EN BANC
G.R. No. 206719, April 10, 2019
BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, INC., AND RICHARD J. GORDON, ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER CITIZENS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SIMILARLY SITUATED, PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 206784
TANGGULANG DEMOKRASYA (TAN DEM), INC., EVELYN L. KILAYKO, TERESITA D. BALTAZAR, PILAR L. CALDERON, ELITA T. MONTILLA, AND ANDREA H. CEDO, PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 207755
BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, INC., AND RICHARD J. GORDON, ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER CITIZENS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SIMILARLY SITUATED, PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND HON. SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, A., JR., J.:
SEC. 12. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows:To facilitate the review process as mandated by the law, the COMELEC promulgated Minute Resolution No. 10-01388 on February 10, 2010, adopting the guidelines recommended by the COMELEC Advisory Council and the Technical Evaluation Council (TEC). This resolution set the guidelines for the conduct of the source code review, and was done a month before the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections.
SEC. 14. Examination and Testing of Equipment or Device of the AES and Opening of the Source Code for Review. - The Commission shall allow the political parties and candidates or their representatives, citizens' arm or their representatives to examine and test the equipment or device to be used in the voting and counting on the day of the electoral exercise, before voting start. Test ballots and test forms shall be provided by the Commission.
Immediately after the examination and testing of the equipment or device, parties and candidates or their representatives, citizen's arms or their representatives, may submit a written comment to the election officer who shall immediately transmit it to the Commission for appropriate action.
The election officer shall keep minutes of the testing, a copy of which shall be submitted to the Commission together with the minute of voting.
Once an AES technology is selected for implementation, the Commission shall promptly make the source code of that technology available and open to any interested political parry or groups which may conduct their own review thereof. (Underscoring and emphasis Ours)
JUSTICE LEONEN: Lastly, Mr. Chair and counsel. When the parties registered to review the source code, the parties that you mentioned to review the source code, the source code was not there. And understandably there may have been other interested persons or parties that would've wanted to line up in order to review the source code. But they were confused as to the signals that they were getting from both the media and the COMELEC. Understandably because you had to keep a few things to yourself in terms of executive privilege in order to be able to come out with the result that you just did at 3:00PM this afternoon. So there are parties that perhaps were not too encouraged to actually register, have (heir credentials examined by the COMELEC. And therefore would the COMELEC consider this situation and therefore perhaps you could amend your COMELEC Resolution so that in the interest of full transparency and credibility of this election, more qualified technicians or experts from different standpoints will be able to help you assure that the elections is [sic] truly credible, free, fair, and honest.The very next day, the COMELEC and the BSP entered into an agreement for the escrow of the source code to be used in the 2013 elections. The source code was placed in a compartment inside the Currency Management Sub-Sector vault of the BSP for safekeeping, and the COMELEC, along with representatives from both SLI and Dominion, conducted the preliminary conference to the source code review, which included orientation on security protocols, working hours, the scope and duration of the review, the review process, proper report and documentation, house rules, and other matters agreed upon by all of the parties present.19 Representatives from several parties, sans the petitioners, attended the conference. This continued until the next day, when the parties agreed to postpone the conduct of the source code review to give way to the May 13, 2013 elections.
C. BRILLANTES: We will consider very seriously, your Honor. In fact, if you would ask my own personal opinion as Chairman of the Commission on Elections, I will have no objection to opening it up to everybody else. Because I am not really worried about any malicious contents of the source code. We will even accommodate again Senator Gordon. I back out, maybe I'll just back out, personally I'll back out my statement that we will not allow him. I think we should invite him tomorrow so he can see and maybe he can see his friends in the UNA who are also reviewing it, so that they can review the source code and we would give them all the chance after the elections because we are not in the process of winding up and finishing all of the electoral needs in order to somehow ensure that we shall have a very', very clean and honest elections this coming May 13. And after which we believe that anybody or everybody who would want to can review the source code as it will be made available by Dominion and it will be deposited in the Central Bank.
JUSTICE LEONEN: Just to clarify...but you were saying that you were going to invite Senator Gordon?
