Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines vs COMELEC

GR No. 159139

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. The court deem it proper to first pass upon the
procedural issues: the legal standing of petitioners and the alleged prematurity of
the Petition.
Ruling/ Legal Standing:

The Court has explained that COMELEC flagrantly violated the public policy on
public biddings by allowing MPC/MPEI to participate in the bidding even though
it was not qualified to do so; and 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. The court agreed
with the petitioners that “the subject matter of this case is "a matter of public
concern and imbued with public interest". In other words, it is of "paramount
public interest" and "transcendental importance." This fact alone would justify
relaxing the rule on legal standing, following the liberal policy of this Court
whenever a case involves "an issue of overarching significance to our society."
Petitioners’ legal standing should therefore be recognized and upheld.