35 G.R. No. 159139 (Resoluttion) - Information Technology Foundation of The Philippines v. Commission On Elections
35 G.R. No. 159139 (Resoluttion) - Information Technology Foundation of The Philippines v. Commission On Elections
RESOLUTION
PANGANIBAN, J : p
Our Decision 1 in the present case voided the Contract entered into by
the Commission on Elections (Comelec) for the supply of automated
counting machines (ACMs) because of "clear violation of law and
jurisprudence" and "reckless disregard of [Comelec's] own bidding rules and
procedure." Moreover, "Comelec awarded this billion-dollar undertaking with
inexplicable haste, without adequately checking and observing mandatory
financial, technical and legal requirements. . . . The illegal, imprudent and
hasty actions of the Commission have not only desecrated legal and
jurisprudential norms, but have also cast serious doubts upon the poll body's
ability and capacity to conduct automated elections." As a result, the ACMs
illegally procured and improvidently paid for by Comelec were not used
during the 2004 national elections.
In its present Motion, the poll body expressly admits that the Decision
"has become final and executory," and that "COMELEC and MPC-MPEI are
under obligation to make mutual restitution. Otherwise stated, this
admission implies that the ACMs are to be returned to MPC-MPEI, and that
the sum of over one billion pesos illegally paid for them be refunded to the
public purse. 2 In short, ownership of the ACMs never left MPC-MPEI and the
money paid for them still belongs, and must be returned, to the government.
jurcd2005
Background Information
At the outset, we stress that the Decision in the present case,
promulgated on January 13, 2004, has long attained finality. 3 In our
February 17, 2004 Resolution, we denied with finality Comelec's Motion for
Reconsideration dated January 28, 2004, as well as private respondents'
Omnibus Motion dated January 26, 2004. The Decision was recorded in the
Book of Entries of Judgments on March 30, 2004.
Recall that our Decision declared Comelec to have acted with grave
abuse of discretion when, by way of its Resolution No. 6074, it awarded the
Contract for the supply of automated counting machines (ACMs) to private
respondents. It did so, not only in clear violation of law and jurisprudence,
but also with inexplicable haste and reckless disregard of its own bidding
rules and procedures; particularly the mandatory financial, technical and
legal requirements. It further manifested such grave abuse of discretion
when it accepted the subject computer hardware and software even though,
at the time of the award, these had patently failed to pass eight critical
requirements designed to safeguard the integrity of the elections.
Consequently, this Court was constrained to exercise its constitutional duty
by voiding the assailed Resolution No. 6074 awarding the Contract to Mega
Pacific Consortium, as well as the subject Contract itself executed between
Comelec and Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc.
Comelec was further ordered to refrain from implementing any other
contract or agreement it had entered into with regard to the said project. We
also declared that, as a necessary consequence of such nullity and illegality,
the purchase of the ACMs and the software, along with all payments made
for them, had no basis in law. Hence, the public funds spent must be
recovered from the payees and/or the persons who made the illegal
disbursements possible, without prejudice to possible criminal prosecutions
against them. 4
Likewise, our February 17, 2004 Resolution denying reconsideration
found movants to have raised the same procedural and substantive issues
already exhaustively discussed and definitively passed upon in our Decision.
In that Resolution, we emphasized (and we reiterate here) that the Decision
did not prohibit automation of the elections. Neither did the Court say that it
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
was opposed to such project (or the use of ACMs) as a general proposition.
We repeated our explanation that the reason for voiding the assailed
Resolution and the subject Contract was the grave abuse of discretion on the
part of Comelec; as well as its violations of law — specifically RA 9184, RA
8436, and RA 6955 as amended by RA 7718 — prevailing jurisprudence (the
latest of which was Agan v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co ., Inc. 5 ),
and the bidding rules and policies of the Commission itself.
Comelec's Claims
Notwithstanding our Decision and Resolution, the present Motion
claims, inter alia, that the ARMM elections are slated to be held on August 8,
2005, and are mandated by RA 9333 to be automated; that the government
has no available funds to finance the automation of those elections; that
considering its present fiscal difficulties, obtaining a special appropriation for
the purpose is unlikely; that, on the other hand, there are in Comelec's
custody at present 1,991 ACMs, which were previously delivered by private
respondents; that these machines would deteriorate and become obsolete if
they remain idle and unused; that they are now being stored in the Comelec
Maxilite Warehouse along UN Avenue, at storage expenses of P329,355.26 a
month, or P3,979,460.24 annually."
The Motion further alleges that "information technology experts," who
purportedly supervised all stages of the software development for the
creation of the final version to be used in the ACMs, have unanimously
confirmed that this undertaking is in line with the internationally accepted
standards (ISO/IEC 12207) for software life cycle processes, "with its quality
assurance that it would be fit for use in the elections . . .."
