You are on page 1of 13

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

ATENEO STUDENT JUDICIAL COURT Ateneo de Manila University - Loyola Schools Barangay Loyola Heights, Quezon City

SANGGUNIAN VICE-PRESIDENT RYAN CARL YU, SANGGUNIAN SECRETARY-GENERAL ANTONIO RAFAEL ELICANO, SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES CHAIRPERSON REDENTOR JOHN DIMLA, SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT SECRETARY-TREASURER ALEXANDRA FELICE TANJANCO, 2ND YR SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING CENTRAL BOARD REPRESENTATIVE PAMELA GAERLAN, 2ND YR SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT CENTRAL BOARD REPRESENTATIVE RAY CRISTOFER GOMEZ, IGNITE VICE-PRESIDENT FOR INTERNALS VANESSA DEL ROSARIO, GABRIEL CRISANTO NOLASCO, JAMES GREGORY TIENG Petitioner-Appellant

Case No. 2014-001

Promulgated: February 21, 2014

versus

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Respondent-Appellee x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x TO: Mr. Ryan Carl Yu, Sanggunian Vice-President, Ms. Denise Olondriz, COMELEC Chief Commissioner, and Mr. Andrei Buendia, Constituent-Appellant IN RE: Consolidated Decision on Motions for Reconsideration filed by COMELEC and Mr. Buendia

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

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 as the 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 the Sanggunian General Elections for two (2) days. The reasons for the said petition were insufficient time allotted for the said event, technical errors during the voting proper, and inconsistencies with the Respondents announcements, all of which contributing to undue voter fatigue. Consequently on the same date, the Respondent dismissed the petition for extension. The reasons for the dismissal were that the original election dates were unaffected by the alleged fatigue, that providing the option to vote through hard ballots effectively addressed the alleged issue of the voters system distrust, and that the Respondent presented sufficient computations that 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 Ateneo Student Judicial Court (hereinafter referred to as the Court). The said petition assails the validity of the provided computations and the effectiveness of the undertaken efforts of the Respondents in addressing the issue of voter fatigue. On February 20, 2014, Mr. Andrei Buendia filed a Motion for Reconsideration praying to the Court to review Decision 02202014 on the following arguments: 1) The argument regarding insufficient time does not establish any causality regarding 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 Reconsideration arguing that it had not been accorded due process, that its computations show that sufficient time was given for students to vote, and that the option for the use of the hard ballot
2

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

guaranteed an alternative to automated voting in the case that students did not trust the system. The following is the Courts consolidated decision on both Motions for Reconsideration. xxx On Due Process Respondent-Appellees Motion for Reconsideration contends that a breach in due process had been made because the Court gave a ruling given that Petitioner-Appellant had made the appeal before Respondent-Appellee had released its official decision. The following is a chronology of events on February 19 leading to the petition for certiorari filed by Yu, et al. on the same date.

12:18 PM: Sanggunian Vice President and Presidential candidate Ryan Yu filed via email an appeal to the Ateneo Commission on Elections for the extension of the 2014 Sanggunian General Elections. 03:53 PM: COMELEC Chief Commissioner Denise Olondriz sent via text an unofficial and incomplete decision of the rejection of the appeal to Mr. Yu. 05:36 PM: SJC Magistrate for Audit Danielle Gaite asks Ms. Olondriz to send via email to the SJC the official decision regarding the appeal for extension. 04:31 PM: Mr. Yu informed via phone call SJC Chief Magistrate Roy Guerra about the decision of COMELEC to reject the appeal for an extension sent by the former. 06:34 PM: Ms. Olondriz sent via email the said decision of COMELEC to SJC. 08:00 PM: COMELEC sent via email the same decision to Mr. Yu. 09:21 PM: Mr. Yu sent via email to the SJC the petition for certiorari on the dismissal of the appeal to extend the elections. The email also included the appeal for an extension of the elections from Mr. Yu, et al., and the official decision of COMELEC rejecting the said appeal. 04:49 AM. of February 20, 2014: SJC released a decision dismissing the rejection of the appeal for extension.

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that it has erred in facilitating due process given it has started deliberating on the petition shortly after receipt of the same. The Court, moreover, errs for not having provided COMELEC with an opportunity to be heard, as the time -honored principle of due process demands, by deliberating en banc on the petition prima facie. The Court similarly invokes Ocampo v. Ombudsman (2000)1:
1

GR No. 114683
3

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

The essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard. One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps even many times more creditably and practicable than oral argument, through pleadings. In administrative proceedings, moreover, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied; administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict judicial sense.

