Case Digest (G.R. No. 159139)
Facts:
On January 13, 2004, the Supreme Court resolved a petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by the Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines and nine other individuals against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and its officials. The petition assailed COMELEC Resolution No. 6074 of April 15, 2003 awarding Phase II of its Automated Election System (AES) modernization project for the 2004 elections to Mega Pacific Consortium (MPC), and the subsequent contract executed with Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc. (MPEI). The contest arose after COMELEC’s October 29, 2002 Resolution No. 02-0170 adopted a three-phase AES program, and a January 28, 2003 Invitation to Bid set P2.5 billion as its budget. Bids were received on March 10, 2003 from 57 entities. THE BAC found MPC and Total Information Management Corporation (TIMC) eligible and referred their technical envelopes to DOST, which reported multiple failures in key requirements (including accuracy, audit trail, and dCase Digest (G.R. No. 159139)
Facts:
- Legal and institutional framework
- Republic Act No. 8046 (June 7, 1995) authorized COMELEC to pilot a computerized election system in ARMM.
- Republic Act No. 8436 (Dec. 22, 1997) mandated nationwide use of an automated election system (AES) and acquisition of automated counting machines (ACMs).
- Executive Order No. 172 (Jan. 24, 2003) and EO No. 175 (Feb. 10, 2003) allocated P2.5 B and additional P500 M, respectively, for AES in May 2004.
- Project phases and bidding
- COMELEC Resolution 02-0170 (Oct. 29, 2002) broke modernization into Phase I (voter registration/validation), Phase II (counting/canvassing), Phase III (transmission).
- Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid (Jan. 28, 2003) and RFP (Feb. 17, 2003) required:
- Two-envelope, two-stage system (eligibility envelope; bid envelope).
- Eligibility: Filipino majority ownership, technical track record, financial capability (audited statements for 3 years).
- Key technical requirements: 99.9995% counting accuracy, audit trail, data security, false–ballot detection.
- Bidding, evaluation and award
- Fifty-seven entities applied; COMELEC BAC found only Mega Pacific Consortium (MPC) and TIMC eligible.
- Technical Working Group (TWG) and DOST testing identified multiple “failed marks” in both bids.
- Despite failures, COMELEC en banc promulgated Resolution No. 6074 (Apr. 15, 2003) awarding Phase II to MPC.
- Petitioners protested (May 29, 2003); COMELEC chair denied relief (June 6, 2003).
- Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed (Aug. 6, 2003) to nullify Resolution 6074, enjoin contract, and compel re-bidding.
Issues:
- Procedural issues
- Do petitioners have locus standi to challenge COMELECas award?
- Is the petition premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under R.A. 9184?
- Substantive issue
- Did COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in awarding Phase II contract to MPC/MPEI contrary to law, RFP and DOST findings?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)