G.R. No. L-30894 - Martelino vs. Alejandro

On October 27, 2014, the COMELEC en banc through BAC Resolution No. 14-0715 issued bid documents for a two-stage competitive bidding to lease with option to purchase 23,000 precinct-based Optical Mark Readers (OMR) for the 2016 elections, with an Approved Budget for Contract (ABC) of ₱2,503,518,000.
The first stage required submission of eligibility documents and initial technical proposals by December 4, 2014; interested parties included the joint venture of Smartmatic-TIM Corporation and partners (Smartmatic JV), Indra Sistemas, S.A., and MIRU Systems Co. Ltd.

During the first bidding on December 4, 2014, Smartmatic JV disclosed that its partner SMTC had filed amendments to its Articles of Incorporation (AOI) with the SEC; these were approved on December 10, 2014.
On December 15, 2014, BAC Resolution No. 1 declared Smartmatic JV and Indra eligible for the second stage; subsequent submissions led to only Smartmatic JV having a responsive financial proposal.
In post-qualification, BAC Resolution No. 9 (May 5, 2015) disqualified Smartmatic JV for (a) allegedly invalid AOI and (b) demo unit’s failure to meet simultaneous dual-storage writing requirement; Resolution No. 10 (May 15, 2015) reversed the AOI finding but maintained technical disqualification.
Smartmatic JV filed protests before the COMELEC en banc, secured two additional demonstrations (June 19 & 23, 2015), and the TEC found compliance upon using a Digital Storage Oscilloscope.

On June 29, 2015, the COMELEC en banc granted Smartmatic JV’s protest, declared it the lowest calculated responsive bidder, and canceled the second-round opening of bids.
Petitioners (Querubin, Akol, Lagman) filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 (with prayer for injunctive relief), alleging (a) SMTC’s AOI rendered it ultra vires and ineligible; (b) misrepresentation of corporate nationality; (c) grave abuse of discretion; and (d) procedural defects (improper remedy, lack of locus standi).

Is Rule 64 the proper remedy to assail the COMELEC en banc’s administrative decision, or should Rule 65 and resort to the RTC have been used?
Does this court have jurisdiction under constitutional and statutory rules?
Do petitioners, as non-bidders, possess locus standi and a justiciable interest?

Did the COMELEC en banc act with grave abuse of discretion in granting Smartmatic JV’s protest?
Was the submission of a valid AOI a mandatory eligibility requirement under RA 9184 and the bidding documents?
Did SMTC exceed its corporate purpose in joining the Smartmatic JV for the 2016 elections (ultra vires)?
Is SMTC’s corporate nationality Filipino, and does the joint venture satisfy the 60% Filipino equity requirement?
Should injunctive relief issue to prevent implementation of the COMELEC decision?