Case Digest (G.R. No. 201112)
Facts:
Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla, Omar Solitario Ali and Mary Anne L. Susano, Solidarity for Sovereignty (S4S) represented by Ma. Linda Olaguer, Teofisto T. Guingona and others, and Tanggulang Demokrasya (consolidated), G.R. Nos. 201112, 201121, 201127 and 201413, June 13, 2012, the Supreme Court En Banc, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The consolidated petitions challenge COMELEC En Banc Resolutions and agreements by which COMELEC, pursuant to a 2009 Automated Election System (AES) public bidding, sought to acquire the remaining Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines and related Consolidation/Canvassing System (CCS) software/hardware from winning bidder Smartmatic‑TIM. After a national public bidding, COMELEC awarded the AES lease‑with‑option‑to‑purchase contract to Smartmatic‑TIM (July 10, 2009 AES Contract). Article 4.3 of that contract granted COMELEC an option to purchase the goods (Annex L) for a stated additional sum; Article 6.6 fixed the exercise period: “on or before 31 December 2010.”
The parties ran the AES in the May 10, 2010 elections; COMELEC partially exercised the option (920 PCOS units) on September 23, 2010. Smartmatic‑TIM sent several letters after December 31, 2010 offering unilateral extensions of the option period (first 18 Dec. 2010 to 31 Mar. 2011, then further communications in 2011), and ultimately offered an extension to 31 Mar. 2012. COMELEC En Banc first resolved to seriously consider and then to exercise the option (Res. Nos. 9373, 9376); COMELEC accepted Smartmatic‑TIM’s offer and on March 30, 2012 the parties signed (a) an Extension Agreement and (b) a Deed of Sale for the remaining machines and software. The Deed of Sale fixed the purchase price and conditions and retained warranty and acceptance testing mechanisms.
Petitioners filed separate Rule 65 petitions (certiorari, prohibition and mandamus) arguing, in essence, that (1) the OTP period had lapsed and could not be unilaterally extended or revived; (2) the post‑2010 extension and the sale circumvented the competitive public bidding requirement of R.A. No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act); and (3) Smartmatic‑TIM’s AES (PCOS/CCS) suffered material technical defects in 2010 so the machines are unfit and the purchase violates R.A. No. 9369. O...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May COMELEC validly accept an extension of time unilaterally offered by Smartmatic‑TIM to exercise the contract Option To Purchase under Article 4 of the AES Contract after the original period lapsed?
- Does COMELEC’s acceptance of the extension and its Resolution No. 9376, and the ensuing Deed of Sale, violate R.A. No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act) or R.A. No. 9369 ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)