Comelec also points out that the process of "enhancement" of the
counting and canvassing software has to be commenced at least six (6)
months prior to the August 8, 2005 ARMM elections, in order to be ready by
then. It asserts that its Motion is (a) without prejudice to the ongoing Civil
Case No. 04-346 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
Branch 59, entitled "Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc. v. Republic of the
Philippines (represented by the Commission on Elections)," for the collection
of a purported P200 million balance due from Comelec under the voided
Contract; and (b) with a continuing respectful recognition of the finality and
legal effects of our aforesaid Decision. At bottom, Comelec prays that it be
granted leave to use the ACMs in its custody during the said ARMM elections.
Private Respondents' Contentions
Commenting on the present Motion, private respondents take the
position that, since the subject ACMs have already been delivered to, paid
for and used by Comelec, the Republic of the Philippines is now their owner,
without prejudice to Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc.'s claim for damages in the
case pending before the RTC of Makati; and that, consequently, as far as
private respondents are concerned, the question of using the subject ACMs
for the ARMM elections is dependent solely on the discretion of the owner,
the Republic of the Philippines.
Petitioners' Comment
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
On the other hand, petitioners contend that Comelec is asking this
Court to render an advisory opinion, in contravention of the constitutional
provision 6 that explicitly states that the exercise of judicial power is
confined to (1) settling actual controversies involving rights that are legally
demandable and enforceable; and (2) determining whether there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of government.
Petitioners assert that there is no longer any live case or controversy to
speak of — an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for
determination, not merely conjectural or anticipatory; and that Comelec's
allegations in its Motion do not amount to an actual case or controversy that
would require this Court to render a decision or resolution in the legitimate
exercise of its judicial power. This lack of actual controversy is clearly seen
in the relief prayed for in the Motion: the grant of a leave to use the ACMs
during the ARMM elections. Obviously, Comelec merely seeks an advisory
opinion from this Court on whether its proposal to use the ACMs during the
said elections might be in violation of this Court's Decision dated January 13,
2004, and Resolution dated February 17, 2004. HIaTCc
The OSG hews to the view that the automation of elections, if properly
carried out, is a desirable objective, but is mindful of the need for mutual
restitution by the parties as a result of the final Decision nullifying the
Contract for the ACMs. Nevertheless, in apparent response to Comelec's
clamor to use the ACMs in the ARMM elections, the OSG manifests that it has
no objection to the proposal to use the machines, provided however that (1)
Comelec should show with reasonable certainty that the hardware and
software of, the ACMs can be effectively used for the intended purpose; (2)
Mega Pacific should be made to return to the Republic at least a substantial
portion of the overprice they charged for the purchase of the ACMs; and (3)
the use of these machines, if authorized by this Court, should be without
prejudice to the prosecution of the related criminal cases pending before the
Office of the Ombudsman (OMB).
The OMB's Manifestation
For its part, the Office of the Ombudsman manifested that as a result
of the nullification of the Contract, various fact-finding investigations had
been conducted, and criminal and administrative charges filed before it
against the persons who appeared to be responsible for the anomalous
Contract; and that the various cases had been consolidated, and preliminary
investigation conducted in respect of the non-impeachable Comelec officials
and co-conspirators/private individuals. Furthermore, the OMB is in the
process of determining whether a verified impeachment complaint may be
filed against the poll body's impeachable officials concerned.EAcHCI
The Commission seems to think that it can resurrect the dead case by
waving at this Court a letter replete with technical jargon, much like a witch
doctor muttering unintelligible incantations to revive a corpse.
In its main text, the Motion concedes that our Decision "has become
final and executory," and that all that remains to be done is "to make mutual
restitution." 13 So, what is the relevance of all these useless argumentations
and pontifications in Annex 1 by the Commission's self-proclaimed
"experts"? For its own illegal acts, imprudence and grave abuse of
discretion, why blame this Court? For Comelec to know immediately which
culprit should bear full responsibility for its miserable failure to automate our
elections, it should simply face the mirror.
Recovery of Government Funds
Barred by the Motion
Second , the grant of the Motion will bar or jeopardize the recovery of
government funds improvidently paid to private respondents, funds that to
date the OSG estimates to be over one billion pesos. At the very least,
granting the Motion will be antagonistic to the directive in our Decision for
the OSG to recover the "illegal disbursements of public funds made by
reason of the void Resolution and Contract."
