The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) cannot be compelled to conduct manual counting of votes at the precinct level in the Automated Election System (AES) for local and national elections.

It said that under Article IX-C, Section 232 of the Constitution, the Comelec is vested with broad authority to enforce and administer election laws.

It also said “this discretionary power includes determining the most effective means of ensuring fair, orderly, and credible elections.”

Thus, it pointed out that Republic Act No. 9369, the Automated Election Law, does not mandate a simultaneous manual count.

“Instead, it requires the AES to include a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system and other minimum system capabilities which are the minimum safeguards provided by Law,” the SC said.

The mechanism, it also said, “allows voters to confirm their ballots and provides an inherent safeguard, rendering a precinct-level manual count unnecessary.”

The SC ruling was contained in a full court decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh and made public last May 14.

The decision dismissed for lack of merit the petition of a group led by Bishops Gerardo A. Alminaza and Jose C. M. Bagaforo.

On Jan. 2, 2025, Alminaza’s group of concerned citizens, taxpayers and registered voters wrote to the Comelec and asked for the issuance of rules for the manual counting of votes at the precinct level.

When the group’s plea was not acted upon by the Comelec, it filed a petition before the SC.

It told the SC that the Comelec’s failure or refusal to issue the necessary rules and regulations constitutes grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

It claimed that under Section 31 of RA 9369, official ballots must be read by the chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEis) at the precinct level in a public and transparent manner, ensuring an unimpeded view of the election process.

It also told the SC that the Comelec’s use of coded details in the publication of precinct-level results effectively conceals election data from the public, and thus, violates the transparency requirement of RA 9369.

But the SC decision stated that the Comelec’s decision to forgo manual counting falls within the poll body’s authority under the AES.

The SC said that a plain reading of RA 9369 “in its entirety reveals that the legislative intent was to modernize the Philippine electoral process through the implementation of an AES.”

It pointed out that RA 9369 mandated the automation of elections to ensure that vote counting, tabulation, and consolidation are conducted through a secure and tamper-proof automated system.

At the same time, it said that RA 9369 prescribes the minimum system capabilities of the AES, “requiring an auditable and accurate count of votes at the precinct level” and “the provision reinforces the statutory shift from manual to automated counting.”

It also pointed out that it has consistently upheld the sufficiency of the AES in ensuring electoral transparency and accuracy. It said that it has ruled that “the use of automated vote-counting machines complies with statutory and constitutional mandates for a fair and credible electoral process.”

“Thus, relying on manual counting as the primary method of tabulation contradicts established jurisprudence and legislative intent behind RA 9369. Alminaza, et al. 's arguments fail to account for the policy shift that replaced the manual system with an automated and verifiable election process,” the SC said.

It also pointed out that the contention of Alminaza’s group that manual counting remains a mandatory requirement “is contrary to both the plain text and spirit of Republic Act No. 9369.”

The SC ruled: “In sum, Alminaza, et al's allegations of grave abuse of discretion fail to demonstrate any capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary action on the part of the Comelec. The AES is equipped with sufficient transparency safeguards, and the absence of a manual counting requirement does not constitute a denial of due process. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit.”