Ensuring Election Integrity: Balancing Transparency and Security in the Philippines’ Automated Election System

National Press Club of the Philippines, Automated Election System Watch, and Guardians Brotherhood, Inc., vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 259354, June 13, 2023

Imagine a scenario where citizens can actively participate in ensuring the integrity of their elections, not just by casting their votes, but by observing the critical processes behind the scenes. This is the essence of election transparency. But how far does this access extend, especially in an automated election system? This question was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court decision, where various organizations sought to compel the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to open up key aspects of the 2022 National and Local Elections (NLE) to public scrutiny. The case highlights the delicate balance between transparency, security, and the practical realities of administering a complex automated election.

The Right to Information and Election Transparency

The Philippine Constitution guarantees the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. This is enshrined in Article III, Section 7, which states:

SEC. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

This right is further reinforced by the policy of full public disclosure of all state transactions involving public interest, as stated in Article II, Section 28 of the Constitution. This means that the government must be transparent in its dealings, allowing citizens to understand how decisions are made and how public resources are used.

In the context of elections, this translates to ensuring that the electoral process is open and accessible to the public. This includes allowing observers to witness the printing of ballots, examining the equipment used in the automated election system, and accessing information about the transmission of election results. However, this right is not absolute. The law allows for reasonable limitations to protect national security, trade secrets, and other confidential information.

For example, while citizens have a right to know the total cost of a government contract, they may not have the right to access the detailed financial statements of the private company involved, as this could reveal trade secrets. Similarly, while the public has a right to know the general security protocols for an election, they may not have the right to know the specific locations of all security cameras, as this could compromise the security of the election.

The Case: NPC v. COMELEC and the Quest for Transparency

The National Press Club of the Philippines, along with other organizations, filed a petition for mandamus against the COMELEC, seeking to compel the agency to implement digital signatures and allow observers access to various aspects of the 2022 NLE. These included the printing of ballots, the configuration of SD cards, the preparation of vote-counting machines, and the transmission of election results.

The petitioners argued that these measures were essential to ensure the transparency and credibility of the elections. The COMELEC, on the other hand, contended that it had already taken steps to ensure transparency and that some of the requested measures were not required by law or could compromise the security of the election.

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding that the 2022 NLE had already been conducted, rendering the case moot. However, the Court also addressed the substantive issues raised by the petitioners, providing valuable guidance for future elections.

Here are some key takeaways from the Court’s decision:

• Digital Signatures: The Court held that while digital signatures are important, the COMELEC has discretion in how to implement them. The use of digital signatures generated by the vote-counting machines themselves was deemed sufficient compliance with the law.
• Printing of Ballots: The Court affirmed that the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to allow watchers to witness the printing of ballots. The COMELEC’s initial refusal to allow observers was deemed unlawful, but the issue became moot when the agency began livestreaming the printing process.
• SD Cards and Vote-Counting Machines: The Court ruled that the COMELEC is not required to allow observers to witness the configuration and preparation of SD cards and vote-counting machines. However, the agency is required to allow political parties, candidates, and citizens’ arms to examine and test these devices.
• Transmission Documents: The Court found that the COMELEC may be compelled to disclose certain transmission documents, as these are matters of public concern. However, the Court also recognized that some details may need to be kept confidential to protect the security of the election.

As the Court stated:

The Commission on Elections is a constitutional body. It is intended to play a distinct and important part in our scheme of government. In the discharge of its functions, it should not be hampered with restrictions that would be fully warranted in the case of a less responsible organization. The Commission may err, so may this court also. It should be allowed considerable latitude in devising means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of the great objective for which it was created — free, orderly and honest elections. We may not agree fully with its choice of means, but unless these are clearly illegal or constitute gross abuse of discretion, this court should not interfere.

Practical Implications for Future Elections

This ruling provides valuable guidance for future elections in the Philippines. It clarifies the extent to which citizens have a right to access information about the automated election system and the limitations that may be imposed to protect security and confidentiality.

For example, political parties and citizens’ arms now have a clearer understanding of their right to examine and test vote-counting machines and SD cards. They can request access to these devices and conduct their own tests to ensure that they are functioning properly. The COMELEC, on the other hand, must be prepared to accommodate these requests, while also taking steps to protect the security of the election.

The ruling also highlights the importance of transparency in the printing of ballots. The COMELEC must ensure that observers are allowed to witness the printing process, either in person or through alternative means such as livestreaming. The agency must also be prepared to disclose information about the transmission of election results, while protecting sensitive data.

Key Lessons

• Transparency is Key: The COMELEC must prioritize transparency in all aspects of the electoral process.
• Citizen Participation: Political parties and citizens’ arms have a right to participate in ensuring the integrity of elections.
• Reasonable Limitations: The right to information is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable limitations to protect security and confidentiality.
• Balance is Essential: The COMELEC must strike a balance between transparency and security in administering elections.

Imagine a voter, Maria, concerned about the integrity of the upcoming elections. Based on this ruling, Maria knows she can join a citizens’ arm and request to observe the testing of the vote-counting machines in her precinct before election day. This empowers Maria and contributes to a more transparent and trustworthy election process.

Frequently Asked Questions

Here are some common questions related to election transparency and the right to information in the Philippines:

Q: What is the right to information?

A: The right to information is a constitutional right that guarantees citizens access to information on matters of public concern.

Q: Can the government withhold information from the public?

A: Yes, the right to information is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable limitations to protect national security, trade secrets, and other confidential information.

Q: What is the role of the COMELEC in ensuring election transparency?

A: The COMELEC has a constitutional mandate to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful, credible, and informed elections. This includes promoting transparency in all aspects of the electoral process.

Q: Can I observe the printing of ballots?

A: Yes, the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to allow watchers to witness the printing of ballots.

Q: Can I examine the vote-counting machines before the election?

A: Yes, political parties, candidates, and citizens’ arms have a right to examine and test the vote-counting machines and SD cards before the election.

Q: What kind of election documents am I entitled to see?

A: In general, the public is entitled to see election, consolidation, and transmission documents, unless such access would violate the secrecy of the ballots or other restrictions to the right of information.

Q: What can I do if I am denied access to information about the election?

A: You can file a petition for mandamus with the courts to compel the COMELEC to disclose the information.

ASG Law specializes in election law and related legal matters. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.