Case Summary (G.R. No. 188456)
Grounds of the September 10, 2009 Decision
- RA 8436 as amended does not mandate pilot-testing in the 2007 Philippine election; demonstrated use in a foreign jurisdiction suffices.
- Comelec’s rigid technical evaluation of PCOS compliance is entitled to respect absent grave abuse of discretion.
- Comelec retained exclusive supervision and control of the electoral process despite outsourcing technical tasks.
- Continuity and contingency plans are embedded in the contract to address machine failures.
Scope of the Motion for Reconsideration
Petitioners, joined by intervening petitioner Quadra, moved for reconsideration reiterating that the contract award violated constitutional and statutory mandates. They advanced seven main contentions: (1) high probability of automated failure; (2) abdication of Comelec’s constitutional functions; (3) absence of a legal framework for manual ballot appreciation; (4) inability to conduct a source code review; (5) insufficiency of foreign use certifications; (6) inadequate telecommunications coverage; and (7) impermissible subcontracting to Quisdi.
Analysis of Speculative Allegations
The Court rejected arguments founded on conjecture. Petitioners cited isolated media statements by Comelec officials to predict widespread failure, ignoring full context demonstrating contingency planning for manual polls. Speculation lacks probative value and cannot establish grave abuse of discretion.
Abdication of Constitutional Mandate
Petitioners’ claim that Comelec improperly surrendered technical control to Smartmatic was a reprise of issues already resolved. The automation contract’s Article 6.7 explicitly preserves Comelec’s exclusive supervision and control over voting, counting, transmission, consolidation, and canvassing, ensuring joint responsibility with the service provider.
Legal Framework for Manual Balloting
Allegations that no legal basis exists for manual ballot appreciation upon PCOS failure overlooked the continuity and backup measures mandated by Section 13 of RA 9369. The Court affirmed that fallback strategies, including manual polling in remote or network-challenged areas, are sufficiently addressed in earlier rulings and statutory provisions.
Source Code Review Requirement
Petitioners speculated that Comelec would withhold the AES source code. The Court credited Comelec’s affirmation that the code will be made available for review under controlled conditions to protect proprietary rights, invoking the presumption of good faith in administrative performance.
Validity of Foreign Use Certifications
Challenges to certifications of the PCOS system’s use abroad were untimely and introduced a new factual dimension without prior presentation. The Court held that demonstrated deployment in jurisdictions such as Ontario and New York satisfies Section 12 of RA 8436, and recognized the licensing agreement between Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems.
Telecommunications Coverage Issue
Claims that private respondents cannot guarantee 100 percent communications coverage were purely speculative. The possibility of contractual breach does not justify annulling the award prematurely.
Subcontracting to Quisdi
Allegations based on unverified n
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 188456)
Procedural Background
- Petitioners H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., et al. filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus seeking to nullify the contract award of the 2010 Election Automation Project to the joint venture of Total Information Management Corporation (TIM) and Smartmatic International Corporation (Smartmatic).
- Pete Quirino-Quadra intervened, praying for implementation of Section 6(f) and (g) of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369, requiring manual counting of ballots if machines fail.
- On September 10, 2009, the Supreme Court en banc denied both the main petition and the intervention, upholding the award to TIM-Smartmatic.
- Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, supplemented, reasserting their claim that the contract award violated the Constitution, statutes, and jurisprudence. Intervenor Quadra also filed a motion seeking manual recount orders.
Issues Presented on Reconsideration
- Whether Comelec’s own public statements demonstrate a “high probability” of electoral failure under full automation.
- Whether Comelec abdicated its constitutional duty to decide questions affecting elections in favor of Smartmatic.
- Whether a legal framework exists to guide appreciation of automated ballots or manual count if PCOS machines fail.
- Whether Comelec can comply with the source code review requirement under Section 14 of RA 8436, as amended.
- Whether certifications of prior use of the AES abroad satisfy Section 12 of RA 8436.
- Whether TIM-Smartmatic can provide telecommunications facilities ensuring 100% coverage during elections.
- Whether subcontracting PCOS machine manufacture to Quisdi violates Comelec’s bidding rules.
Supreme Court’s September 10, 2009 Decision
- Held that RA 8436, as amended, does not require pilot testing in the 2007 election; demonstration abroad suffices.
- Recognized Comelec’s technical evaluation mechanism as binding absent grave abuse of discretion.
- Confirmed that Comelec retains exclusive supervision, oversight, and control over automated elections.
- Noted continuity and backup plans set forth in contract documents for machine failures.
Respondents’ Opposition to the Motions
- Public and private respondents argue that most grounds raised were not advanced in the original petition, rendering them new theories unsuitable for recon