Facts:

The case involves multiple petitions filed against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Smartmatic-TIM Corporation regarding the validity of a contract for the provision of an Automated Election System (AES) for the May 10, 2010 elections. The petitioners include Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla, Omar Solitario Ali, Mary Anne L. Susano, and others, who challenged the legality of the transactions made by COMELEC concerning the AES. The events leading to the case began on July 10, 2009, when COMELEC entered into a contract with Smartmatic-TIM for the lease of Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines, which included an option to purchase (OTP) the equipment. The original deadline for exercising the OTP was December 31, 2010. However, COMELEC did not exercise this option until it issued several resolutions in 2012, extending the option period and eventually executing a Deed of Sale for the PCOS machines on March 30, 2012. The petitioners argued that these actions were uncon...

Facts:

Background of the Case:
The case involves multiple petitions challenging the validity of certain resolutions and transactions entered into by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) with Smartmatic-TIM Corporation. The petitioners, including Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla, Solidarity for Sovereignty (S4S), and Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), among others, filed separate petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM.

Contract Between Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM:
On July 10, 2009, Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM entered into a Contract for the Provision of an Automated Election System (AES) for the May 10, 2010 elections. This was a Contract of Lease with an Option to Purchase (OTP) the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines. Comelec had until December 31, 2010, to exercise the OTP but chose not to, except for 920 units of PCOS machines used in special elections.

Extension of the OTP:
On March 6, 2012, Comelec issued Resolution No. 9373, considering the exercise of the OTP. Subsequently, Comelec issued Resolution No. 9376 to exercise the OTP and Resolution No. 9377, extending the OTP period until March 31, 2012. The Extension Agreement was signed on March 30, 2012, and the Deed of Sale was executed afterward.

Petitioners' Claims:
The petitioners argued that Comelec’s actions in extending the OTP period and executing the Deed of Sale were illegal and unconstitutional. They contended that the OTP period had expired, and any extension amounted to a substantial amendment requiring public bidding under Republic Act (RA) No. 9184, the Government Procurement Reform Act.

Issue:

1. Whether the period for the Option to Purchase (OTP) under the AES Contract had expired.
2. Whether the extension of the OTP period constituted a substantial amendment to the AES Contract.
3. Whether the extension of the OTP period and the subsequent Deed of Sale were advantageous to the public.
4. Whether Comelec’s actions complied with the requirements of RA 9184.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)