C. BRILLANTES: Tomorrow.
JUSTICE LEONEN: Tomorrow|?] Thank you.
x x x x
JUSTICE PEREZ: Just one suggestion, Mr. Chair. Are you willing or will you be able to. reduce this manifestation which you just made, including the commitments that accompanied the manifestation? Can this be reduced to a unanimous resolution of the COMELEC because it's not only this Court which is interested with what you said. x x x.
C. BRILLANTES: Yes, your Honor. We would try insofar as the review of the 2010. Now opening it up to others who did not even apply to have the source code like Senator Gordon and his political party. And by the way, when we said his political party is not accredited, I am saying that it is not accredited to review the source code. It is an accredited political party but it is not accredited to review the source code because it did not apply. We're willing to put this on a writing but 1 will have to get the votes of my six (6) other commissioners. Your Honor, we have one already here. I hope Commissioner Lim will join me. We have five (5) other commissioners. We shall take it up tonight.
JUSTICE SERENO: But there is no separate accreditation procedure? C. BRILLANTES: No, your Honor.
JUSTICE SERENO: As long as you apply and comply with all the other requirements under the Resolution, the right to inspect would be automatic?
C. BRILLANTES: No, since the elections would be finished, your Honor by ... [interrupted]
JUSTICE SERENO: No, no. Assuming it's not too late. Assuming this Monday is not the elections, it would have been automatically granted as the representative of VNP-Bagumbayan. Assuming he complied with the requirements of your Resolution in March 2013.
C. BRILLANTES: We will allow. I said we wanted to relax it because we have a deadline.
[x x x]
JUSTICE SERENO: I also saw the resolution and if the resolution is to be followed, actually, it's very difficult to follow. You actually just gave all the parties seventeen (17) days to list all the credentials of their reviewer, to specify all the hardware tools that they will need in order to conduct the review. And your required accreditation by the reviewer of so many software expertise. I don't know whether that kind of capability can ever be in only one person. Perhaps it can be a team of reviewers that we would need.
C. BRILLANTES: Yes, your Honor.
JUSTICE SERENO: Because remember you were asking for certifications and those certifications are not easy to come by. So I suggest that you really give them time to comply with all the documentary requirements.
C. BRILLIANTES: We would do that, your Honor. We will amend our resolution to allow others. But this has to be implemented after the elections, your Honor.
JUSTICE SERENO: Okay.
x x x x
JUSTICE SERENO: Both parties are given simultaneous time of twenty (20) days to file their memoranda. That will mean therefore that your deadline to file the same will expire on May 28. Please comply with it. And Mr. Chairman, in that memorandum you will be filing on your behalf kindly include your compliance with the undertakings that you had made before this Court including a report on how you have proceeded, how were you able to call the parties, and how the possibility of the review has been conducted and the discussion with the parties as well.18 (Emphasis Ours)
Dear Atty. Reyes:Thereafter, the petitioners filed the instant petition, reiterated in a Memorandum dated May 28, 2013 praying that the COMELEC obtain the source code and immediately make a complete copy of the source code available for the review of the petitioners and other similarly situated parties. Likewise, the petitioners prayed that the Court enjoins the COMELEC by way of a Temporary Restraining Order from removing the PCOS machine used for the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections from the latter1 s respective precincts, schoolhouses, or present whereabouts and transferring them to the COMELEC's own or maintained storage facilities and/or opening up or, otherwise, tampering with the components, contents, and software encoded into the said machines.21
This is with respect to your communication inquiring with the [COMELEC] pertinent information relating to the source code review on the precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machines.
The undersigned would like to inform you that the Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, headed by Hon. Richard J. Gordon, may be allowed by the COMELEC to conduct the source code review provided that it well be held after all the accredited political parties and citizen's arms and following its submission of the credentials of its source code reviewers pursuant to the qualifications enumerated in COMELEC Resolution No. 9651 promulgated on March 1, 2013.
Although some political parties and citizen's arms have already started reviewing the source code of the PCOS machines, please be informed that the same has been suspended, in the meantime, to give priority to the May 13, 2013 Automated National and Local Elections. The source code review on the PCOS machines will resume right after the elections.
