Theresa T.

Godinez Constitutional 1(Weekdays)

GR 159139 13 January 2004

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

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

Facts:

On June 7, 1995, 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) was passed by Congress.

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 to conduct biddings for the three phases of its
Automated Election System (AES). President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued EO No.
172 allocating of P 2.5 billion to fund the AES for it. Then, upon the advice of
COMELEC, she released another P 500 million.

The COMELEC issued an “Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid” with 57 bidders
expressing interest. The Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) found Mega Pacific
Consortium (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. With full knowledge of it, COMELEC still awarded
the project to MPC.
Theresa T. Godinez Constitutional 1(Weekdays)

Issue:

Whether or not the three was grave abuse of discretion committed by COMELEC when
awarded that contact to MPC in violation of law and in disregard of its own bidding rules
and procedure.

Held:

Yes. The Court deemed 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.

“Comelec must follow and not skirt our Decision. Neither may it short-circuit our laws
and jurisprudence. It should return the ACMs to MPC-MPEI and recover the
improvidently disbursed funds. Instead of blaming this Court for its illegal actions and
grave abuse of discretion, the Commission should, for a change, devise a legally and
technically sound plan to computerize our elections and show our people that it is
capable of managing the transition from an archaic to a modern electoral system.”