Indeed, if the government is conned into not returning the ACMs but
instead keeping and utilizing them, there would be no need for Mega Pacific
to refund the payments made by Comelec. In fact, such recovery will no
longer be possible. Consequently, all those who stood to benefit (or have
already benefited) financially from the deal would no longer be liable for the
refund. They can argue that there was nothing wrong with the voided
Resolution and Contract, nothing wrong with the public bidding, nothing
wrong with the machines and software, since the government has decided to
keep and utilize them. This argument can be stretched to abate the criminal
prosecutions pending before the OMB and the impeachment proceedings it is
considering. After all, "reasonable doubt" is all that is needed to secure
acquittal in a criminal prosecution.
In brief, the poll body's Motion not only asks for what is legally
impossible to do (to reverse and subvert a final and executory Decision of
the highest court of the land), but also prevents the Filipino people from
recovering illegally disbursed public funds running into billions of pesos.
Verily, by subverting the Decision of this Court, the Motion would be unduly
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
favoring and granting virtual immunity from criminal prosecution to the
parties responsible for the illegal disbursement of scarce public funds.
Use of the ACMs and Software
Detrimental to ARMM Elections
Third, the use of the unreliable ACMs and the nonexistent software that
is supposed to run them will expose the ARMM elections to the same
electoral ills pointed out in our final and executory Decision. Be it
remembered that this Court expressly ruled that the proffered hardware and
software had undeniably failed to pass eight critical requirements designed
to safeguard the integrity of elections, especially the following three items:
"• They failed to achieve the accuracy rating criterion of 99.9995
percent set up by the Comelec itself. SaIHDA
"• They were unable to print the statutorily required audit trails of
the count/canvass at different levels without any loss of data." 14
A genuine, bona fide proposal for the utilization of the ACMs would
naturally have included a well-thought-out plan of action, indicating the
number of units to be deployed, places of utilization, number of operators
and other personnel required, methods/periods of deployment and recovery
or retrieval, assessments of costs and risks involved in implementing the
proposal, and concomitant justifications, among other things. Now, either
"The Plan" is being kept absolutely top secret, or it is completely
nonexistent.
Furthermore, once the ACMs are deployed and utilized, they will no
longer be in the same condition as when they were first delivered to
Comelec. In fact, it is quite probable that by the time election day comes
around, some of the machines would have been mishandled and damaged,
maybe even beyond repair. What steps has the poll body taken to make
certain that such eventualities, if not altogether preventable, can at least be
minimized so as to ensure the eventual return of the ACMs and the full
recovery of the payments made for them? A scrutiny of the 4-page Motion 16
ends in futility. It is all too clear that a failure or inability of Comelec to return
the machines sans damage would most assuredly be cited as a ground to
refuse the refund of the moneys paid. Yet, if Comelec has given any thought
at all to this or any other contingency, such fact has certainly not been made
evident to us. ITSacC
"At bottom, before the country can hope to have a speedy and
fraud-free automated election, it must first be able to procure the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
proper computerized hardware and software legally, based on a
transparent and valid system of public bidding. As in any democratic
system, the ultimate goal of automating elections must be achieved by
a legal, valid and above-board process of acquiring the necessary tools
and skills therefor. Though the Philippines needs an automated
electoral process, it cannot accept just any system shoved into its
bosom through improper and illegal methods. As the saying goes, the
end never justifies the means. Penumbral contracting will not produce
enlightened results." 23
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.
WHEREFORE, the Motion is hereby DENIED for utter lack of merit.
Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-
Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo Sr., Azcuna, Chico-Nazario and
Garcia, JJ., concur.
Davide Jr., C.J. and Puno, J., concur in the result.
Tinga, J., I concur on the ground that there is no live case, but only on
that ground. This case is no different from a mooted case which by reason of
the supervening development has to be dismissed but only on that ground.
Footnotes
"Since the Decision has become final and executory, COMELEC and MPC-
MPEI are under obligation to make mutual restitution."
9. They are Nelson J. Celis, Ma. Elena P. Van Tooren, Antonio G. Tinsay and
Carlos Manuel.
10. The latter four are Romeo Monteclaro, Allan Borra, Ma. Leonora Padero and
Alfonso Palpal-latoc Jr.
11. Rule 131, Sec. 3(o) of the Rules of Court. See Toh v. Solid Bank Corporation,
408 SCRA 544, August 7, 2003.
12. Vide Heirs of De Leon vda. de Roxas v. CA, 422 SCRA 101, February 6, 2004
(citing Buaya v. Stronghold Insurance Co. , Inc., 342 SCRA 576, October 11,
2000.)
17. For instance, during the 13th International Judicial Conference held in Kiev,
Ukraine, on May 25-27, 2005, Carlos Velloso, president of the Superior
Electoral Tribunal of Brazil, publicly offered the free use of the automated
counting machines that had been successfully utilized in the automation of
the elections in that country, which has many more voters than the
Philippines.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
18. Republic v. Tan, 426 SCRA 485, March 30, 2004, per Carpio Morales, J.
19. See Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937).