‘Mandamus cannot compel Comelec to do recount’

In the decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Midas Marquez, the SC dismissed a petition for mandamus filed by Eliseo Mijares Rio Jr. and several others, asking the court to compel the Comelec to recount ballots from specific regions following the May 2022 elections.

MANILA, Philippines — A petition for a writ of mandamus cannot be used to compel the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to grant or deny a request for a ballot recount, the Supreme Court (SC) said in a ruling.

In the decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Midas Marquez, the SC dismissed a petition for mandamus filed by Eliseo Mijares Rio Jr. and several others, asking the court to compel the Comelec to recount ballots from specific regions following the May 2022 elections.

The petitioners questioned the qualifications of Smartmatic Philippines due to alleged irregularities in the transmission and reception of election results.

They also requested that Smartmatic be disqualified from participating in the 2025 Automated Election System procurement process, if any unexplained discrepancies were found.

Last year, they filed a motion before the Comelec to open and recount at least 30 sealed ballot boxes from Sto. Tomas City in Batangas. When the poll body did not act on the motion, they sought help from the Supreme Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the agency to fulfill its duty.

However, the SC ruled that mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy that requires an official, tribunal or agency to perform a specific and legally mandated act.

“Mandamus can only be granted when the requested action is ministerial and does not require discretion. Furthermore, it can only be issued when the petitioners have a clear and specific legal right to the action,” a part of the ruling reads.

The SC stressed that the issue did not involve a ministerial act by Comelec as the requested recount required the exercise of the poll body’s discretion and judgment. 

Despite the dismissal of the petition, the SC acknowledged that the Comelec had committed official inaction by failing to act on the petitioners’ motions within the prescribed period under its own rules.

Show comments