EN BANC

[G.R. No. 188456. February 10, 2010.]

H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., JOEL R. BUTUYAN, ROMEL R.
BAGARES, ALLAN JONES F. LARDIZABAL, GILBERT T. ANDRES,
IMMACULADA D. GARCIA, ERLINDA T. MERCADO, FRANCISCO A.
ALCUAZ, MA. AZUCENA P. MACEDA, and ALVIN A. PETERS ,
petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by
HON. CHAIRMAN JOSE MELO, COMELEC SPECIAL BIDS and
AWARDS COMMITTEE, represented by its CHAIRMAN HON.
FERDINAND RAFANAN, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET and
MANAGEMENT, represented by HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA,
TOTAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and
SMARTMATIC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, respondents.
PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA, petitioner-in-intervention.
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its President,
JUAN PONCE ENRILE, movant-intervenor.
RESOLUTION
VELASCO, JR., J :
p

By Decision dated September 10, 2009, the Court denied the petition of H. Harry L.
Roque, Jr., et al., for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to nullify the contractaward of the 2010 Election Automation Project to the joint venture of Total
Information Management Corporation (TIM) and Smartmatic International
Corporation (Smartmatic). The Court also denied the petition-in-intervention of
Pete Q. Quadra, praying that the respondents be directed to implement the
minimum requirements provided under pars. (f) and (g), Section 6 of Republic Act
No. (RA) 8436, or the Election Modernization Act, as amended by RA 9369.
Petitioners Roque, et al., are again before the Court on a motion for reconsideration,
as supplemented, praying, as they did earlier, that the contract award be declared
null and void on the stated ground that it was made in violation of the Constitution,
statutes, and jurisprudence. 1 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.
To both motions, private respondents TIM and Smartmatic, on the one hand, and
public respondents Commission on Elections (Comelec), et al., on the other, have

interposed their separate comments and/or oppositions.

As may be recalled, the underlying petition for certiorari, etc. on its face assailed the
award by Comelec of the poll automation project to the TIM-Smartmatic joint
venture, the challenge basically predicated on the non-compliance of the contract
award with the pilot-testing requirements of RA 9369 and the minimum system
capabilities of the chosen automated election system (AES), referring to the Precinct
Count Optical Scan (PCOS) system. The non-submission of documents to show the
existence and scope of a valid joint venture agreement between TIM and
Smartmatic was also raised as a nullifying ground, albeit later abandoned or at least
not earnestly pursued.
The Court, in its September 10, 2009 Decision, dismissed the petition and the
petition-in-intervention on the following main grounds: (1) RA 8436, as amended,
does not require that the AES procured or, to be used for the 2010 nationwide fully
automated elections must, as a condition sine qua non, have been pilot-tested in
the 2007 Philippine election, it being sucient that the capability of the chosen AES
has been demonstrated in an electoral exercise in a foreign jurisdiction; (2) Comelec
has adopted a rigid technical evaluation mechanism to ensure compliance of the
PCOS with the minimum capabilities standards prescribed by RA 8436, as amended,
and its determination in this regard must be respected absent grave abuse of
discretion; (3) Comelec retains under the automation arrangement its supervision,
oversight, and control mandate to ensure a free, orderly, and honest electoral
exercise; it did not, by entering into the assailed automation project contract,
abdicate its duty to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of
elections and decide, at the first instance, all questions affecting elections; and (4) in
accordance with contract documents, continuity and back-up plans are in place to be
activated in case the PCOS machines falter during the actual election exercise.
SIacTE

Petitioners Roque, et al., as movants herein, seek a reconsideration of the

September 10, 2009 Decision on the following issues or grounds:
1.The Comelec's public pronouncements show that there is a "high
probability" that there will be failure of automated elections;
2.Comelec abdicated its constitutional functions in favor of Smartmatic;
3.There is no legal framework to guide the Comelec in appreciating
automated ballots in case the PCOS machines fail;
4.Respondents cannot comply with the requirements of RA 8436 for a
source code review;
5.Certications submitted by private respondents as to the successful use
of the machines in elections abroad do not fulll the requirement of Sec. 12
of RA 8436;
6.Private respondents will not be able to provide telecommunications
facilities that will assure 100% communications coverage at all times during
the conduct of the 2010 elections; and

7.Subcontracting the manufacture of PCOS machines to Quisdi violates the

Comelec's bidding rules.