The Court remains committed to upholding due process of law. Such an omission on the part of the Court is enough to review and overturn any decision it has made summarily. WHEREFORE, the Court accepts Respondent-Appellees argument that it was not accorded due process of law. On Insufficient Time The Court agrees with the filed Motion for Reconsideration that the claim of the appeal for extensions filed by Petitioner-Appellant was merely self-serving. No further quantitative evidence validates this to any statistically acceptable and representative degree. As such, the computations, particularly the established time required to vote, should be treated as an insufficiently supported value and cannot be given the weight it seeks to support the initial petition. Furthermore, the initial time provided by the very first study in the chronology of events, the one from Mr. Cabrera, works against the petition it sought to support given that it admitted that COMELEC had indeed more than enough time to conduct the elections and reach the quota for the required number votes if we make the computations separately, which supports the decision from COMELEC to reject the appeal for extension and the Motion for Reconsideration from Mr. Buendia. Respondent-Appellee sufficiently justifies making the computations separate because they take into account the fact that a separate time had been given for the affected and unaffected students to vote, and that the fact that affected and unaffected students also voted during the first two and a half days is mitigated by the fact that the systems error had not yet been known, thus preventing any disenfranchisement. It can be gleaned from the computations infra that there had been an excess amount of time provided for both the cases of those students from affected courses and those not affected for both the cases of those students of courses affected and those not affected.

Time taken to vote (in minutes) Affected course 3

No. of students 1,200

Total time (in minutes) 3,600


4

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

Non-affected course TOTAL

3 -

6,800 8,000

20,400 24,000

Normal Elections

No. of Hours the polling place was open Day 1 2 3 4 TOTAL Elections for Affected Courses 3 8 8 8 No. of Minutes 60 60 60 60 No. of laptops 15 15 15 10

Total computer time per day (in minutes) 2,700 7,200 7,200 4,800 21,900

No. of Hours the polling place was open Day 4 (excess hours) extended Day 1 extended Day 2 8 8 60 60 3 3 No. of Minutes No. of laptops

Total computer time per day (in minutes) 1,500 1,440 1,440

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

TOTAL

4,380

Given that these computations show that enough time had actually been allotted for the conduct of elections, the precedent established by Decision 02202011 in extending the election period does not apply. Moreover, the Court agrees with Respondent-Appellant that the computations made by Petitioner-Appellant oversimplify the situation. For instance, Respondent-Appellee points out that their numbers are not static, since the 8-hour period for the casting of votes was not strictly adhered 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 RespondentAppellee 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 quantifiable due to the other factors that may affect one's choice not to vote. Even the efficiency of the polling system is a cause, as many students were not able to vote due to the limited resources of COMELEC. However, Petitioner-Appellants claim is not purely speculative as the Court would uphold . The doubt in the sanctity of the ballot and the security of the system as produced by COMELECs errors will not only discourage the voter, but further confuse him because of repeated announcements to return to the Operations Room just to make sure that his ballot has been counted. In spite of these errors, COMELEC indeed took steps in order to ensure that voters who had 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 the system and thus must be acted upon. While COMELEC took steps to mitigate the harm of voter fatigue, rendering it not completely irreparable, COMELEC must rebuild the trust of the constituents when it comes to the electoral exercise. It is necessary in order to remove disenfranchisement and restore confidence in this procedure. The student body deserves free and efficient elections. No one else has the burden of rebuilding this trust but COMELEC. According to Article XIV, Section 1 of the 2005 Constitution, it
6

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

is only COMELEC that has the power to call for, execute and manage elections. The best way for COMELEC 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 Court agrees with both Motions for Reconsideration since some voters may be so fatigued that they will not avail of extensions / concessions granted by COMELEC, but the many concessions COMELEC made in order to bring in voters who were affected by the system failure indeed called them back in. While an extension would have granted some students a longer period of discernment, it does 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. It merely compensates for the time lost because of these errors, but does not address the need for certainty and proper elections among students. Thus extending the elections does not solve the problem posed by Petitioner-Appellant. WHEREFORE, the Court maintains that Respondent-Appellees efforts to rectify their errors were 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 was providing. The petitioners mentioned that the news of the faulty system spread fast thus causing more doubt in the minds of possible voters:
Furthermore, incalculable damage has been done not only to the students who belong to the affected courses but also to the rest of the student body, who had doubts regarding the functioning of the electronic system. Many students who could have and might have wanted to vote have become disenfranchised from doing so because the news regarding the faulty system spread fast.

