[G.R. No. 159139.

February 17, 2004]

ITFP vs. COMELEC

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 17
2004.

G.R. No. 159139 (Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines, et al., vs.
Commission on Elections, et al.)

This refers to the Motion for Reconsideration, dated January 28, 2004, of the
Commission on Elections and the Omnibus Motion, dated January 26, 2004 of the
private respondents.

Essentially, movants raise the same procedural and substantive issues already
exhaustively discussed and definitively passed upon in our Decision. Other than
rehashing the same basic arguments already made, no compelling reasons have been
adduced to justify the modification or reversal of the Court's findings and conclusions
on such issues.

On the other hand, with respect to movants' contention that the Decision is "grossly
unfair" because it "expose [d] them "to possible criminal prosecution," suffice it to say
that there had been no prejudgment made on their criminal liability. Although the
Decision stated that the Ombudsman shall "determine the criminal liability, if any, of
the public officials (and conspiring private individuals, if any) involved in the subject
Resolution and Contract," the Court did not make any premature conclusion on any
wrongdoing but precisely directed the Ombudsman to make that determination, after
conducting the appropriate proceedings and after observing due process.

Public respondents complain that while we have directed the Ombudsman and the
Solicitor General to determine their criminal and civil liabilities (if any), the Court did
not make the same direction in regard to the officials involved in the Amari and PIATCO
cases. Such misplaced outbursts merely show that, up to this day, the Honorable
Comelec Commissioners and the other officials concerned have not realized the gravity
of their misdeeds. While the contracts in the Amari and PIATCO cases were mainly
commercial in nature, here -- as already explained in the Decision -- the "illegal, hasty
and imprudent actions of the Commission have not only desecrated legal and
jurisprudential norms [governing contracts and public biddings] but have also cast
serious doubts upon the poll body's ability and capacity to conduct automated elections.
Truly, the pith and soul of democracy -- credible, orderly, and peaceful elections -- have
been put in jeopardy by the illegal and abusive acts of Comelec."

Also, in the Amari and PIATCO cases, there was no irregular disbursement of public
funds in the reclamation project and airport terminal construction concerned. What
were used in the works involved in those cases were mostly private funds. Here,
however, the government has earmarked P1.3 billion for the automation of the ballot
counting and canvassing, of which nearly P850 million has already been irregularly paid
to private respondents by Comelec. Certainly, public interest requires the recovery of
this enormous sum, and the punishment of those who may be criminally responsible
therefor.

Besides, the public officials involved in the Amari case have already been charged
criminally. In any event, even without being expressly directed by the Court, the
Ombudsman, on his own, is constitutionally mandated to investigate any possible
criminal liability of the officials concerned whenever and wherever it may arise.

1
The Court also emphasizes that, contrary to movants' insinuation, the Decision did not
per se prohibit the automation of the elections. Neither did it say that it was opposed to
election automation as a general proposition. It merely voided the assailed Resolution
and Contract for having been made and executed with inexplicable haste, in grave abuse
of discretion and in clear violation not only of law (especially R.A. 9184, R.A. 8436, and
R.A. 6955 as amended by R.A. 7718) and settled jurisprudence (the latest of which is
Agan vs. Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc., G.R. No. 155001, May 5, 2003
and January 21, 2004) but also of the bidding rules and requirements of the
Commission on Election itself. All of these grounds are already adequately explained in
the Decision and, thus, need not be repeated or elaborated on here.

Private respondents' prayer for a new hearing has no merit. The Court has given the
parties more than sufficient opportunity to explain their causes through their kilometric
pleadings and their exhaustive presentations during the Oral Argument. Granting their
plea for a new hearing will just unnecessarily delay this case and deflect the attention
of the Commission on Elections from its primary task of insuring a credible, orderly and
peaceful election.

Finally, the public respondent's request for clarification "on the effect of [the] herein
Decision on the Resolution from Congress providing for [the] implementation of [the]
automation of [the] elections on [a] selective basis," (which Resolution the President
allegedly "has not signed") cannot be answered here since such question was not an
issue raised in this case, and since the Court does not render advisory opinions.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the Motions are DENIED. This denial is FINAL.

SO ORDERED.

Panganiban, J., ponente.