By JOSIAH DAVID QUISING
Bulatlat.com

MANILA — “I am really for a hybridized system of election at least what is read is written by the teacher, fed to the machine (yung binabasa, sinusulat ng teacher, pinapasok sa makina)… But our present law does not allow that unfortunately,” Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairperson George Garcia said when asked about the possibility of conducting manual vote counting alongside automated counting last April 2, 2025.

Calls for a hybrid vote-counting system have grown louder in recent weeks, following reports from voters and election transparency advocates of anomalies before and during election day — including discrepancies in the source code and technical glitches that led to uncounted votes. Different proposals for hybrid elections have been pushed as early as 2015 through Precinct Automated Tallying System (PATaS), a semi-automated system suggested as an alternative to the PCOS machines, and in 2019 where Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto filed a hybrid election bill.

Unfortunately, Comelec continues to reject the idea, citing the lack of an enabling law. But is it really legally impossible to conduct a hybrid method in counting votes without amending the law?

Legal framework: Election laws mandating automation

While the first national elections using automated counting machines were conducted in May 2010 in the Philippines, the law authorizing automated elections was passed in 1997. Republic Act No. 8436 first authorized Comelec to use an automated system in elections. It was implemented on a pilot basis in the 1998 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) elections. 

However, it took 10 years for automated elections to be conducted on a national scale. In 2007, Republic Act No. 9369 amended RA 8436 to modernize and mandate automation in subsequent elections. Both RA 8436 and RA 9369 allowed partial automation in initial implementation of the law where select areas of the country will use automated vote counting machines while other areas remain to use manual counting. 

Section 6 of RA 8436 required the automated elections in ARMM if nationwide automated elections were not possible in 1998; meanwhile, Section 6 of RA 9369 required automated elections in “at least two highly urbanized cities and two provinces each in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, to be chosen by the Commission” in 2007, and required nationwide automated elections in subsequent elections. Historically, the concept of “hybrid” elections in the Philippines has referred to partial automation, where certain areas were fully automated while others continued to use manual processes.

While this form of hybridization was practiced in early transitions to automated elections, it is important to note that neither RA 8436 nor its amendment, RA 9369, explicitly provided for a simultaneous manual and automated vote counting system—the type of hybrid setup now being proposed by various political and advocacy groups.

Is the absence of specific provisions in law bar a hybrid election system? Let’s take a look.

What is not prohibited is allowed 

As early as 1999, the Supreme Court in Loong v. Comelec (G.R. No. 133676. April 14, 1999) has already emphasized that the sovereign will of the Filipino people cannot be sidelined by strict literal interpretations of the law, to quote:

We cannot kick away the will of the people by giving a literal interpretation to R.A. 8436. R.A. 8436 did not prohibit manual counting when machine count does not work. Counting is part and parcel of the conduct of an election which is under the control and supervision of the Comelec. It ought to be self-evident that the Constitution did not envision a Comelec that cannot count the result of an election. 

In the case of Loong, Comelec chose to conduct manual counting of votes due to discrepancies in the tally of discrepancies between the election returns and the votes cast for the mayoralty candidates in the municipality of Pata. Some ballots picked at random by Atty. Tolentino, Jr. confirmed that votes in favor of a mayoralty candidate were not reflected in the printed election returns. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Comelec to conduct manual counting. 

RA 8436, like RA 9369, did not provide for hybrid elections, but the Supreme Court nevertheless allowed it because one of the primary mandates of Comelec, simply put, is to make sure that the votes of the Filipino people during elections are counted.

This isn’t the only time that the Comelec has created mechanisms to count votes outside specific provisions of law. In 2023, Comelec allowed partial automation of the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections despite neither Republic Act No. 9164 nor its amendment, Republic Act No. 11935, provided for a partially automated BSKE elections. 

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 9369 also provides some degree of flexibility and affirms the prerogative of the Comelec in determining the appropriate technology for the conduct of elections, specifically to prescribe the “use of the most suitable technology of demonstrated capability taking into account the situation prevailing in the area”. 

If Comelec can allow hybrid automation in 1999 and partial automation in 2023 despite clear absence of specific legal provisions, why can’t Comelec do the same for 2025 and the succeeding elections?

Conclusion

Hybrid counting of votes is not just an issue of technicality. It is crucial to uphold the integrity of Philippine elections. In the 2025 elections, issues with automated counting machines (ACMs) became the most frequent election irregularity reported. Poll watchers documented these ACM errors as more than 50 percent of all complaints. As of May 13, 12:00 p.m., the final status report from Vote Report PH recorded a total of 6,064 election-related violations, of which 1,593 were verified. Notably, issues related to the Automated Counting Machines (ACMs) accounted for 50 percent of the verified cases, amounting to 798 reports. Is this not enough to justify a simultaneous manual counting of votes? 

Section 1 of RA 9369 emphasizes the importance of transparency and credibility in the election process. It is therefore the duty of Comelec to dispel any doubt in the integrity of the elections it was made to protect. (RTS, RVO)