SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SEPARATE OPINION

DAVIDE, JR., C.J. :ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

I join Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug in his separate opinion and strongly recommend, for the reasons therein stated, that this case be DISMISSED.

Let me further add other compelling reasons which strengthen my view that this case should be dismissed.

The Court did not issue a Temporary Restraining Order in this case.This showed an initial finding that on its face the allegations in the petition were insufficient to justify or warrant the grant of a temporary restraining order.In the meantime then the parties were not barred from performing their respective obligations under the contract.As of today, the COMELEC has already paid a large portion of its contracted obligation and the private respondent has delivered the contracted equipment for automation.It is to be reasonably presumed that during the same period the COMELEC focused its attention, time and resources toward the full and successful implementation of the comprehensive Automated Election System for the May 2004 elections.Setting aside the contract in question at this late hour may have unsettling, disturbing and even destabilizing effect.For one, it will leave the COMELEC insufficient time to prepare for a non-automated electoral process, i.e., the manual process, which would necessarily include the acquisition of the security paper and the purchase of a dandy roll to watermark the ballot paper, printing of other election forms, as well as the bidding and acquisition of the ballot boxes.For another, the law on Automated Election System (R.A. 8436) and Executive Order No. 172 (24 January 2003) which allocated the sum of P2.5 Billion, and Executive Order No. 175 (10 February 2003) which allocated the additional sum of P500 Million for the implementation in the May 2004 elections of the Automated Election System would be put to naught as there is absolutely no more time to conduct a re-bidding.

Finally, there is no suggestion that graft and corruption attended the bidding process, or that the contract price is excessive or unreasonable.All that the petitioners claim is that the bidding and the award process was fatally flawed.The public respondents acted without or excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it [sic] awarded the project. It may be precipitate for this Court to declare void the contract in question.