Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines et al. v. COMELEC 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.