Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines (ITF) v. COMELEC G.R. No. 159139. January 13, 2004. En Banc. Memory Aid: Facts: On June 7, 1995, Congress passed Republic Act 8046, which authorized COMELEC to conduct a nationwide demonstration of a computerized el ection system and allowed the poll body to pilot-test the system in the March 1996 elections in the ARMM.
On October 29, 2002, Comelec adopted in a Resolution a modernization program for the 2004 elections. It resolved to conduct biddings for the three phases of its Automated Election System. On January 24, 2003, President P resident Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 172, which allocated the sum of P2.5 billion to fund the AES for the May 10, 2004 elections. Upon the request of Comelec, she authorized the release of an additional P500 million. On January 28, 2003, the Commission issued an “Invitation “Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid.” Bid.” On February 17, 2003, the poll body released the Request for Proposal (RFP) to procure the election automation machines. The Bids and Awards Committee Committee (BAC) of Comelec convened convened a pre-bid conference on February 18, 2003 and gave prospective bidders until March 10, 2003 to submit their respective bids. Among others, the RFP provided that bids from manufacturers, suppliers, and/or distributors forming themselves into a joint venture may be entertained, provided that the ventur e Philippine ownership thereof shall be at least 60 percent. Joint ventur is defined in the RFP as “a group of two or more manufacturers, suppliers and/or distributors that intend to be jointly and severally responsible or liable for a particular contract.”
On May 29, 2003, five individuals and entities (including ITF, represented b y its president, Torres, and Corazon) wrote a letter to COMELEC Chairman Abalos. They protested the award of the Contract to Mega Pacific P acific Consortium (MPC) “due to glaring irregularities in the manner in which the bidding process had been conducted.” conducted.” They questioned the identity and eligibility of the awarded MPC where the competing bidder is Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc. (MPEI) as signed by Mr. Willy Yu of the latter. COMELEC claims that MPEI is the lead partner tied up with other companies like SK C&C, WeSolv, Election.com, and ePLDT. COMELEC obtained copies of Memorandum of Agreements and Teaming Agreements. Citing therein the noncompliance with eligibility as well as technical and procedural requirements (many of which have been discussed at length in the Petition), they sought a re-bidding. They claimed that COMELEC awarded and contracted with a non-eligible entity. In a letter-reply dated June 6, 2003, 200 3, the COMELEC Chairman Abalos rejected the protest and declared that the award “would stand up to the strictest scrutiny.”
Issue: Did the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion? Was there a consortium? Held: On the question of the identity and the existence of the real bidder, respondents insist that, contrary to petitioners’ allegations, the bidder was not MPEI which was incorporated only 11 days before the bidding. Rather, the bidder was MPC, of which MPEI was but a part. As proof thereof, they point to the March 7, 2003 letter of intent to bid, signed by the president of MPEI allegedly for and on behalf of MPC. They also call attention to the official receipt issued to MPC, acknowledging payment for the bidding documents, as proof that it was the “consortium” that participated in the bidding process. The Court did not agree. The intent letter, signed by only one signatory and without any further proof, does not by itself prove the existence of the consortium. It does not show that MPEI or its president have been duly pre-authorized by the other members of the putative consortium to represent them, to bid on their collective behalf and, more important, to commit them jointly and severally to the bid undertakings. The letter is purely self-serving and uncorroborated. Neither does an official receipt issued to MPC, acknowledging payment for the bidding documents, constitute proof that it was the purported consortium that participated in the bidding. Such receipts are issued by cashiers without any legally sufficient inquiry as to the real identity or existence of the supposed payor. To assure itself properly of the due existence (as well as eligibility and qualification) of the putative consortium, Comelec’s BAC should have examined the bidding documents submitted on behalf of MPC. They would have easily discovered the following fatal flaws.
