Case 2014-001_Decision 02212014

8/13/2019 Case 2014-001_Decision 02212014

1/13

1

The

CJTHEOFFICIALJUDICIALARM

of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NGATENO DEMANILA

TUDENT UDICIAL OURTS

ATENEO STUDENT JUDICIAL COURT

Ateneo de Manila University - Loyola SchoolsBarangay Loyola Heights, Quezon City

SANGGUNIAN VICE-PRESIDENTRYAN CARL YU, Case No. 2014-001SANGGUNIAN SECRETARY-GENERAL

ANTONIO RAFAEL ELICANO, SCHOOL OF

HUMANITIES CHAIRPERSONREDENTORJOHN DIMLA, SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENTSECRETARY-TREASURERALEXANDRAFELICE TANJANCO, 2

NDYR SCHOOL OF

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING CENTRAL

BOARD REPRESENTATIVEPAMELA GAERLAN, Promulgated:2

NDYR SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT CENTRAL February 21, 2014

BOARD REPRESENTATIVERAY CRISTOFERGOMEZ, IGNITE VICE-PRESIDENT FORINTERNALSVANESSA DEL ROSARIO,GABRIEL CRISANTO NOLASCO, JAMES

GREGORY TIENGPetitioner-Appellant

versus

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Respondent-Appellee

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

TO: Mr. Ryan Carl Yu, Sanggunian Vice-President, Ms. Denise Olondriz, COMELEC ChiefCommissioner, and Mr. Andrei Buendia, Constituent-Appellant

IN RE: Consolidated Decision on Motions for Reconsideration filed by COMELEC and Mr. Buendia

8/13/2019 Case 2014-001_Decision 02212014

2/13

2

The


of the



ATENEO STUDENT JUDICIAL COURT DECISION 02212014

EN BANC

PER CURIAM:

Pertinent to the cause of this decision are the following:

On February 19, 2014, Mr. Ryan Yu, Sanggunian Vice President, et al. (hereinafter referred to asthe Petitioner-Appellant) filed a petition to the Ateneo Commission on Elections (hereinafter

referred to as the Respondent-Appellee). The said petition prays for an extension of theSanggunian General Elections for two (2) days. The reasons for the said petition were insufficienttime allotted for the said event, technical errors during the voting proper, and inconsistencieswith the Respondents announcements, all of which contributing to undue voter fatigue.

Consequently on the same date, the Respondent dismissed the petition for extension. Thereasons for the dismissal were that the original election dates were unaffected by the allegedfatigue, that providing the option to vote through hard ballots effectively addressed the allegedissue of the voters system distrust, and that the Respondent presented sufficient computationsthat justified the adequacy of the time allotted for the voting proper.

Consequently on the same date still, the Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari to the AteneoStudent Judicial Court (hereinafter referred to as the Court). The said petition assails thevalidity of the provided computations and the effectiveness of the undertaken efforts of theRespondents in addressing the issue of voter fatigue.

On February 20, 2014, Mr. Andrei Buendia filed a Motion for Reconsideration praying to the Courtto review Decision 02202014 on the following arguments:

1) The argument regarding insufficient time does not establish any causalityregarding the failure of students to vote.

2) The argument regarding undue voting fatigue fails to argue why students are likely

to trust the COMELEC with an extension.3) The extension of elections allots votes to students who have already waived their

right to vote.4) The extension of elections causes students to respond to pressure as opposed to

willingness to participate in the elections.

Also on February 20, 2014, the Respondent-Appellee sent a similar Motion for Reconsiderationarguing that it had not been accorded due process, that its computations show that sufficienttime was given for students to vote, and that the option for the use of the hard ballot

8/13/2019 Case 2014-001_Decision 02212014

3/13

8/13/2019 Case 2014-001_Decision 02212014

4/13

8/13/2019 Case 2014-001_Decision 02212014

5/13

5

The


of the



Non-affected course 3 6,800 20,400

TOTAL - 8,000 24,000

Normal Elections

Day

No. of Hours the pollingplace was open

No. ofMinutes

No. oflaptops

Total computer timeper day(in minutes)

1 3 60 15 2,700

2 8 60 15 7,200

3 8 60 15 7,200

4 8 60 10 4,800

TOTAL 21,900

Elections for Affected Courses

Day

No. of Hours the pollingplace was open

No. ofMinutes

No. oflaptops

Total computertime per day(in minutes)

4 (excesshours)

1,500

extendedDay 1

8 60 3 1,440

extendedDay 2

8 60 3 1,440

8/13/2019 Case 2014-001_Decision 02212014

6/13

6

The


of the



TOTAL 4,380

Given that these computations show that enough time had actually been allotted for the conductof elections, the precedent established by Decision 02202011 in extending the election perioddoes not apply.