Both public and private respondents, upon the other hand, insist that petitioners'
motion for reconsideration should be held devoid of merit, because the motion, for
the most part, either advances issues or theories not raised in the petition for
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, and argues along speculative and conjectural
lines.
Upon taking a second hard look into the issues in the case at bar and the arguments
earnestly pressed in the instant motions, the Court cannot grant the desired
reconsideration.
Petitioners' threshold argument delves on possibilities, on matters that may or may
not occur. The conjectural and speculative nature of the rst issue raised is reected
in the very manner of its formulation and by statements, such as "the public
pronouncements of public respondent COMELEC 2 . . . clearly show that there is a
high probability that there will be automated failure of elections"; 3 "there is a high
probability that the use of PCOS machines in the May 2010 elections will result in
failure of elections"; 4 "the unaddressed logistical nightmares and the lack of
contingency plans that should have been crafted as a result of a pilot test make
an automated failure of elections very probable"; 5 and "COMELEC committed grave
abuse of discretion when it signed . . . the contract for full automation . . . despite
the likelihood of a failure of elections." 6
Speculations and conjectures are not equivalent to proof; they have little, if any,
probative value and, surely, cannot be the basis of a sound judgment.
EaISTD

Petitioners, to support their speculative venture vis--vis the possibility of Comelec

going manual, have attributed certain statements to respondent Comelec Chairman
Melo, citing for the purpose a news item on Inquirer.net, posted September 16,
2009. 7
Reacting to the attribution, however, respondents TIM and Smartmatic, in their
comment, described the Melo pronouncements as made in the context of Comelec's
contingency plan. Petitioners, however, the same respondents added, put a
misleading spin to the Melo pronouncements by reproducing part of the news item,
but omitting to make reference to his succeeding statements to arrive at a clearer
and true picture.
Private respondents' observation is well-taken. Indeed, it is easy to selectively cite
portions of what has been said, sometimes out of their proper context, in order to
assert a misleading conclusion. The eect can be dangerous. Improper meaning may
be deliberately attached to innocent views or even occasional crude comments by
the simple expediency of lifting them out of context from any publication. At any
event, the Court took it upon itself to visit the website, whence petitioners deduced
their position on the possible failure of automated elections in problem areas and
found the following items:

Allaying fears of failure of elections in 2010, the . . . [Comelec] said it will

prepare for manual balloting, especially for areas with problems in electricity
and telecommunications network coverage. . . .
"Aside from preparations for poll automation, Comelec is also preparing for
manual elections sa mga liblib na lugar [in remote places] . . ., provinces with
no electricity and would have issues in electronic transmission. We are ready
for manual polls in at least 30 percent or 50 percent of the country as a last
contingency measure in case the contingency plans for automation are
difficult to implement," said Melo.
The poll chief was reacting to statements expressing the
possibility of failure of elections due to the novelty of poll
automation.
"The occurrence of nationwide failure of elections as alleged by doomsayers
is impossible. Under the laws of probability, all 80,000 PCOS machines
nationwide cannot breakdown. Maybe several would but we have standby
units for this and we also have preparations for manual elections," he said. 8
(Emphasis added.)

Petitioners next maintain that the Comelec abdicated its constitutional mandate 9
to decide all questions aecting elections when, under Article 3.3 10 of the poll
automation contract, it surrendered control of the system and technical aspects of
the 2010 automated elections to Smartmatic in violation of Sec. 26 11 of RA 8436.
Comelec, so petitioners suggest, should have stipulated that its Information
Technology (IT) Department shall have charge of the technical aspects of the
elections.
SATDEI

Petitioners' above contention, as well as the arguments, citations, and premises

holding it together, is a rehash of their previous position articulated in their
memorandum 12 in support of their petition. They have been considered, squarely
addressed, and found to be without merit in the Decision subject hereof. The Court
is not inclined to embark on another extended discussion of the same issue again.
Suce it to state that, under the automation contract, Smartmatic is given a
specic and limited technical task to assist the Comelec in implementing the AES.
But at the end of the day, the Smarmatic-TIM joint venture is merely a service
provider and lessor of goods and services to the Comelec, which shall have exclusive
supervision and control of the electoral process. Art. 6.7 of the automation contract
could not have been more clear:
6.7Subject to the provisions of the General Instructions to be issued by the
Commission En Banc, the entire process of voting, counting,
transmission, consolidation and canvassing of votes shall [still] be
conducted by COMELEC's personnel and ocials and their
performance, completion and nal results according to specications and
within specied periods shall be the shared responsibility of COMELEC and
the PROVIDER. (Emphasis added.)

