(DIGESTED-Midterms) Reference Case #2
(DIGESTED-Midterms) Reference Case #2
(DIGESTED-Midterms) Reference Case #2
Brillantes v. Comelec
G.R. No. 163193
June 15, 2004
FACTS:
On December 22, 1997, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8436 authorizing the COMELEC to use an automated
election system (AES) for the process of voting, counting of votes and canvassing/consolidating the results of the
national and local elections. On April 28, 2004, COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 6712 which was captioned as
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION AND CONSOLIDATION OF ADVANCED RESULTS
IN THE MAY 10, 2004 ELECTIONS.
However, the petitioner assails that there is no provision under Rep. Act No. 8436 which authorizes the COMELEC to
engage in the biometrics/computerized system of validation of voters (Phase I) and a system of electronic transmission
of election results (Phase III). Even assuming for the nonce that all the three (3) phases are duly authorized, they must
complement each other as they are not distinct and separate programs but mere stages of one whole scheme.
Consequently, considering the failed implementation of Phases I and II, there is no basis at all for the respondent
COMELEC to still push through and pursue with Phase III. The petitioner essentially posits that the counting and
consolidation of votes contemplated under Section 6 of Rep. Act No. 8436 refers to the official COMELEC count under
the fully automated system and not any kind of “unofficial” count via electronic transmission of advanced results as
now provided under the assailed resolution.
ISSUE:
RULING:
First: The implementation of the assailed resolution obviously involves the expenditure of funds, the petitioner and the
petitioners-in-intervention, as taxpayers, possess the requisite standing to question its validity as they have sufficient
interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation. In essence, taxpayers are allowed to sue
where there is a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds, or that public money is being deflected to any improper
purpose, or where the petitioners seek to restrain the respondent from wasting public funds through the enforcement of
an invalid or unconstitutional law.
Second: The Court does not agree with the posture of the respondent COMELEC that the issue involved in the present
petition is a political question beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to review. As the leading case of Tañada vs. Cuenco
put it, political questions are concerned with “issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure.”
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
The issue raised in the present petition does not merely concern the wisdom of the assailed resolution but focuses on its
alleged disregard for applicable statutory and constitutional provisions. In other words, the petitioner and the
petitioners-in-intervention are questioning the legality of the respondent COMELEC’s administrative issuance will not
preclude this Court from exercising its power of judicial review to determine whether or not there was grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent COMELEC in issuing Resolution No.
6712.