Moreover, the Court agrees with Respondent-Appellant that the computations made by

Petitioner-Appellant oversimplify the situation. For instance, Respondent-Appellee points outthat their numbers are not static, since the 8-hour period for the casting of votes was not strictlyadhered to in the sense of allowing students to vote even beyond the given period.

WHEREFORE, the Court rules that sufficient time had indeed been given by Respondent-Appellee for the casting of votes.

On Voter Fatigue and Disenfranchisement

With regard to voter fatigue, it can be safely said that the faulty system for casting votes may be

one of the causes, and that it is not the sole cause. The Court agrees that it is not quantifiabledue to the other factors that may affect one's choice not to vote. Even the efficiency of thepolling system is a cause, as many students were not able to vote due to the limited resources ofCOMELEC.

However, Petitioner-Appellants claim is not purely speculative as the Court would uphold. Thedoubt in the sanctity of the ballot and the security of the system as produced by COMELECserrors will not only discourage the voter, but further confuse him because of repeatedannouncements to return to the Operations Room just to make sure that his ballot has beencounted. In spite of these errors, COMELEC indeed took steps in order to ensure that voters whohad problems casting their ballots would have time to do it all over again. But the errors

constitute acts that deliver tangible damage that contribute to an environment of distrust in thesystem and thus must be acted upon.

While COMELEC took steps to mitigate the harm of voter fatigue, rendering it not completelyirreparable, COMELEC must rebuild the trust of the constituents when it comes to the electoralexercise. It is necessary in order to remove disenfranchisement and restore confidence in thisprocedure. The student body deserves free and efficient elections. No one else has the burden ofrebuilding this trust but COMELEC. According to Article XIV, Section 1 of the 2005 Constitution, it

8/13/2019 Case 2014-001_Decision 02212014

7/13

7

The


of the



is only COMELEC that has the power to call for, execute and manage elections. The best way forCOMELEC to restore this trust is to hold glitch-free, efficient election extensions.

However, still, the argument that extensions reduce voter fatigue is not tenable. The Courtagrees with both Motions for Reconsideration since some voters may be so fatigued that they willnot avail of extensions / concessions granted by COMELEC, but the many concessions COMELECmade in order to bring in voters who were affected by the system failure indeed called themback in. While an extension would have granted some students a longer period of discernment, itdoes not solve the fact that the system was faulty to begin with and had unexpected errors that

would lead the voting public and non-voting public to question the integrity of the elections. Itmerely compensates for the time lost because of these errors, but does not address the need forcertainty and proper elections among students. Thus extending the elections does not solve theproblem posed by Petitioner-Appellant.

WHEREFORE, the Court maintains that Respondent-Appelleesefforts to rectify their errorswere not sufficient, but that extending the election period was not the appropriate relief.

On the Use of Hard Ballots

On the issue of hard ballots, the Petitioner-Appellant argued that due to Multiple Technical

Errors and Inconsistencies, the student body has lost trust in the system the COMELEC wasproviding. The petitioners mentioned that the news of the faulty system spread fast thus causingmore doubt in the minds of possible voters:

Furthermore, incalculable damage has been done not only to the students who belong to theaffected courses but also to the rest of the student body, who had doubts regarding thefunctioning of the electronic system. Many students who could have and might have wanted tovote have become disenfranchised from doing so because the news regarding the faulty systemspread fast.

In response to this, Respondent-Appellee replied that voters were given the option to use hardballots so as to placate their mistrust towards the system:

all the voters were presented with the option to vote using hard ballots if they feltdisenfranchised and did not trust the system. Poll officers were instructed to let students voteusing hard ballots if it makes them feel safer. Based on observation, students have opted to voteusing the hard ballot for the said reason. Hence, the reason that students may not want to votebecause of a distrust of the system was accounted for by letting these students use the hardballots.

8/13/2019 Case 2014-001_Decision 02212014

8/13

8

The


of the



The Petitioner-Appellant again responded by saying that the use of hard ballots was notpublicized to the public and thus it does not answer the mistrust on the automated systems. Inaddition the Petitioner-Appellant argued that:

We disagree that the reason that students may not want to vote because of a distrust of thesystem was accounted for by letting these students use the hard ballots because by notpublicizing a definitive way to prove to students that their votes can be counted, be itthrough the fixing of the system or through hard ballot, such disenfranchisement was notaddressed. The idea that students used hard ballots was also based on observation, whichmeans that there is no evidence that the hard ballot system was significant enough in order toresolve the issue for the majority of Ateneans who were disenfranchised by the system.