The aforequoted provision doubtless preserves Comelec's constitutional and

statutory responsibilities. But at the same time, it realistically recognizes the

complexity and the highly technical nature of the automation project and addresses
the contingencies that the novelty of election automation brings.
Petitioners' posture anent the third issue, i.e, there no is * legal framework to guide
Comelec in the appreciation of automated ballots or to govern manual count should PCOS
machines fail, cannot be accorded cogency. First, it glosses over the continuity and backup plans that would be implemented in case the PCOS machines falter during the 2010
elections. 13 The overall fallback strategy and options to address even the worst-case

scenario the wholesale breakdown of the 80,000 needed machines nationwide

and of the 2,000 reserved units have been discussed in some detail in the
Decision subject of this recourse. The Court need not belabor them again.
While a motion for reconsideration may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in
the decision sought to be reconsidered and this should not be an obstacle for a
reconsideration the hard reality is that petitioners have failed to raise matters
substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of
action.

Second, petitioners' position presupposes that the Comelec is, in the meanwhile,
standing idly by, totally unconcerned with that grim eventuality and the scenarios
petitioners envision and depict. Comelec, to reiterate, is the constitutional body
tasked to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of
an election. In the discharge of this responsibility, Comelec has been aorded
enough latitude in devising means and methods that would enable it to accomplish
the great objective for which it was created. In the matter of the administration of
laws relative to the conduct of elections, the Court or petitioners for that matter
must not, by any preemptive move or any excessive zeal, take away from
Comelec the initiative that by law pertains to it. 14 It should not be stymied with
restrictions that would perhaps be justied in the case of an organization of lesser
responsibility. 15
AIDTSE

Signicantly, petitioners, in support of their position on the lack-of-legal-framework

issue, invoke the opinion of Associate, later Chief, Justice Artemio Panganiban in
Loong v. Comelec, 16 where he made the following observations: "Resort to manual
appreciation of the ballots is precluded by the basic features of the automated
election system," 17 and "the rules laid down in the Omnibus Election Code (OEC)
for the appreciation and counting of ballots cast in a manual election . . . are
inappropriate, if not downright useless, to the proper appreciation and reading of
the ballots used in the automated system." 18 Without delving on its wisdom and
validity, the view of Justice Panganiban thus cited came by way of a dissenting
opinion. As such, it is without binding eect, a dissenting opinion being a mere
expression of the individual view of a member of the Court or other collegial
adjudicating body, while disagreeing with the conclusion held by the majority. 19
Petitioners insist next that public respondents cannot comply with the requirement
of a source code 20 review as mandated by Sec. 14 of RA 8436, as amended, which
provides:

SEC. 14.Examination and Testing of Equipment or Device of the AES and

Opening of the Source Code of Review. Once an AES Technology is
selected for implementation, the Commission shall promptly make the
source code of that technology available and open to any interested political
party or groups which may conduct their own review thereof.

Pursuing the point, after citing a commentary of an IT expert on the importance of a

source code review, petitioners state the observation that "there are strong
indications of [the inability] to comply . . . since the source code, which runs the
PCOS machines, will effectively be kept secret from the people." 21
Again, petitioners engage in an entirely speculative exercise, second-guessing what
the Comelec can and will probably do, or what it cannot and probably will not do,
with respect to the implementation of a statutory provision. The fact that a source
code review is not expressly included in the Comelec schedule of activities is not an
indication, as petitioners suggest, that Comelec will not implement such review.
Comelec, in its Comment on the Motion for Reconsideration, manifests its intention
to make available and open the source code to all political and interested parties,
but under a controlled environment to obviate replication and tampering of the
source code, thus protecting, in the process, the intellectual proprietary right of
Smartmatic to the source code. Absent compelling proof to the contrary, the Court
accords the Comelec, which enjoys the presumption of good faith in the
performance of its duties in the first place, the benefit of the doubt.
And going to another but recycled issue, petitioners would have the Court invalidate
the automation contract on the ground that the certications submitted by
Smartmatic during the bidding, showing that the PCOS technology has been used in
elections abroad, do not comply with Sec. 12 22 of RA 8436.
aTcSID

We are not convinced.

