which upheld the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9369. This prior ruling supports the Court’s consistent affirmation of legislative efforts aimed at improving the electoral system. |
The Supreme Court’s decision in Chong v. Senate reinforces the balance between ensuring the independence of the COMELEC and allowing for legislative measures that enhance the integrity and transparency of the electoral process. The ruling clarifies that advisory and technical bodies can play a crucial role in supporting the COMELEC’s functions without usurping its constitutional authority, ultimately contributing to more credible and reliable elections.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Glenn A. Chong and Ang Kapatiran Party vs. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 217725, May 31, 2016
Leave a Reply