Further, as you may be aware, the PDP-Laban (PDP) and Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino (PMP) - both under the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) coalition-are already given authority by the COMELEC to conduct source code review on the Consolidated Canvassing System (CCS), Elections Management System (EMS) and on the PCOS machines.
Alternatively, as one of the senatorial candidates of the UNA coalition, Former Senator Gordon is also welcome should he decide to join the aforementioned two (2) political parties in reviewing the source code of the PCOS machines.
In view of the foregoing, you may directly get in touch with the Project Management Office (PMO), through its Director Atty. Jose M. Tolentino, Jr., at (02) 527-5583.
With warm regards, I remain,
SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR.
Chairman20 (Emphasis and underscoring Ours)
SEC. 12. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows:The Court does not subscribe to the argument of the respondents that Bagumbayan lost that right when it failed to submit the qualifications of its reviewer, and which allegedly contravened the resolutions of the COMELEC. Section 12 of R.A. No. 9369 does not contain any provision or stipulation stating that the existence of the right to inspect may only come about after an interested party complies with any subsequent guidelines promulgated by the COMELEC. To rule otherwise would mean an unauthorized expanding or even the creation of unreasonable qualifications prerequisite to the review, which goes against both the spirit and letter of the law. Notably, pursuant to the Legaspi36 case, a cause of action exists on the simple basis that they are Filipino citizens and voters asserting a public right. The Court held therein:
SEC. 14. Examination and Testing of Equipment or Device of the AES and Opening of the Source Code for Review. - The Commission shall allow the political parties and candidates or their representatives, citizens' arm or their representatives to examine and test. (Emphasis Ours)
In the case before Us, the respondent takes issue on the personality of the petitioner to bring this suit. It is asserted that, the instant Petition is bereft of any allegation of Legaspi's actual interest in the civil service eligibilities of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas... But what is clear upon the face of the Petition is that the petitioner has firmly anchored his case upon the right of the people to information on matters of public concern, which, by its very nature, is a public right. It has been held that:It is important to note that a Petition for Mandamus has often been held to be proper if there are dire considerations of public welfare and for the advancement of public policy.38 It may also be taken into consideration to avoid future litigation39 and in furtherance of the broader interest of justice and equities.40 The law states that the COMELEC must allow political parties, candidates, and interested parties to examine and test the source code, regardless if those mentioned actually followed the subsequent guidelines as promulgated. Therefore, a cause of action to compel the COMELEC exists for Bagumbayan, as well as for any political party or candidate or their representative, as seen from the express mandate of the law. Thus, all the petitioners complied with the requirement of standing.* * * when the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party in interest and the relator at whose instigation the proceedings are instituted need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws x x x.From the foregoing, it becomes apparent that when a mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part of the general "public" which possesses the right.37
Sec. 5. Qualifications. The source code reviewer must be duly-authorized by the interested party or group and must be knowledgeable in computer programming languages and must be able to understand computer language preferably on the following programming languages and systems: C/C++, Java application development, Bash, Object Oriented Programming Language, Unix-like systems, and linux operating system.The Court also observes that the application process contained in Resolution No. 10423 contains several steps before an interested party may actually get around to reviewing the source code. To wit:
The prescribed qualification is to ensure that the code reviewer can understand and appreciate the source codes of the AES to be reviewed. The interested parties and groups are expected to choose their reviewers based on this consideration.
Sec. 6. Number of Reviewers; Limitations. Each interested party or group may appoint primary and secondary code reviewers for each system. However, depending on the availability of space at any given time, each party or group may be limited to field only one (1) qualified reviewer at a given time.
IV. APPLICATION FOR THE LOCAL SOURCE CODE REVIEWAs this Resolution No. 10423 now governs the conduct of the upcoming elections, and any automated election from here on out unless it, itself, is superseded by another, the cause of action of the petitioners has ceased to exist.
SEC. 7. Procedure. The interested party or group must submit a written request addressed to the Local Source Code Review Ad-hoc Committee signifying its intent to participate including its attachments. The written request must be signed by the duly-authorized representative of the party or group.
SEC. 8. Written Request; Contents. The written request shall contain the following details:For this purpose, interested parties and groups shall completely fill-out Annex "A" of this resolution.
