Scribd
Upload
416 views

G.R. No. 199149 January 22, 2013 LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, Petitioner, House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Elmer E. PANOTES, Respondents

The case involved an electoral protest filed by Liwayway Vinzons-Chato after losing the 2010 election for representative of Camarines Norte's Second Legislative District to Elmer Panotes. During the revision of ballots for selected precincts, a discrepancy was found between physical counts and election returns. Panotes argued the integrity of the ballots and boxes could not be established, so ballot images stored digitally should be used instead. The HRET agreed and directed copying the images. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled the ballot images, as electronic records of votes, could be considered "official ballots" and used in the electoral protest in place of the original paper ballots.

Uploaded by

Alia Arnz-Dragon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
416 views

G.R. No. 199149 January 22, 2013 LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, Petitioner, House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Elmer E. PANOTES, Respondents

The case involved an electoral protest filed by Liwayway Vinzons-Chato after losing the 2010 election for representative of Camarines Norte's Second Legislative District to Elmer Panotes. During the revision of ballots for selected precincts, a discrepancy was found between physical counts and election returns. Panotes argued the integrity of the ballots and boxes could not be established, so ballot images stored digitally should be used instead. The HRET agreed and directed copying the images. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled the ballot images, as electronic records of votes, could be considered "official ballots" and used in the electoral protest in place of the original paper ballots.

Uploaded by

Alia Arnz-Dragon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

199149 January 22, 2013

LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, Petitioner,


vs.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and ELMER E.
PANOTES, Respondents.

FACTS:

A consolidated cases involving the use of the picture images of ballots as the equivalent of the
original paper ballots for purposes of determining the true will of the electorate in the Second
Legislative District of Camarines Norte.
Liwayway Vinzons-Chato (Chato) renewed her bid in the May 10, 2010 elections as representative
of the Second Legislative District of Camarines Norte.

Chato lost to Elmer Panotes. She filed an electoral protest before the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET).

Chato designated forty (40) pilot clustered precincts, equivalent to 25% of the total number of
protested clustered precincts, in which revision of ballots shall be conducted.The initial revision of
ballots showed a substantial discrepancy between the votes of the parties per physical count vis-a-
vis their votes per election returns.

Panotes lost no time in moving for the suspension of the proceedings in the case, and praying that a
preliminary hearing be set in order to determine first the integrity of the ballots and the ballot boxes
used in the elections. He further urged that, should it be shown during such hearing that the ballots
and ballot boxes were not preserved, the HRET should direct the printing of the picture images of
the ballots of the questioned precincts stored in the data storage device for said precincts.

The HRET directed the copying of the picture image files of ballots relative to the protest.

Chato, however, moved for the cancellation of the decryption and copying of ballot images arguing
inter alia that there was no legal basis therefor and that the HRET had not issued any guidelines
governing the exercise thereof.

Notwithstanding, the decryption and copying proceeded.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the pictures images of the ballots may be considered as an “official ballots" or the
equivalent of the original paper ballots which the voters filled out.

RULING:

Section 2 (3) of R.A. No. 9369 defines "official ballot" where AES is utilized as the "paper ballot,
whether printed or generated by the technology applied, that faithfully captures or represents the
votes cast by a voter recorded or to be recorded in electronic form."
An automated election system, or AES, is a system using appropriate technology which has been
demonstrated in the voting, counting, consolidating, canvassing, and transmission of election result,
and other electoral process.32 There are two types of AES identified under R.A. No. 9369: (1) paper-
based election system; and (2) direct recording electronic election system. A paper-based election
system, such as the one adopted during the May 10, 2010 elections, is the type of AES that "use
paper ballots, records and counts votes, tabulates, consolidates/canvasses and transmits
electronically the results of the vote count."33 On the other hand, direct recording electronic election
system "uses electronic ballots, records, votes by means of a ballot display provided with
mechanical or electro-optical component that can be activated by the voter, processes data by
means of computer programs, record voting data and ballot images, and transmits voting results
electronically."34

The Court agree, therefore, with both the HRET and Panotes that the picture images of the ballots,
as scanned and recorded by the PCOS, are likewise "official ballots" that faithfully captures in
electronic form the votes cast by the voter, as defined by Section 2 (3) of R.A. No. 9369. As such,
the printouts thereof are the functional equivalent of the paper ballots filled out by the voters and,
thus, may be used for purposes of revision of votes in an electoral protest.

Significantly, the HRET declared that, although the actual ballots used in the May 10, 2010 elections
are the best evidence of the will of the voters, the picture images of the ballots are regarded as the
equivalent of the original, citing Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, which reads:

Sec. 1. Original of an electronic document. – An electronic document shall be regarded as


the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or
output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately.

Sec. 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. – When a document is in two or more copies
executed at or about the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by
the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic
re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which
accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the
equivalent of the original.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the
original if:

(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or

(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the
original.

You might also like