CASE 2015-03: BISHOP BRODERICK S. PABILLO, DD, PABLO R. MANALASTAS, JR., PHD, MARIA CORAZON AKOL, CONCEPCION B. REGALADO, HECTOR A. BARRIOS, LEO Y. QUERUBIN, AUGUSTO C. LAGMAN, FELIX P. MUGA, II, PHD, ATTY. GREGORIO T. FABROS, EVITA L. JIMENEZ, AND JAIME DL CARO, PHD, PETITIONERS, – VERSUS – COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, EN BANC, REPRESENTED BY ACTING CHAIRPERSON CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM, AND SMARTMATIC-TIM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY SMARTMATIC ASIA-PACIFIC PRESIDENT CESAR FLORES, RESPONDENTS. (G.R. NO. 216098, G.R. NO. 216562, 21 APR 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) BRIEF TITLE: BISHOP PABILLO ET AL VS. COMELEC.

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. Accordingly, COMELEC Resolution No. 9922 and the Extended Warranty Contract (Program 1) are hereby declared NULL and VOID. This Decision is immediately executory in view of the time considerations attendant herein.

 

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“There are no qualms about the task of having the PCOS machines repaired and refurbished. However, there are serious and unignorable legal flaws about how the COMELEC intends to pursue this undertaking. Bluntly, the COMELEC has failed to justify its reasons for directly contracting with Smartmatic-TIM: it had not shown that any of the conditions under Section 50, Article XVI of the GPRA exists; its claims of impracticality were not   supported by independently verified and competent data; and lastly, its perceived “warranty extension” is, in reality, just a circumvention of the procurement law. For all these counts, the conclusion thus reached is that the COMELEC had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.210 As a result, its Resolution No. 9922 and the Extended Warranty Contract (Program 1) should be stricken down, and necessarily, all amounts paid to Smartmatic-TIM pursuant to the said contract, if any, being public funds sourced from taxpayers’ money, should be returned to the government in accordance with the procedures contained in existing rules and regulations. Note that the disposition of these cases does not prohibit the COMELEC from resorting to direct contracting anew or other alternative method of procurement with any service contractor, subject to compliance with the conditions provided in the GPRA and all the pertinent rules and procedures.

 

While this Court recognizes that the COMELEC should be given sufficient leeway in exercising its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer all election laws, it demands equal recognition that it is the Court’s constitutional duty to see to it that all governmental actions are legally permissible. In so doing, the Court decides not only with pragmatism in mind, but pragmatism within the fair bounds of law. Such is the case in examining the COMELEC’s apprehensions under the lens of the procurement law, with heightened considerations of public accountability and transparency put to the fore. With due deference to the COMELEC, it should be made to understand that this Court does not stand to thwart the conduct of automated elections; but only steps in to preserve its sanctity. After all, in a democracy, nothing is more vital than an unimpaired vote.”

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 SCD-2015-0003-MAR-2015-COMELEC

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.