Finally, in their motion for reconsideration, Respondent-Appellee states that the hard ballotsystem was set in place as a contingency in the event that lines became too long. In addition,COMELEC argues that there is insufficient data supporting the Petitioners claim that the studentbody was unaware of the option of using hard ballots. Also, the Respondent shows that thepromotions the COMELEC used in promoting the elections include the pictures of both acomputer and a hard ballot. COMELEC also uses the fact that the concerned voters are assumedto have been through the Freshman Elections held last October, 2013 thus they should be awareof the hard ballot system:

The promo clearly shows a computer (option for voting using the automated system) plus a hardballot (option for voting using the manual system) equals the General Elections 2014. Though onemay argue that hard ballots are symbols for elections, computers are not. Hence, in the promo,we are not merely showing symbols for elections but showing the means in order for people to casttheir votes (as also indicated by the plus and the equal signs). Lastly, these voters have gonethrough at least one election (the Freshmen and Special Elections) whether or not they voted,hence, these people would know more about the elections than some people may assume.

With the facts provided above, the Court believes that the initial argument of the Petitioner hasmerit in that a system failure may cause mistrust from the student body. However, with the hardballot system in place, the Court believes that the fear of a system failure is remedied by having

the vote become a manual vote rather than an automated vote.

In response to the Petitioners argument of lack of publicity, the COMELECs promotional posterfor the elections should have been a guide for voters to decide whether they wanted to use theautomated system or a hard ballot.

However, in response to the argument of the Respondent-Appellee on the fact that most of thevoters have been through the Freshmen elections and thus being more knowledgeable on the

8/13/2019 Case 2014-001_Decision 02212014

9/13

8/13/2019 Case 2014-001_Decision 02212014

10/13

10

The


of the



discarded and thereby allowed to re-cast his vote, and the student who waived his right to voteby abstaining from the elections altogether, is to partially reveal a private choice made, theanonymity of which should remain totally inviolate. As such, an initial reading of the methodproposed by Mr. Buendia raises legitimate doubts.

However, this Court does agree with Mr. Buendia that giving students who waived their right tovote the privilege to vote again is unethical in that it violates the principle of equity asarticulated supra. This should not have been the case. Extending the voting period for all coursesgives such undue privilege to students who opted not to vote. Worse still, as Mr. Buendia points

out, it is to invite the possibility that the students whose votes were discarded were given undueprivilege to change their votes without anyone ever knowing (though they are still entitled to acounted vote). To do so, this Court believes, is indeed unethical and runs counter to theprinciples of democracy enshrined in the 2005 Constitution.

This leaves us with no other choice than to reconsider the method of maintaining a list ofstudents whose votes were discarded. This Court upholds the anonymity and the sanctity of theballot. However, we also believe that if executed prudently by COMELEC, this same anonymitycould have been preserved without cost. One way of going about it is to specify in general termsthat only those students who have cast their votes may return to the polling stations to exercisetheir right to a counted vote. Such a list would, intuitively, be integrated into the program that

recognizes the name of said student and would allow him to vote. COMELEC must have providedassurance, in which case, that the identities of these people would not be revealed.

In any case, the Court agrees with Mr. Buendia that a more prudent approach to the issue of asystems failure was in order, with special emphasis on both the denial of a privilege to vote ifone had not voted during the allotted period, and the assurance of anonymity in the case ofmaintaining a list of eligible voters during the extension period. Such would have been the mostequitable response.

WHEREFORE, the Court accepts Mr. Buendias argument that an undue expansion of thevoter pool occurred as a result of extending the election period.

On Response to Pressure vs. Response to Will

Mr. Buendia argues that the extension of the elections would, in the same speculative spirit usedby Petitioner-Appellant in asserting disenfranchisement, perhaps lead to the student bodyresponding to the elections as a result of pressure and not any real will or desire to participate.He says:

8/13/2019 Case 2014-001_Decision 02212014

11/13

11

The


of the



Democracy has never been about imposing participation. This is the very reason we are allowedto abstain or are not criminalized in the event that we do not vote. It is an individuals judgmentto make if he or she will vote. In not voting, the student may believe that there is not much that astudent government can do for him or her. In not voting, the student may just believe that none ofthe candidates running are deserving of the position they are trying to close in on. Democracy hasalways been about respecting individual choices.

In fact, the approach of the candidates as to how they encourage voters has drastically changedfrom the initial week of election to the present. There has been a shift in the sense that there ispressure by advocating the urgent need for a Sanggunian. While it is a valid belief that there is an

urgent need for a Sanggunian, it is not for this reason that students should wish to vote. Ideally,students should exercise the right to vote because they recognize the value of that individual rightto vote. The vote in itself has to be an end to their political participation as opposed to a meansto an end. This is because your vote does not assure that you will get your desired results. In livingin a community, it has to be realized that an act cannot have an immediate end and this is whythe act in itself has to have an end, already.

