Roque v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., et al. sought to nullify the contract award for the 2010 Election Automation Project to the joint venture of Total Information Management Corporation (TIM) and Smartmatic International Corporation (Smartmatic). Intervening petitioner Pete Q. Quadra prayed for the implementation of minimum requirements under RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369, and for manual counting of ballots in case of machine failure. Procedural History: The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated September 10, 2009, denied the initial petition and petition-in-intervention. Petitioners Roque, et al. filed a motion for reconsideration, raising several issues including alleged "high probability" of election failure, abdication of Comelec's constitutional functions, lack of legal framework for automated ballot appreciation, non-compliance with source code review requirements, inadequacy of foreign certifications for system capabilities, telecommunication facility concerns, and violation of bidding rules due to subcontracting. The Petition: Petitioners Roque, et al. are again before the Court on a motion for reconsideration, praying that the contract award be declared null and void on the ground that it was made in violation of the Constitution, statutes, and jurisprudence. Intervening petitioner also interposed a similar motion, but only to pray that the Board of Election Inspectors be ordered to manually count the ballots after the printing and electronic transmission of the election returns.
Issue(s)
Whether the Comelec's public pronouncements indicate a "high probability" of automated election failure. Whether Comelec abdicated its constitutional functions in favor of Smartmatic. Whether there is a legal framework to guide Comelec in appreciating automated ballots or governing manual counts should PCOS machines fail. Whether respondents can comply with the requirements of RA 8436 for a source code review. Whether certifications submitted by private respondents regarding the successful use of machines in elections abroad fulfill the requirement of Sec. 12 of RA 8436. Whether private respondents can provide telecommunications facilities that assure 100% communications coverage at all times during the conduct of the 2010 elections. Whether subcontracting the manufacture of PCOS machines to Quisdi violates Comelec's bidding rules.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the separate motions for reconsideration of the main and intervening petitioners. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) in awarding the automation contract to the joint venture of private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged "high probability" of automated election failure: The Court found this argument to be speculative and conjectural, lacking probative value. It clarified that Comelec Chairman Melo's statements about preparing for manual balloting were contingency measures, not admissions of inevitable failure. The Court noted that Comelec had standby units and preparations for manual elections as last resort measures, and that a nationwide failure of elections was deemed impossible under the laws of probability. On Comelec's alleged abdication of constitutional functions: The Court reiterated that the automation contract designates Smartmatic as a service provider and lessor of goods and services to Comelec, which retains exclusive supervision and control of the electoral process. Article 6.7 of the contract clearly states that the entire process of voting, counting, transmission, consolidation, and canvassing shall be conducted by Comelec's personnel and officials, thus preserving Comelec's constitutional and statutory responsibilities. On the lack of a legal framework for automated ballot appreciation or manual counts: The Court found this contention to be without cogency, as it overlooked the continuity and back-up plans already in place. It also emphasized that Comelec, as the constitutional body tasked with enforcing election laws, has the latitude to devise means and methods for its responsibilities, and that the Court should not preempt its initiative. The Court also noted that the invocation of Justice Panganiban's dissenting opinion on the inappropriateness of manual appreciation rules was without binding effect. On compliance with source code review requirements: The Court found the petitioners' argument to be speculative. It stated that Comelec's intention to make the source code available under a controlled environment to obviate replication and tampering, while protecting intellectual property rights, was sufficient. Absent compelling proof to the contrary, the Court accorded Comelec the benefit of the doubt, presuming good faith in its duties. On the adequacy of foreign certifications for system capabilities: The Court found no reason to invalidate the contract. It reiterated that the AES chosen had been successfully deployed in previous electoral exercises in foreign countries, and that the Licensing Agreement between Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems indicated Smartmatic's license to use the system in the Philippines. The Court also noted that petitioners introduced a new factual dimension regarding the specific type of device used in New York, which could not be allowed at that stage of the case. On the provision of telecommunications facilities: The Court deemed this argument highly speculative and without evidentiary value. It stated that a possible breach of a contractual stipulation is not a legal reason to prematurely rescind or annul the contract. On subcontracting violating bid rules: The Court found this argument untenable, as it was based on unverified news reports. The Court also noted that petitioners themselves acknowledged that RA 9184 allows subcontracting of a portion of the automation project, and that Smartmatic had unilaterally made the subcontract.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration, upholding its prior decision that dismissed the petition to nullify the contract award for the 2010 Election Automation Project. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) in awarding the contract to the joint venture of Total Information Management Corporation (TIM) and Smartmatic International Corporation (Smartmatic). The Court reiterated that the Election Modernization Act, as amended, does not mandate pilot testing in prior Philippine elections, and that Comelec's technical evaluation and oversight were sufficient.