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.