In response to this, Respondent-Appellee replied that voters were given the option to use hard ballots so as to placate their mistrust towards the system:
all the voters were presented with the option to vote using hard ballots if they felt disenfranchised and did not trust the system. Poll officers were instructed to let students vote using hard ballots if it makes them feel safer. Based on observation, students have opted to vote using the hard ballot for the said reason. Hence, the reason that students may not want to vote because of a distrust of the system was accounted for by letting these students use the hard ballots.

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

The Petitioner-Appellant again responded by saying that the use of hard ballots was not publicized to the public and thus it does not answer the mistrust on the automated systems. In addition the Petitioner-Appellant argued that:
We disagree that the reason that students may not want to vote because of a distrust of the system was accounted for by letting these students use the hard ballots because by not publicizing a definitive way to prove to students that their votes can be counted, be it through the fixing of the system or through hard ballot, such disenfranchisement was not addressed. The idea that students used hard ballots was also based on observation, which means that there is no evidence that the hard ballot system was significant enough in order to resolve 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 ballot system 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 student body was unaware of the option of using hard ballots. Also, the Respondent shows that the promotions the COMELEC used in promoting the elections include the pictures of both a computer and a hard ballot. COMELEC also uses the fact that the concerned voters are assumed to have been through the Freshman Elections held last October, 2013 thus they should be aware of the hard ballot system:
The promo clearly shows a computer (option for voting using the automated system) plus a hard ballot (option for voting using the manual system) equals the General Elections 2014. Though one may 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 cast their votes (as also indicated by the plus and the equal signs). Lastly, these voters have gone through 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 has merit in that a system failure may cause mistrust from the student body. However, with the hard ballot 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 poster for the elections should have been a guide for voters to decide whether they wanted to use the automated system or a hard ballot. However, in response to the argument of the Respondent-Appellee on the fact that most of the voters have been through the Freshmen elections and thus being more knowledgeable on the
8

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

rules, the Court disagrees on this opinion as there was no data to support that the voters were informed of hard ballot from the said elections. On the whole, the Court believes that the argument of the Petitioner-Appellant, on the issue of publicizing the use of hard ballots for the general elections, is incorrect in that the RespondentAppellee was able to instruct their Poll Watchers to offer the use of the hard ballot system and that the promotional material was a guide to the voters. WHEREFORE, the Court accepts Respondent-Appellees argument that allowing for the use of hard ballots provided a legitimate alternative to using the automated system and was an effort on the part of Respondent-Appellee to mitigate damage done for errors in the system. On the Undue Expansion of the Voter Pool Mr. Buendia argues that the extension of the election to all courses affected by the systems error unduly gave those who waived their right to vote a second chance to vote:
Conceding that those whose votes were discarded due to the systems failure, what must be considered is that not all of the members of these respective courses did not exercise their right to vote. The extension of the election suddenly gave people who already waived their right to vote, by virtue of non-participation in the original period of election, a renewed right to vote. This is unethical in the sense that when an individual abstains from voting, they are not allowed to change their vote.

Two schools of thought emerge in the interpretation of the issue. One is anchored on an understanding of equity, where a premium is placed on giving everyone affected by the systems error a renewed opportunity to cast his vote. The other is anchored on a different understanding of equity, where one asserts that a voter who previously waived his right to vote (counting as an abstention) should not be given the chance to change his previous choice by casting his vote, on the grounds that such privilege has no basis other than the fact that the names of the students whose votes have been discarded have not been retrieved, thereby necessitating the extension of such right to all students of affected courses. This proves to be a difficult issue to resolve because of the burden of choosing one principle of equity over another. The proper way to approach this, we believe, is to explore the possibilities by which alternative circumstances would have prevented the occurrence of such a dilemma. Mr. Buendia contends that the proper way to have gone about addressing the problems posed by the systems error was to maintain a list of voters whose votes were discarded and only allowed those students from these 19 blocks to vote. At first glance such a method seems to threaten the anonymity of the ballot. To create the distinction between the voter whose vote was
9

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

discarded and thereby allowed to re-cast his vote, and the student who waived his right to vote by abstaining from the elections altogether, is to partially reveal a private choice made, the anonymity of which should remain totally inviolate. As such, an initial reading of the method proposed by Mr. Buendia raises legitimate doubts. However, this Court does agree with Mr. Buendia that giving students who waived their right to vote the privilege to vote again is unethical in that it violates the principle of equity as articulated supra. This should not have been the case. Extending the voting period for all courses gives 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 undue privilege to change their votes without anyone ever knowing (though they are still entitled to a counted vote). To do so, this Court believes, is indeed unethical and runs counter to the principles of democracy enshrined in the 2005 Constitution. This leaves us with no other choice than to reconsider the method of maintaining a list of students whose votes were discarded. This Court upholds the anonymity and the sanctity of the ballot. However, we also believe that if executed prudently by COMELEC, this same anonymity could have been preserved without cost. One way of going about it is to specify in general terms that only those students who have cast their votes may return to the polling stations to exercise their 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 provided assurance, 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 a systems failure was in order, with special emphasis on both the denial of a privilege to vote if one had not voted during the allotted period, and the assurance of anonymity in the case of maintaining a list of eligible voters during the extension period. Such would have been the most equitable response. WHEREFORE, the Court accepts Mr. Buendias argument that an undue expansion of the voter 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 used by Petitioner-Appellant in asserting disenfranchisement, perhaps lead to the student body responding to the elections as a result of pressure and not any real will or desire to participate. He says:

10

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

Democracy has never been about imposing participation. This is the very reason we are allowed to abstain or are not criminalized in the event that we do not vote. It is an individuals judgment to make if he or she will vote. In not voting, the student may believe that there is not much that a student government can do for him or her. In not voting, the student may just believe that none of the candidates running are deserving of the position they are trying to close in on. Democracy has always been about respecting individual choices. In fact, the approach of the candidates as to how they encourage voters has drastically changed from the initial week of election to the present. There has been a shift in the sense that there is pressure 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 right to vote. The vote in itself has to be an end to their political participation as opposed to a means to an end. This is because your vote does not assure that you will get your desired results. In living in a community, it has to be realized that an act cannot have an immediate end and this is why the 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 that students must exercise their right to vote as an end in itself out of their own volition, absent any underlying pressure. The question that must be asked here is whether extending the election would lead to such circumstances. Presumably, what Mr. Buendia has in mind is that extending the elections creates an environment where a student, who perhaps knowingly opted not to vote during the original election dates, would feel obligated to vote because the extension is justified precisely on the grounds of accommodating his freely uncast vote. Mr. Buendia cites his observation of a Sanggunian that, in a fashion done in the name of a valid belief that there is an urgent need for a Sanggunian, has made such a need apparent, bordering on or constitutive of said pressure. From the above analysis, it can be gleaned that such pressure exerted on students to vote may come from two sources, though not entirely separate. The first is the Sanggunian itself (and the candidates running for office), which very recently in a shift described by Mr. Buendia has advocated the need to vote. The Court cannot say that such a campaign per se can be validly construed as pressure. The act of encouraging students to vote in a manner that is not coercive constitutes a valid political exercise. Absent any evidence of individual instances of forcing students 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 be probable cause for exerting pressure on the students to vote? A comparison must be made with how the Court decided that COMELECs errors and inconsistencies constituted probable cause for
11

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

disenfranchisement for creating an environment of distrust. As per Decision 02202014, this Court ruled:
In the first place, COMELECs numerous technical errors and inconsistent announcements give sufficient reason to believe that the circumstances arising from such shortcomings have created an environment susceptible to general distrust in and confusion regarding the electoral process. The Court does not fault Respondent-Appellee for the technical errors or inconsistent announcements in themselves because COMELEC has responded to these appropriately by fixing said errors and allowing the students whose votes were not counted to vote again, having given a two-day extension to accomplish this. However, it must be impressed upon Respondent-Appellee that scenarios where voters may have been disenfranchised due to their shortcomings are not farfetched. Discouragement from voting due to a system compromised by deficiencies, as well as inconsistent and confusing statements, gives probable cause for disenfranchisement.

Mr. Buendia believes that the errors committed by COMELEC were at best only one of the reasons that students were discouraged from voting. Given this, the Court sought to rectify this because a 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 supra that the actions of Sanggunian in encouraging students to vote, ostensibly continuing such actions during the extension period, constitutes no act of impropriety or causes no damage in the absence of coercion, whatever pressure that must have been felt is incommensurate with the distrust that is borne of a systems failure and inconsistent statements. To fault COMELECs errors for ones distrust in the system is to trace the distrust to a damaging act. To fault the Sanggunians attempts to encourage students to vote for the pressure to vote, however, is to trace such pressure to a source that is not liable for ones choices. Ultimately, in the absence of such real source of damage (such as actual coercion), the action of voting can still be legally said to be done 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 legally provable instantiations of pressure have been presented before this Court in order to discredit the extension. The issue remains nonjusticiable and so the Court cannot accept Mr. Buendias explanation. WHEREFORE, the Court rejects Mr. Buendias argument that extending the election period produced the harm of making students vote due to pressure and not out of their own will.

12

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

RULING WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Decision 02202014 (Decision on Petition for Review Re: COMELEC Decision on Petition for Extension of the Electoral Period for the 2014 Sanggunian 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 on their actions during the elections, especially regarding the system errors, and provide proof that 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

13

You might also like