Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMELEC
Theory and Justification of Legal Review \ Taxpayers Standing
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, MA. CORAZON M. AKOL, MIGUEL
UY, EDUARDO H. LOPEZ, AUGUSTO C. LAGMAN, REX C. DRILON, MIGUEL HILADO, LEY SALCEDO, and
MANUEL ALCUAZ JR., petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; COMELEC CHAIRMAN BENJAMIN
ABALOS SR.; COMELEC BIDDING and AWARD COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN EDUARDO D. MEJOS and
MEMBERS GIDEON DE GUZMAN, JOSE F. BALBUENA, LAMBERTO P. LLAMAS, and BARTOLOME
SINOCRUZ JR.; MEGA PACIFIC eSOLUTIONS, INC.; and MEGA PACIFIC CONSORTIUM, respondents.
DOCKET NUMBER: G.R. No. 159139
DATE: January 13, 2004
PONENTE: Justice Panganiban1
LEGAL ACTION: Petition1 under Rule 65 of Rules of Court
FACTS:
- June 7, 1995: Congress passed RA 8046
o Said act authorizes COMELEC to conduct nationwide demonstration of a computerized election
system
o Said act allows COMELEC to pilot-test the system in the March 1996 ARMM elections
- Dec. 22, 1997: Congress enacted RA 8436
o Said act authorizes COMELEC to use an automated election system (AES) for the process of
voting, counting votes, and canvassing/consolidating results of national and local elections.
o Poll body is also mandated by this act to acquire automated counting machines (ACMs), computer
equipment, devices and materials; and to adopt new electoral forms and printing materials.
- Feb. 9, 1998: COMELEC issues Resolution No. 2985
o In this resolution, COMELEC decides against the full national implementation of the AES. As a
consequence, the ballot counting for the May 2001 elections was done manually.
o Said resolution also limits AES to ARMM elections only (however, ACMs fail to correctly read some
automated ballots, prompting COMELEC later to order a manual recount for the entire Province of
Sulu).
- Oct 29, 2002: COMELEC adopts Resolution 02-0170
o Modernization program for the 2004 elections
o Resolves conduct of the biddings for the three phases of AES, namely Phase 1 Voter
Registration and Validation System; Phase 2 Automated Counting and Canvassing System; and
Phase 3 Electronic Transmission.
- Jan 24, 2003: Pres. GMA issues EO 172
o Allocation of Php 2.5 billion to fund the AES for the 2004 Elections
o Upon request of COMELEC, GMA authorizes release of additional Php 500 million
- Jan 28, 2003: COMELEC issues Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid
- Feb 11, 2003: COMELEC issues Resolution No. 5929, clarifying certain eligibility criteria for bidders, as
well as the schedule of activities for the project bidding.
- Feb 17, 2003: COMELEC releases the Request for Proposal to procure the election automation
machines
- Feb 18, 2003: The Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of COMELEC convenes a pre-bid conference,
giving prospective bidders until March 10, 2003 to submit their respective bids.
- March April 2003: During the bidding process, out of the 57 bidders, the BAC found Mega Pacific
Corp. (MPC) and Total Information Management Corp (TIMC) as eligible. For the technical evaluation,
1
Petitioners labeled their pleading as one for prohibition and mandamus, but its allegations qualify it also as one for certiorari
they were referred to the BACs Technical Working Group (TWG) and the Department of Science and
Technology (DOST). The DOST, however, reported that both TIMC and MPC had obtained a number
of failed marks in the technical evaluation.
April 15, 2003: Despite these failed marks, COMELEC en banc promulgates Resolution No. 6074
awarding the project to MPC
April 21, 2003: BAC releases their technical evaluation report affirming COMELECs decision to award
the project to MPC.
May 16, 2003: COMELEC publicizes Resolution 6075 and the award of contract to MPC
May 29, 2003: Five individuals and entities (including petitioner Information Technology Foundation of the
Philippines, represented by its president Alfredo M. Torres, and Ma. Corazon Akol) write a letter to
COMELEC chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr. contesting the award of the contract to MPC.
June 6, 2003: The COMELEC chairman, speaking through his executive assistant Jaime Paz, rejected
the protest and declared that the award would stand up to the strictest scrutiny.
RATIO:
Issue
WoN petitioners have locus standi
Supreme Court
HELD: Yes, we agree with petitioners.
DECISION:
The Petition is GRANTED. The Supreme Court declares Comelec Resolution No. 6074 NULL and VOID. Also
declared null and void is the subject Contract executed between COMELEC and Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc.
(MPEI). COMELEC is further ORDERED to refrain from implementing any other contract or agreement entered into
with regard to this project.
Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, supra.; Dumlao v. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392, January 22, 1980, per Melencio-Herrera, J.; Philconsa v. Mathay,
124 Phil. 890, October 4, 1966, per Reyes J.B.L., J.
COMPLEMENTARY ISSUES:
WoN the petition is premature
DISSENT: Tinga, J. (has no comments on the locus standi of the petitioners, though - Red)
no constitutional provision or letter of a statute was alleged to have been violated. The Court nullified the
contract for an automated election system (AES) simply on the ground that in making the award the COMELEC
has allegedly violated its bidding rules and an unfounded apprehension that the counting machines would not
work on Election Day. On the other hand, not one of the losing bidders has joined the petition; neither did the
petitioners question the fairness of the price tag for the machines.
In deciding the instant case, the Court shall consider only the undisputed or admitted facts and resolve only the
specific questions raised by the parties. The Court is not a repository of remedies or a super-legal-aid bureau.
We cannot grant relief for every perceived violation of the law or worse, on the basis of prophetic wisdom.
It is not the Courts function to actively ensure that the automation is successfully implemented or that the
elections are made free of fraud, violence, terrorism and other threats to the sanctity of the ballot. This duty lies
primarily with the COMELEC.
The Court has constantly underscored the importance of giving the COMELEC considerable latitude in adopting
means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of the objective for which it was created to promote
free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.
As correctly pointed out by the respondents, at no time during the entire bidding process did the petitioners
question the determination of the COMELEC Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) finding Mega Pacific Consortium
(MPC) eligible to bid. Under R.A. 9184, decisions of the BAC should be appealed to the COMELEC en banc.
Consequently, the determination of the BAC that MPC was eligible to bid, adopted subsequently by the
COMELEC, became final.
Considering the circumstances, the premature invocation of this Courts judicial power is fatal to the petitioners
cause of action.
Whatever perceived deficiencies there are in the supplementary contracts entered into by MPEI and the other
members of the consortium as regards their joint and several undertaking were cured, or better still prevented
from arising, by the above-quoted provisions from which it can be immediately established that each of the
members of MPC is solidarily liable with the lead company, MPEI, albeit only for the particular contract or aspect
of the joint venture of which it is in charge.
The paper requirements should yield to the reality that, collectively, the members of the consortium have
furnished the COMELEC with sufficient information to enable it to judiciously gauge MPCs eligibility and
qualifications. The strict and inflexible adherence to the bidding requirements by each and every component of
the consortium advanced by the petitioners would negate the salutary purpose of R.A. 8436 and frustrate the
long-anticipated modernization of the electoral system.
Reckoned from the standpoint of the established legal presumptions of validity of official acts and regularity in
the performance of official duty, it is unjustified to speculate, as the ponencia does, on the good or bad motives
that impelled the COMELEC to award the Contract to MPC.