Case Digest (G.R. No. 188456) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., et al. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 188456, decided en banc on February 10, 2010 under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, petitioners H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., Joel R. Butuyan, Romel R. Bagares, Allan Jones F. Lardizabal, Gilbert T. Andres, Immaculada D. Garcia, Erlinda T. Mercado, Francisco A. Alcuaz, Ma. Azucena P. Maceda, and Alvin A. Peters sought certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to nullify the COMELEC’s award of the 2010 Election Automation Project contract to the joint venture of Total Information Management Corporation (TIM) and Smartmatic International Corporation (Smartmatic). Petition‐in‐intervention Pete Quirino‐Quadra and movant‐intervenor Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile similarly challenged aspects of the project, including manual counting contingencies and statutory compliance. The Supreme Court initially denied the petition on September 10, 2009, upholding the contract award on grounds that the Precinct Count Optical Scan (P Case Digest (G.R. No. 188456) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Legislative and contractual framework
- Republic Act No. 8436, as amended by RA No. 9369 (Election Modernization Act), empowers the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to procure an Automated Election System (AES) meeting prescribed minimum requirements and pilot-testing standards.
- COMELEC, through its Special Bids and Awards Committee and Department of Budget and Management, awarded the 2010 Election Automation Project to the joint venture of Total Information Management Corporation (TIM) and Smartmatic International Corporation (Smartmatic), deploying the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) system.
- Original petition and Supreme Court Decision (Sept. 10, 2009)
- Petitioners H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., et al., filed for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to nullify the AES contract on grounds of:
- Non-compliance with pilot-testing requirements of RA 9369.
- Failure to meet minimum system capabilities.
- Non-submission of valid joint venture documentation.
- The Supreme Court en banc denied the petition, holding:
- Foreign pilot-testing suffices under RA 8436, as amended.
- COMELEC’s rigid technical evaluation under its Rules is entitled to respect absent grave abuse of discretion.
- COMELEC retained supervisory and control functions over the AES.
- Continuity and back-up plans are in place for machine failures.
- Motion for reconsideration and intervening petitions
- Petitioners filed a supplemented motion for reconsideration reiterating challenges and adding new grounds:
- Alleged high probability of automated election failure.
- COMELEC’s purported abdication of constitutional functions to Smartmatic.
- Lack of legal framework for manual ballot appreciation in event of AES failure.
- Inability to comply with statutory source code review.
- Insufficiency of foreign certifications under Sec. 12, RA 8436.
- Alleged inability to secure 100% telecommunications coverage.
- Subcontracting PCOS manufacturing to Quisdi in violation of bidding rules.
- Intervenor Pete Quirino-Quadra sought an order for manual counting of ballots after electronic transmission.
- Respondents (COMELEC, TIM, Smartmatic, DBM) opposed the motions, characterizing most issues as repetitive or speculative.
Issues:
- Do COMELEC’s public pronouncements and contingency planning demonstrate a “high probability” of automated election failure sufficient to void the contract?
- Did COMELEC abdicate its constitutional mandate of supervision and control by ceding technical aspects of the AES to Smartmatic?
- Is there no existing legal framework to guide manual appreciation of ballots if PCOS machines fail?
- Can COMELEC comply with the statutory requirement to make the AES source code available for review (Sec. 14, RA 8436)?
- Do the certifications of prior use of the AES in foreign elections satisfy Sec. 12, RA 8436?
- Are there strong indications that TIM-Smartmatic cannot provide necessary telecommunications facilities nationwide?
- Does the subcontracting of PCOS machine manufacture to Quisdi violate COMELEC’s bidding rules and warrant nullification of the contract?
- Should the Court order manual counting and audit procedures as prayed by intervenor Quadra?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)