- Name of the interested party or group;
- Intent to participate in the conduct of the local source code review;
- Name of the local source code reviewer/s and the latter's credentials;
- Signature of the duly-authorized representative of the interested party or group.
SEC. 9. Annexes to the written request. The written request shall attach the resume of the local source code reviewer specifically mentioning his or her experience in computer programming or related field. Said resume shall be under oath.
For IT Groups, a favorable recommendation from the CAC and/or the DICT shall also be attached.
For Civil Society Organizations, a brief summary of the electoral reforms initiated or supported shall also be attached.
In the event that the interested parties or groups cannot submit the complete requirements, a reasonable explanation must also be attached.
SEC. 10. Approval. All requests filed within the specified period shall be subject to the approval of the Local Source Code Review Ad-hoc Committee. The approval or denial shall be based on the following:The approval or denial of the request shall be sent to the e-mail address of the interested party or group used in the application.
- Request and its attachments;
- Presence of Qualifications;
- Date and time of the request received, if applicable; and
- Availability of slots/space in the source code review room.
The approval of the request shall also be posted in the official website of the Commission on Elections.
SEC. 29. Random Manual Audit. - Where the AES is used, there shall be a random manual audit in one precinct per congressional district randomly chosen by the Commission in each province and city. Any difference between the automated and manual count will result in the determination of root cause and initiate a manual count for those precincts affected by the computer or procedural error.The Court notes that the COMELEC was able to comply with the legal requirement by developing a system that replaced the previous manual method of random selection, and resulted in the random selection of 234 sample clustered precincts.65 And, as previously mentioned, the point is moot with the promulgation of Resolution No. 10458, which will govern the May 13, 2019 elections and the subsequent elections.
After hearing the issues and arguments raised, the Court Resolved, in open court, to require the parties to SUBMIT simultaneously their respective MEMORANDA within twenty (20) days from date or until May 28, 2013.Put simply, the order of the Court was for Chairman Brillantes to include in his memorandum the various undertakings he made in open court. Clearly, the only set undertakings promised by Chairman Brillantes were the following: first, to allow review after an interested party applies and complies with all the requirements for review under the resolution, as queried by former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, and as confirmed during the oral arguments; second, categorically stating that he and the COMELEC would amend the resolutions to allow interested parties more time to comply with the documentary requirements, while mentioning that this would need to be implemented after the elections; and third, that the respondents would accommodate the petitioners' request to review the source code. All of which shall be reported in the memorandum.
The Chief Justice, in open court, DIRECTED the Chairperson of the COMELEC to include in his memorandum report of his COMPLIANCE with the undertakings he had made before this Court, including a report on how the COMELEC had proceeded to obtain and secure the source code of all the computerized voting machines used in the elections, how it was able to call the parties to make the same available for their review and how the review was conducted, as well as the discussions it had made with the parties.
Thereafter, with or without the parties' respective memoranda, the case shall be deemed SUBMITTED for resolution.66
The Court's review of the records reveals that the respondents did not renege on these undertakings. As to the first undertaking, while the Court questioned and ultimately found that the guidelines promulgated by the respondents went against the law in allowing the source code review, for purposes of the charge of indirect contempt, the Court finds that the respondents discharged their duty in making the same available for review. This is evidenced by the fact that other parties complied with the requirements and were able to review the source code, a fact that the petitioners do not contest.
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions; (b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court, including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto; (c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under Section 1 of this Rule; (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice; (e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority; (f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served; and (g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of a court held by him.67
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, [R.A.] No. 9369, and other election laws, the [COMELEC] has RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, that the request for the conduct of source code review, together with the credentials of the reviewer, shall not be filed not later than 01 April 2013, during regular office hours, at the Office of the Clerk of the Commission, [COMELEC], 8F Palacio del Gobernador Condominium, Intramuros, Manila, free from filing fee.68As to the third, the Court agrees with the respondents that Chairman Brillantes' manifestations in open court, as well as its letter dated May 23, 2013, all sufficiently show that he made the effort to comply with the directive. It was the petitioners who failed to follow up on the respondents' initiative and invitation. While the petitioners indeed wrote a letter, this was done on the day itself of the review. It is not surprising, thus, that the respondents were unable to respond to the letter sent by the petitioners requesting for the immediate appraisal of the source code and the details appurtenant to the review. After all, the letter is dated May 9, 2013, the same day the review was scheduled, at 9:00 a.m., something the petitioners acknowledge. Both events occurred at around the same time on the same day, and it is impossible for the respondents to have replied to the same. It is ironic that the petitioners conveniently allege the lack of time to comply with the requirements of COMELEC, yet expect the respondents to reply the very same morning to a letter sent.
