Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 431 views

    Capalla vs. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    ronald
    The Comelec entered into a contract with Smartmatic-TIM to lease electronic voting machines for the 2010 election with an option to purchase. The Comelec was given until December 2010 to exercise this option but failed to do so. Smartmatic-TIM granted several extensions of the option period, with the final extension being until March 31, 2012. On that date, the Comelec executed a Deed of Sale to purchase the machines from Smartmatic-TIM for the 2013 election. Petitioners argued this was unconstitutional as the original option period had lapsed and the purchase did not undergo competitive bidding. However, the Supreme Court ruled the Comelec did not gravely abuse its discretion, as the contract allowed for amendments like extending the option

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Capalla vs. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    ronald
    431 views2 pages
    The Comelec entered into a contract with Smartmatic-TIM to lease electronic voting machines for the 2010 election with an option to purchase. The Comelec was given until December 2010 to exercise this option but failed to do so. Smartmatic-TIM granted several extensions of the option period, with the final extension being until March 31, 2012. On that date, the Comelec executed a Deed of Sale to purchase the machines from Smartmatic-TIM for the 2013 election. Petitioners argued this was unconstitutional as the original option period had lapsed and the purchase did not undergo competitive bidding. However, the Supreme Court ruled the Comelec did not gravely abuse its discretion, as the contract allowed for amendments like extending the option

    Original Description:

    Election law case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Comelec entered into a contract with Smartmatic-TIM to lease electronic voting machines for the 2010 election with an option to purchase. The Comelec was given until December 2010 to exercise this option but failed to do so. Smartmatic-TIM granted several extensions of the option period, with the final extension being until March 31, 2012. On that date, the Comelec executed a Deed of Sale to purchase the machines from Smartmatic-TIM for the 2013 election. Petitioners argued this was unconstitutional as the original option period had lapsed and the purchase did not undergo competitive bidding. However, the Supreme Court ruled the Comelec did not gravely abuse its discretion, as the contract allowed for amendments like extending the option

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    431 views2 pages

    Capalla vs. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    ronald
    The Comelec entered into a contract with Smartmatic-TIM to lease electronic voting machines for the 2010 election with an option to purchase. The Comelec was given until December 2010 to exercise this option but failed to do so. Smartmatic-TIM granted several extensions of the option period, with the final extension being until March 31, 2012. On that date, the Comelec executed a Deed of Sale to purchase the machines from Smartmatic-TIM for the 2013 election. Petitioners argued this was unconstitutional as the original option period had lapsed and the purchase did not undergo competitive bidding. However, the Supreme Court ruled the Comelec did not gravely abuse its discretion, as the contract allowed for amendments like extending the option

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Capalla vs. Comelec, GR No.

    201112, June 13, 2012

    By LLBe:LawLifeBuzzEtcetera

    Facts: The Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM entered into a Contract for the Provision of an
    Automated Election System for the May 10, 2010.

    The contract between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM was one of lease of the AES with
    option to purchase (OTP) the goods listed in the contract. In said contract, the Comelec was
    given until December 31, 2010 within which to exercise the option. In September 2010, the
    Comelec partially exercised its OTP 920 units of PCOS machines with corresponding
    canvassing/consolidation system (CCS) for the special elections in certain areas in the
    provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Bulacan. In a letter dated December 18, 2010,
    Smartmatic-TIM, through its Chairman Flores, proposed a temporary extension of the option
    period on the remaining PCOS machines until March 31, 2011, waiving the storage costs
    and covering the maintenance costs. The Comelec did not exercise the option within the
    extended period. Several extensions were given for the Comelec to exercise the OTP until its
    final extension on March 31, 2012.

    On March 29, 2012, the Comelec issued a Resolution resolving to accept Smartmatic-TIMs
    offer to extend the period to exercise the OTP until March 31, 2012 and to authorize
    Chairman Brillantes to sign for and on behalf of the Comelec the Agreement on the
    Extension of the OTP Under the AES Contract (Extension Agreement). Comelec again issued
    a Resolution resolving to approve the Deed of Sale between the Comelec and Smartmatic-
    TIM to purchase the latters PCOS machines to be used in the upcoming May 2013 elections
    and to authorize Chairman Brillantes to sign the Deed of Sale for and on behalf of the
    Comelec. The Deed of Sale was forthwith executed.

    Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Comelec Resolutions on the grounds that the
    option period provided for in the AES contract had already lapsed; that the extension of the
    option period and the exercise of the option without competitive public bidding contravene
    the provisions of RA 9184; and that the Comelec purchased the machines in contravention
    of the standards laid down in RA 9369.

    On the other hand, respondents argue on the validity of the subject transaction based on
    the grounds that there is no prohibition either in the contract or provision of law for it to
    extend the option period;

    Issue: Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
    jurisdiction on the part of the Comelec in issuing the assailed Resolutions and in executing
    the assailed Extension Agreement and Deed.

    Held: No. A reading of the other provisions of the AES contract would show that the parties
    are given the right to amend the contract which may include the period within which to
    exercise the option. There is, likewise, no prohibition on the extension of the period,
    provided that the contract is still effective.
    A winning bidder is not precluded from modifying or amending certain provisions of the
    contract bidded upon. However, such changes must not constitute substantial or material
    amendments that would alter the basic parameters of the contract and would constitute a
    denial to the other bidders of the opportunity to bid on the same terms.

    You might also like