G.R. No. 248005 - Tolentino vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal

During the May 9, 2016 national, local, and ARMM elections, COMELEC deployed 92,509 Vote Counting Machines (VCMs) along with related components and paraphernalia.
The COMELEC procured these machines and devices from Smartmatic-TIM under an Automated Election System (AES) contract characterized as a “lease with option to purchase.”
A disputed contractual provision (Section 6.9) stipulated that all goods still held by COMELEC as of December 1, 2016, due to any election contest or audit requirement, would be considered sold to COMELEC, which would then pay the corresponding price under the contract terms—costs that the protestant (petition petitioner) may be required to shoulder.

On June 20, 2016, petitioner Senator Francis N. Tolentino filed an election protest against Senator Leila M. De Lima concerning the official senatorial election results.
The SET, in its Resolution No. 16-01 (dated July 7, 2016), directed COMELEC to secure and preserve election paraphernalia such as ballot boxes, VCMs, CCS laptops, keys, and other materials relevant to the May 9, 2016 elections.
Subsequent communication between COMELEC and the SET led to the modification of the protection order (Resolution No. 16-06 dated August 15, 2016), which excluded the hardware without election data.

Pursuant to Section 6.9 of the AES contract, the SET Executive Committee instructed COMELEC to calculate and demand a cash deposit covering the retention costs of the equipment.
In Resolution No. 16-15 (dated November 9, 2016), the SET required the petitioner to manifest his intended course regarding the equipment retention and to deposit an amount of ₱3,315,785.36 as the retention cost for 6 CCS laptops, 45 VCMs, and 106 additional VCMs with their corresponding Secure Digital (SD) cards.
The petitioner complied by manifesting his choices and filing both a Manifestation and a Motion on November 18, 2016.
Payment History:

An initial deposit of ₱1,114,122.96 (for 45 VCMs and 6 CCS laptops) was made on December 1, 2016.
The remaining balance of ₱2,201,662.40 (for the 106 VCMs) was subsequently required under Resolution No. 16-37 (dated March 2, 2017) and paid on June 13, 2018.

On October 3, 2018, the petitioner filed a Motion for the Return of Payments asserting that:

Although he paid the total retention cost, he did not acquire ownership of the election equipment.
The funds, intended for safeguarding equipment not used in his protest (due to COMELEC’s inaction), should be returned.

The COMELEC maintained through its Comment and subsequent communication that the deposit was solely for the retention of the equipment.
The SET eventually issued Resolution No. 16-141 (February 21, 2019), denying the refund, and Resolution No. 16-143 (May 6, 2019), which upheld the denial and confirmed that the cash deposit be released to COMELEC.

Failing to rule on the return of his cash deposit.
Not addressing the alleged invalidity and unconstitutionality of Section 6.9 of the AES contract.

He contended that the actions of the COMELEC (and by extension, the reliance on Section 6.9) resulted in unjust enrichment and a violation of his right to free access to due process.

Whether the SET committed grave abuse of discretion by releasing the cash deposit of ₱3,315,785.36 to the COMELEC without precluding the filing of a civil action for its return.
Whether the SET erred in refraining from ruling on:

The petitioner's claim for the return of his cash deposit.
The alleged illegality and unconstitutionality of Section 6.9 of the AES contracts between COMELEC and Smartmatic-TIM.

Whether the SET acted beyond its jurisdiction by potentially addressing issues pertaining to a contract (between COMELEC and Smartmatic-TIM) rather than strictly adjudicating the election protest.