Very truly yours, (SGD) EDGAR O. ARICHETA Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo (G.R. No. 206784), p. 121.
2Rollo (G.R. No. 206719), pp. 3-17.
3 AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS TO USE AN AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM IN THE MAY 11, 1998 NATIONAL OR LOCAL ELECTIONS AND IN SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTORAL EXERCISES, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved on December 22, 1997.
4 AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8436, ENTITLED AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS TO USE AN AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM IN THE MAY 11, 1998 NATIONAL OR LOCAL ELECTIONS AND IN SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTORAL EXERCISES, TO ENCOURAGE TRANSPARENCY, CREDIBILITY, FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY OF ELECTIONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 881, AS AMENDED, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7166 AND OTHER RELATED ELECTION LAWS, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved on January 23, 2007.
5 Section 4. Proceedings for indirect contempt are either initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, or, in all other cases, commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fad but said petition shall be docketed, heard, and decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision.
6Rollo (G.R. No. 206784), pp. 2-23.
7Rollo (G.R. No. 206719), p. 90.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 91-92.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 The following are interested political party or groups who may conduct a source code review for the May 13, 2013 Automated National and Local Elections:
1. Interested political party which means a political party, a sectoral party or a coalition of parties duly registered and/or accredited by the COMELEC;
2. Independent candidates who are running for a nationwide national position;
3. Interested group which means any legitimate organization or group duly accredited by the COMELEC, including its duly accredited citizens' arms, which possesses the technical capability and expertise in conducting the source code review. For the purpose, the following shall be not be allowed to conduct a review of the source code:
a. Any religious sect or denomination, organization or association, organized for religious purposes;
b. Any group or organization which is receiving monetary or any form of financial support from any foreign government, or foreign political party, foundation, or organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members, or indirectly through third parties.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that all interested political parties, independent candidates for nationwide national positions, duly accredited interested groups, including the Commission's duly accredited citizens' arms mentioned above, must comply with the following guidelines embodied in COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 13-0027, COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 10-0138 and the COMELEC Advisory Council's (CAC) Resolution No. 2013-007, as follows:
1. Entities interested in conducting a source code review must signify their interest in writing for approval of the COMELEC, and submit the credentials of their source code reviewers, who shall meet the following qualifications:
a. Must at least have a 4-year bachelor's degree in any IT-related field, preferably with specialization in computer systems security or cryptography;
b. Must have at least two (2) related publications (journal articles or international conference proceedings) or has at least five (5) years computer systems development experience as a professional specializing in computer systems security;
c. For the PCOS, the reviewer must have a C/C++ certification, a Client-Server applications architecture understanding, a proficiency in MS SQLSERVER 2005 or above and a Basic TCP/ICP knowledge, as evidenced by related industry certification consistent with internationally accepted standards;
d. For the CCS, the reviewer must have a Java Certification, a proficiency in Ubuntu, a proficiency in Linux Security, a proficiency in Apache Tomcat, a proficiency in MySQL, a proficiency in JSP, a proficiency in Network Security, a proficiency in Oracle, a proficiency in Shell Scripting and a basic TCP/IP knowledge, as evidenced by related industry certification consistent with internationally accepted standards.
2. Reviewer must submit, along with his/her qualifications, the following:
a. A reasonable minimum computer hardware specification to be used for the source code review;
b. A list of Software tools, including preferred operating system and development tools that will be used for the review. Should these tools require licenses, reviewer must submit the proper licenses. If the software is not readily available, the reviewer must submit the installer; and
c. The methodologies which they propose to use for the review.
