INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. VS.

COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, COMELEC CHAIRMAN BENJAMIN ABALOS, SR., ET AL.

G.R. No. 159139. January 13, 2004

Facts: On June 7, 1995, Congress passed R.A. 8046 (An act authorizing the COMELEC to conduct
a nationwide demonstration of a computerized election system and pilot-test it in the March
1996 elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and for other purposes).
On December 22, 1997, Congress enacted R.A. 8436 (An act authorizing the COMELEC to use an
automated election system in the May 11, 1998 national or local elections and in subsequent
national and local electoral exercises, providing funds therefore and for other purposes).

On October 29, 2002, COMELEC adopted its Resolution 02-0170 a modernization program for the
2004 elections. It resolved to conduct biddings for the three phases of its Automated Election
System: namely, Phase I-Voter Registration and Validation System; Phase II-Automated Counting
and Canvassing System; and Phase III-Electronic Transmissions.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued EO No. 172, which allocated the sum of P 2.5 billion to
fund the AES for May 10, 2004 elections. She authorized the release of an additional P 500 million,
upon the request of COMELEC.

The COMELEC issued an “Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid”. There are 57 bidders who
participated therein. The Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) found MPC and the Total
Information Management Corporation (TIMC) eligible. Both were referred to Technical Working
Group (TWG) and the Department of Science and Technology (DOST).

However, the DOST said in its Report on the Evaluation of Technical Proposals on Phase II that
both MPC and TIMC had obtained a number of failed marks in technical evaluation.
Notwithstanding these failures, the COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No. 6074, awarding the
project to MPC.

Wherefore, petitioners Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines wrote a letter to

the COMELEC chairman Benjamin Abalos, Sr. They protested the award of the contract to
respondent MPC. However in a letter-reply, the COMELEC rejected the protest.

Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding the
contract to MPC in violation of law and in disregard of its own bidding rules and procedure.
Held: The Court has explained that COMELEC flagrantly violated the public policy on public
biddings (1) by allowing MPC/MPEI to participate in the bidding even though it was not qualified
to do so; and (2) by eventually awarding the contract to MPC/MPEI. It is clear that the
Commission further desecrated the law on public bidding by permitting the winning bidder to
alter the subject of the contract, in effect allowing a substantive amendment without public
bidding.