As stressed in our September 10, 2009 Decision, the AES chosen by Comelec for the
2010 elections has been successfully deployed in previous electoral exercises in
foreign countries, such as Ontario, Canada and New York, USA, 23 albeit Smartmatic
was not necessarily the system provider.
Roque, et al., in their petition, had questioned the certications to this eect,
arguing that these certications were not issued to respondent TIM-Smartmatic, but
to a third party, Dominion Voting Systems. Resolving the challenge, the Court, in
eect, said that the system subject of the certications was the same one procured
by Comelec for the 2010 elections. And besides, the Licensing Agreement between
Smartmatic and the Dominion Voting Systems indicates that the former is the
entity licensed by the latter to use the system in the Philippines.
Presently, petitioners assert that the system certied as having been used in New
York was the Dominion Image Cast, a ballot marking device.
Petitioners have obviously inserted, at this stage of the case, an entirely new factual
dimension to their cause. This we cannot allow for compelling reasons. For starters,

the Court cannot plausibly validate this factual assertion of petitioners. As it is,
private respondents have even questioned the reliability of the website 24 whence
petitioners base their assertion, albeit the former, citing the same website, state
that the Image Cast Precinct tabulation device refers to the Dominion's PCOS
machines.
Moreover, as a matter of sound established practice, points of law, theories, issues,
and arguments not raised in the original proceedings cannot be brought out on
review. Basic considerations of fair play impel this rule. The imperatives of orderly, if
not speedy, justice frown on a piecemeal presentation of evidence 25 and on the
practice of parties of going to trial haphazardly. 26
Moving still to another issue, petitioners claim that "there are very strong
indications that Private Respondents will not be able to provide for
telecommunication facilities for areas without these facilities." 27 This argument,
being again highly speculative, is without evidentiary value and hardly provides a
ground for the Court to nullify the automation contract. Surely, a possible breach of
a contractual stipulation is not a legal reason to prematurely rescind, much less
annul, the contract.
Finally, petitioners argue that, based on news reports, 28 the TIM-Smartmatic joint
venture has entered into a new contract with Quisdi, a Shanghai-based company, to
manufacture on its behalf the needed PCOS machines to fully automate the 2010
elections. 29 This arrangement, petitioners aver, violates the bid rules proscribing
sub-contracting of significant components of the automation project.
The argument is untenable, based as it is again on news reports. Surely, petitioners
cannot expect the Court to act on unveried reports foisted on it. And, of course, the
Court is at a loss to understand how the sub-contract would, in the scheme of
things, constitute grave abuse of discretion on the part of Comelec so as to nullify
the contract award of the automation project. As petitioners themselves
acknowledge, again citing news reports, "Smartmatic has unilaterally made the
new subcontract to the Chinese company." 30 Petitioners admit too, albeit with
qualication, that RA 9184 allows subcontracting of a portion of the automation
project. 31
IcSHTA

The motion of intervenor Quadra deals with the auditability of the results of the
automated elections. His concern has already been addressed by the Court in its
Decision. As we have said, the AES procured by the Comelec is a paper-based
system, which has a provision for system auditability, since the voter would be able,
if needed, to verify if the PCOS machine has scanned, recorded, and counted his
vote properly. All actions done on the machine can be printed out by the Board of
Election Inspectors Chairperson as an audit log. 32
On the basis of the arguments, past and present, presented by the petitioners and
intervenor, the Court does not nd any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Comelec in awarding the automation contract to the joint venture of private
respondents.