3. Entities approved by the COMELEC shall sign a non-disclosure agreement before they are allowed to conduct the source code review;
4. COMELEC shall provide a secure and enclosed location/facility for the conduct of the source code review and all entries and exits into the facility shall be properly recorded. In order to strengthen the transparency and integrity of the review, the COMELEC shall provide video and audio recordings in the facility. These video recordings, without audio, may be fed live adjacent to the secured location open to t e media, political parties, electoral reform organizations and other interested parties;
5. A read-only copy of the source code shall be provided on secured COMELEC workstations in the secured location/facility;
6. COMELEC shall endeavor lo provide the computer hardware as preferred by the reviewer, along with the requested software. The COMELEC may optionally allow a reviewer to bring his/her own computer hardware, with the communications and USB port facilities thereafter deactivated, provided that the COMELEC shall erase all software and data from the hardware before and after the review;
7. To ensure that the source code under review is identical to that used in the trusted build, COMELEC shall provide a clean computer system to be used by the reviewer to re-compile the source code to verify if the source code under review and the source code used in the trusted build are the same;
8. The COMELEC shall make accessible the software engineers responsible in writing/creating/and or maintaining the software being reviewed, the expenses of which shall be shouldered by the parties conducting the review;
9. No copy of the source code, documentation, any material supplied by the COMELEC or any part thereof may be taken out from the secured location/facility whether physically or electronically;
10. No electronic device of any kind, including but not limited to laptops, mobile phones, cameras, USB drives and other storage devices, shall be permitted inside the secured location/facility;
11 Each entity that conducts a source code review shall submit a report to the COMELEC within five (5) working days and provide a copy thereof to the CAC;
RESOLVED FINALLY, that the COMELEC may modify the guidelines abovementioned as it may deem fit and necessary.
13Rollo (G.R. No. 206719), p. 92.
14 Id. at 91-92.
15 Id. at 91.
16 Id. at 93.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 139-143.
19 Resolution No. 9987, Section 13.
20Rollo (G.R. No. 206719), p. 121.
21 Id. at 149-150.
22Rollo (G.R. No. 207755), pp. 3-10.
23Rollo (G.R. No. 206784), p. 4.
24 Id. al 5.
25 Id. at 16.
26 Id.
27Rollo (G.R. No. 206719), pp. 125-153.
28 Id. at 146.
29 234 Phil. 521 (1987).
30Rollo (G.R. No. 206719), p. 47.
31 Id. at 48.
32Galicto v. H. E. President Benigno Aquino III, et al., 683 Phi1. 141, 170 (2012).
33 Id.
34 Id.
35Heirs of Spouses Venturillo v. Judge Quitain, 536 Phil. 839, 846 (2006).
36 Supra note 29.
37 Id. at 529-530.
38Hon. Jose, etc., et al. v. Zulueta and CA, 112 Phil. 470, 475 (1961).
39St. Peter Memorial Park, Inc. v. Campos, Jr., 159 Phil. 781, 791 (1975).
40Marahay v. Judge Melicor, 261 Phil. 33, 37 (1990).
41Rollo (G.R. No. 206719), p. 132.
42 Id. at 316.
43 Id. at 317-318.
44 Rule 139, Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (Emphasis Ours)
45Velarde v. Social Justice Society, 472 Phil. 285, 302 (2004).
46Mendoza, et al. v. Mayor Villas, et al., 659 Phil. 409, 417 (2011).
47Lanuza, Jr. v. Yuchengco, 494 Phil. 125, 133 (2005).
48 Id.
49Rollo (G.R. No. 206784), p. 7.
50 Id.
51 Id. at 8.
52 Id.
53 Id. at 14.
54 Id. at 53.
55 687 Phil. 617 (2012).
56Rollo (G.R. No. 206784), p. 65.
57 Id. at 69.
58Rule 2, DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONSTRUCTION
Section 1. Definition of terms. - x x x
x x x x
(e) "Digital Signature" refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial untransformed electronic document and the signer's public key can accurately determine:
(i) whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to the signer's public key; and
(ii) whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the transformation was made.
(f) "Digitally signed" refers to an electronic document or electronic data message bearing a digital signature verified by the public key listed in a certificate.
x x x x
(j) "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark, characteristics and/or sound in electronic form, representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, an electronic signature includes digital signatures.
x x x x
(n) "Private Key" refers to the key of a key pair used to create a digital signature.
