Case Digest (G.R. No. 218787)
Facts:
Leo Y. Querubin, Maria Corazon M. Akol, and Augusto C. Lagman v. Commission on Elections En Banc, G.R. No. 218787, December 08, 2015, Supreme Court En Banc, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court. The COMELEC en banc, through its Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), published on October 27, 2014 a Two‑Stage Competitive Bidding for the lease with option to purchase of 23,000 precinct‑based Optical Mark Readers (OMRs) with an Approved Budget for Contract of P2,503,518,000 for use in the May 9, 2016 elections. Interested bidders submitted eligibility and technical proposals by December 4, 2014. The joint venture of Smartmatic‑TIM Corporation (SMTC), Total Information Management Corporation, Smartmatic International Holding B.V., and Jarltech (collectively, Smartmatic JV) and Indra Sistemas, S.A. submitted bids; only Smartmatic JV and Indra were declared eligible to proceed to the second stage by the BAC on December 15, 2014.Smartmatic JV informed the BAC at opening that SMTC had a pending application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to amend its Articles of Incorporation (AOI); the SEC approved the amendments on December 10, 2014. Smartmatic JV later submitted a prototype OMR (SAES 1800 plus, “OMR+”) for post‑qualification testing. The BAC initially post‑disqualified Smartmatic JV by Resolution No. 9 (May 5, 2015) on grounds of (1) failure to submit a valid AOI and (2) the demo unit’s alleged inability to write specified data simultaneously to two storage devices. After reconsideration, BAC Resolution No. 10 (May 15, 2015) found the AOI requirement satisfied but maintained disqualification for the technical deficiency.
Smartmatic JV filed protests and sought another demonstration. The Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) used a Digital Storage Oscilloscope (DSO) during a June 23, 2015 demonstration and concluded the OMR+ complied with the Terms of Reference. The COMELEC en banc, adopting the TEC Final Report verbatim, granted Smartmatic JV’s protest on June 29, 2015 and declared it the bidder with the lowest calculated responsive bid; the en banc cancelled the scheduled opening of financial proposals for the second round. Commissioner Luie Tito F. Guia dissented in part, questioning the sufficiency of the documents.
Petitioners — suing as taxpayers — filed a petition for certiorari or prohibition under Rule 64 (with prayer for injunctive relief), assailing the COMELEC en banc’s June 29, 2015 Decision as violative of Batas Pambansa Blg. 68 (BP 68, the Corporation Code) and Republic Act No. 9184 (RA 9184, Government Procurement Reform Act). They argued inter alia that: (a) SMTC’s AOI limited its primary purpose to the 2010 automation project and thus SMTC had no valid corporate purpose on December 4, 2014; (b) the SEC’s December 10, 2014 approval could not cure an eligibility defect at bid opening; and (c) SMTC was 100% foreign‑owned rendering the joint venture non‑Filipino. The COMELEC (via OSG) and private respondents opposed; Smartmatic JV defended the AO...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is a petition under Rule 64 the proper remedial vehicle to assail the COMELEC en banc’s June 29, 2015 Decision, or must the petition proceed under Rule 65 (and, if so, in which court)?
- Do petitioners, suing as taxpayers and non‑bidders, have locus standi and a justiciable, ripe controversy to challenge the COMELEC en banc’s procurement ruling?
- Did the COMELEC en banc commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring Smartmatic JV the lowest calculated responsive bidder—specifically, (a) was the submission of an AOI an eligibility requirement or ground for disqualification, (b) had SMTC’s corporate purpose expired or rendered it ultra vires to participate, and (c) did SMTC’s nationality render the joint venture ineligible?
- Should a writ of preliminary injunction o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)