The Court agrees that the right to vote must not be used to impose participation, or thatstudents must exercise their right to vote as an end in itself out of their own volition, absent anyunderlying pressure. The question that must be asked here is whether extending the electionwould lead to such circumstances. Presumably, what Mr. Buendia has in mind is that extendingthe elections creates an environment where a student, who perhaps knowingly opted not to voteduring the original election dates, would feel obligated to vote because the extension is justifiedprecisely on the grounds of accommodating his freely uncast vote. Mr. Buendia cites hisobservation of a Sanggunian that, in a fashion done in the name of a valid belief that there is anurgent need for a Sanggunian, has made such a need apparent, bordering on or constitutive ofsaid pressure.

From the above analysis, it can be gleaned that such pressure exerted on students to vote maycome from two sources, though not entirely separate. The first is the Sanggunian itself (and thecandidates running for office), which very recently in a shift described by Mr. Buendia hasadvocated the need to vote. The Court cannot say that such a campaign per se can be validlyconstrued as pressure. The act of encouraging students to vote in a manner that is not coerciveconstitutes a valid political exercise. Absent any evidence of individual instances of forcingstudents to vote, such pressure remains immaterial.

The second source is the extension of the elections. The Court must grapple with the question:does the act of extending the elections give sufficient reason to believe that such act may beprobable cause for exerting pressure on the students to vote? A comparison must be made withhow the Court decided that COMELECs errors and inconsistencies constituted probable cause for

8/13/2019 Case 2014-001_Decision 02212014

12/13

12

The


of the



disenfranchisement for creating an environment of distrust. As per Decision 02202014, this Courtruled:

In the first place, COMELECs numerous technical errors and inconsistent announcements givesufficient reason to believe that the circumstances arising from such shortcomings have created anenvironment susceptible to general distrust in and confusion regarding the electoral process. TheCourt does not fault Respondent-Appellee for the technical errors or inconsistent announcementsin themselves because COMELEC has responded to these appropriately by fixing said errors andallowing the students whose votes were not counted to vote again, having given a two-dayextension to accomplish this. However, it must be impressed upon Respondent-Appellee that

scenarios where voters may have been disenfranchised due to their shortcomings are notfarfetched. Discouragement from voting due to a system compromised by deficiencies, as well asinconsistent and confusing statements, gives probable cause for disenfranchisement.

Mr. Buendia believes that the errors committed by COMELEC were at best only one of the reasonsthat students were discouraged from voting. Given this, the Court sought to rectify this becausea fundamental trust has been breached and such necessitated intervention. Needless to say,even if an error was only one of the factors contributing to general discouragement or distrust,the fact that damage has been done requires immediate remedy.

The same cannot be said of the pressure to vote. Because we have established suprathat the

actions of Sanggunian in encouraging students to vote, ostensibly continuing such actions duringthe extension period, constitutes no act of impropriety or causes no damage in the absence ofcoercion, whatever pressure that must have been felt is incommensurate with the distrust thatis borne of a systems failure and inconsistent statements. To fault COMELECs errors for onesdistrust in the system is to trace the distrust to a damaging act. To fault the Sangguniansattempts to encourage students to vote for the pressure to vote, however, is to trace suchpressure to a source that is not liable for ones choices. Ultimately, in the absence of such realsource of damage (such as actual coercion), the action of voting can still be legally said to bedone in the voters sovereign capacity.

Thus while Mr. Buendias belief in the act of voting as inherently an act of the will and not

supposedly the result of pressure is laudable and politically correct, no tangible and legallyprovable instantiations of pressure have been presented before this Court in order to discreditthe extension. The issue remains nonjusticiable and so the Court cannot accept Mr. Buendiasexplanation.

WHEREFORE, the Court rejects Mr. Buendias argument that extending the election periodproduced the harm of making students vote due to pressure and not out of their own will.

8/13/2019 Case 2014-001_Decision 02212014

13/13

13

The


of the



RULING

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Decision 02202014 (Decision on Petition for ReviewRe: COMELEC Decision on Petition for Extension of the Electoral Period for the 2014Sanggunian General Elections) is hereby

REVERSED.

Respondent-Appellee is ordered to cease and desist the conduct of elections. All votes cast

from February 20, 2014 onward are to be VOIDED.

Moreover, as is just and equitable for the assurance of free and honest elections,Respondent-Appellee is hereby ordered to release a comprehensive and detailed report ontheir actions during the elections, especially regarding the system errors, and provide proofthat the sanctity of the ballot was preserved.

SO ORDERED.

Roy Lambert Guerra, Chief Magistrate

Leo Francis Abot, Magistrate for Internal Affairs Administration

Danielle Joanna Gaite, Magistrate for Audit

Lorenzo Pepito, Magistrate for Human Resources

Ryan Gregory Nicolas, Magistrate for External Affairs

Aldwin Segismundo, Magistrate for Project and Operations Management

Case 2014-001_Decision 02212014

Documents

Transcript of Case 2014-001_Decision 02212014