(o) "Public Key" refers to the key of a key pair used to verify a digital signature.
RULE 5, AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
Section 1. Burden of proving authenticity. - The person seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided in this Rule.
Section 2. Manner of authentication. - Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same;
(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by tin Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document; or
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.
RULE 6, ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES
Section 1. Electronic signature. - An electronic signature or a digital signature authenticated i> the manner prescribed hereunder is admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a written document.
Section 2. Authentication of electronic signatures. - An electronic signature may be authenticated in any of the following manner:
(a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital signature and verify the same;
(b) By any other means provided by law; or
(c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness of the electronic signature.
Section 3. Disputable presumptions relating to electronic signatures. - Upon the authentication of an electronic signature, it shall be presumed that:
(a) The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it correlates;
(b) The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of authenticating or approving the electronic document to which it is related or to indicate such person's consent to the transaction embodied therein; and
(c) The methods or processes utilized to affix or verity the electronic signature operated without error or fault.
Section 4. Disputable presumptions relating to digital signatures. - Upon the authentication of a digital signature, it shall be presumed, in addition to those mentioned in the immediately preceding section, that:
(a) The information contained in a certificate is correct;
(b) The digital signature was created during the operational period of a certificate;
(c) No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or revocable;
(d) The message associated with a digital signature has not been altered from the time it was signed; and
(e) A certificate had been issued by the certification authority indicated therein.
59 Promulgated on July 17, 2001.
60 A.M. No. 01-7-01 -SC, Rule 2, Section 1(j).
61 Supra note 55.
62 Id. at 683-688.
JUSTICE CARPIO: Okay, let us define first what a digital signature means.
ATTY. LAZATIN: The Rules of Court, Your Honor, defines "digital signature" as the first one it is electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public Cryptosyslem such that a person having (he initial untransformed electronic document and the signers public key can accurately determine: (i) whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to the signers public key; and (ii) whether the initial electronic document has been altered alter the transformation was made.
JUSTICE CARPIO: Therefore, digital signature requires private key and public key...
ATTY. LAZATIN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO: ...and this private key and public key are generated by an algorithm, correct?
ATTY. LAZATIN: Yes, that's right. Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO: And there is another algorithm which, if you match... if you put together the private key and the message, will generate the signature.
ATTY. LAZATIN: That's right. Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO: And the third algorithm, that if you put together the public key and the signature it will accept or reject the message, that's correct?
ATTY. LAZATIN: That's correct, Your Honor.
x x x x
ATTY. LAZATIN: That's correct, Your Honor. But the machine. Your Honor, as I mentioned, is capable of accepting any number of digital signatures whether sell-generated or by a third-party certification authority, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO: Okay. So, whoever is in possession of that iButton and in possession of the four (4) PINS, the set of PINs, for the other BEI number, can send a transmission?
ATTY. LAZATIN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO: The moment you are in possession of the iButton and the four (4) sets of PINs
ATTY. LAZATIN: That's correct. Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO: If they can send an electronic transmission dial's digitally signed and when received by the COMELEC and matched with the public key will result with an official election return, correct?
ATTY. LAZATIN: That's correct. In the same way. Your Honor, that even if someone keeps his key or private key. Your Honor, if he is under threat he will also divulge it, Your Honor. It's the same.
JUSTICE CARPIO: Okay, so whoever wants to send it, he will have to get the private key from the BEI Chairman and the PIN numbers from the other members...
ATTY. LAZATIN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO: ...before they can send the electronic transmission.
ATTY. LAZATIN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO: Okay. That clarifies things. x x x.
63 782 Phil. 1306 (2016).
64Rollo (G.R. No. 206784), p. 14.
65 Id. at 69.
66 Id.
67 RULES OF COURT, Rule 71, Section 3.
68Rollo (G.R. No. 206719), pp. 108-109.
69Rollo (G.R. No. 207755), p. 91.
70 Id. at 98.
71Roxas, et al. v. Judge Tipon, et al., 688 Phil. 372, 382 (2012).
72Esperida, el al. v. Jurado. Jr., 686 Phil. 775, 783 (2012).
73 Id.