G.R. No.

159139             January 13, 2004

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, et
al., petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; ET al, respondents.

FACTS: On January 24, 2003, President 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.
Report on the Evaluation of the Technical Proposals on Phase II, DOST said that both MPC and
TIMC had obtained a number of failed marks in the technical evaluation. Notwithstanding these
failures, Comelec en banc, on April 15, 2003, promulgated Resolution No. 6074 awarding the
project to MPC. The Commission publicized this Resolution and the award of the project to
MPC on May 16, 2003. On May 29, 2003, five individuals and entities (including the herein
Petitioners Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines, wrote a letter to Comelec
Chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr. They protested the award of the Contract to Respondent MPC
"due to glaring irregularities in the manner in which the bidding process had been conducted."
Citing therein the noncompliance with eligibility as well as technical and procedural
requirements they sought a re-bidding.

ISSUE:1. The COMELEC awarded and contracted with a non-eligible entity; 2. Private
respondents failed to pass the Technical Test as required in the RFP. Notwithstanding, such
failure was ignored. In effect, the COMELEC changed the rules after the bidding in effect
changing the nature of the contract bidded upon.3. Petitioners have locus standi.4. Instant
Petition is not premature. Direct resort to the Supreme Court is justified."17

HELD: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.

Respondent Comelec came out with its en banc Resolution No. 6074 dated April 15, 2003,
awarding the project to Respondent MPC even before the BAC managed to issue its written
report and recommendation on April 21, 2003. Thus, how could petitioners have appealed the
BAC’s recommendation or report to the head of the procuring entity (the chairman of Comelec),
when the Comelec en banc had already approved the award of the contract to MPC even before
petitioners learned of the BAC recommendation.

Comelec awarded this billion-peso undertaking with inexplicable haste, without adequately
checking and observing mandatory financial, technical and legal requirements. It also accepted
the proferred computer hardware and software even if, at the time of the award, they had
undeniably failed to pass eight critical requirements designed to safeguard the integrity of
elections

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Court hereby declares NULL and VOID
Comelec Resolution No. 6074 awarding the contract for Phase II of the AES to Mega Pacific
Consortium (MPC). Also declared null and void is the subject Contract executed between
Comelec and Mega Pacific eSolutions (MPEI).55 Comelec is further ORDERED to refrain from
implementing any other contract or agreement entered into with regard to this project.