In closing, the Court harks back to its parting message embodied in its September
10, 2009 Decision, but this time even more mindful of warnings and apprehensions
of well-meaning sectors of society, including some members of the Court, about the
possibility of failure of elections. The Court, to repeat, will not venture to say that
nothing could go wrong in the conduct of the 2010 nationwide automated elections.
Neither will it guarantee, as it is not even equipped with the necessary expertise to
guarantee, the eectiveness of the voting machines and the integrity of the
counting and consolidation software embedded in them. That dicult and complex
undertaking belongs at the rst instance to the Comelec as part of its mandate to
insure orderly and peaceful elections. The Comelec, as it were, is laboring under a
very tight timeline. It would accordingly need the help of all advocates of orderly
and honest elections, all men and women of goodwill, to assist Comelec personnel
in addressing the fears expressed about the integrity of the system. After all,
peaceful, fair, honest, and credible elections is everyone's concern.
WHEREFORE, the instant separate motions for reconsideration of the main and
intervening petitioners are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J., Corona, Nachura, Leonardo-de Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del
Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Carpio, J., I reiterate my dissent of 10 Sept. 2009.
Carpio Morales, J., my concurrence with the dissent remains.

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2056-2104.

2.Id. at 2061-2062. Attributed to Comelec Chairperson Melo or Jeanie Flororito, Director
of Comelec's IT Department.
3.Id. at 2061.
4.Id. at 2065.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.<http://newsinfo.Inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090916-225461/Comelec
may go manual in problem areas> (visited January 11, 2010).
8.Id.
9.Article IX-C, Sec. 2 of the Constitution provides that the Comelec shall "[e]nforce and

administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election . . . [and]
Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions aecting elections . .
. ."
10.Article 3.3. The Provider shall be liable for all its obligations under the Project . . .
SMARTMATIC, as the joint partner with the greater track record in automated
elections, shall be in charge of the technical aspects of the counting and
canvassing software and hardware, including transmission conguration and
system integration. SMARTMATIC shall also be primary responsible for preventing
and troubleshooting technical problems that may arise during the election. . . .
11.Sec. 26. Supervision and control. The System shall be under the exclusive
supervision and control of the [Comelec]. For this purpose, there is hereby
created an information technology department in the Commission to carry out the
full administration and implementation of the System. . . .
12.Rollo, pp. 1560-1687.
13.RA 9369, Sec. 11. provides: Section 99 of [RA] 8436 is hereby amended to read as
fellows: Sec. 13. Continuity Plan. The AES shall be so designed to include a
continuity plan in case of a systems breakdown or any such eventuality which shall
result in the delay, obstruction or nonperformance of the electoral process.
Activation of such continuity and contingency measures shall be undertaken in the
presence of representatives of political parties and citizen's arm of the Commission
who shall be notified by the election officer of such activation.
All political parties and party-lists shall be furnished copies of said continuity plan . . . .
The list shall be published in at least two newspapers of national circulation and
shall be posted at the website of the Commission at least fteen (15) days prior to
the electoral activity concerned.
14.Sumulong v. Comelec, 73 Phil. 288 (1941).
15.Leyaley v. Comelec, G.R. No. 160061, October 11, 2006, 504 SCRA 217.
16.G.R. No. 133676, April 14, 1999, 305 SCRA 832.
17.Id. at 880.
18.Id. at 880-881.
19.Coca-Cola Bottlers, Inc. Sales Force Union-PTGWO-Balais v. Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 155651, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 507; National Union of
Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries v. NLRC, G.R. No. 125561,
March 6, 1988, 287 SCRA 192.
20.Defined in Sec. 2 of RA 8436 as "human readable instructions [set of numbers, letters
and symbols] that define what the computer equipment will do."
21.Motion for Reconsideration, p. 37.
22.SEC 12. Procurement of Equipment and Materials. To achieve the purpose of this

Act, the Commission is authorized to procure . . . supplies, equipment, materials,

software, facilities, and other services, from local or foreign sources . . . . With
respect to the May 10, 2010 elections and succeeding electoral
exercises, the system procured must have demonstrated capability and
been successfully used in prior electoral exercise here or abroad.
Participation in the 2007 pilot exercise shall not be conclusive of the
system's fitness.
23.Memorandum, Report/Recommendation on the 2010 Automation Election Project
Procurement, Annex "9," Comment on Petition of Public Respondents.
24.<http://www.elections.state.ny.us/>.
25.Jacot v. Dal, G.R. No. 179848 November 27, 2008, 572 SCRA 295.
26.Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143286, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 439.
27.Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, p. 5.
28.By Aries Rufo <abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak>.
29.Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, p. 11.
30.Id. at 18.
31.Id. at 17.
32.Concurring Opinion of Chief Justice Puno, p. 65.