SC asked to junk Comelec’s P6-B ‘spending splurge’ deal with Smartmatic
TWO taxpayers on Monday asked the Supreme Court to nullify Commission on Elections’ (Comelec) Resolution 9980 that issued the Notice of Award to automated elections system provider Smartmatic-TIM for the lease of optical mark readers (OMRs) for the 2016 national and local elections worth P6.2-billion.
In a 41-page petition for certiorari and/or prohibition, Francisco S. Aguilar, Jr. and Guillermo A. Santos said the Comelec acted with grave abuse of discretion when it issued the resolution as they called it “an act of spending splurge” that must be stopped.
The Comelec resolution issued last August leases 70,977 machines worth P6,286,382,682.72 from Smartmatic. The same resolution issued the Notice of Award to Smartmatic, which was declared as the bidder with the lowest calculated responsive bid, “provided that this award pertains solely to the lease of the units of Optical Mark Reader (OMR).”
Smartmatic also got the contract for the lease of 23,000 OMR which was awarded last July 31 for P1.7-billion which the government would procure to supplement the 81,896 PCOS machines to be used in the 2019 mid-term elections.
Petitioners said “not only is taxpayers’ money being illegally, irregularly or unnecessarily expended/dissipated in connection with the lease of 93,977 OMR, existing machineries (81,896 Precinct Count Optical Scan or PCOS machines) are allowed to rot in a warehouse rented by the Comelec for P800,000 a month through non-use and lack of maintenance, refurbishment and/or upgrade.”
“The Comelec, in leaving the 81,896 PCOS machines in the warehouse unmaintained and not refurbished to the gross disadvantage of the government, constitutes wastage of public resources or property, and thus a transgression of its fiscal responsibility,” the petition read.
Petitioners added that such procurement is against Republic Act 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act particularly Art. II, Section 7 which provides that “all procurement shall be within the approved budget of the Procuring Entity and should be meticulously and judiciously planned by the Procuring Entity concerned.
They pointed out that the law prohibits procurement without an approved Annual Procurement Plan of the Procuring Entity.
In the case of the 93,977 OMR, petitioner believed that it has no appropriation cover nor included in the Annual Procurement Plan of the Comelec.
“It is thus unnecessary for the latter to opt to lease 93,977 OMR to the detriment of the government and the petitioners. This is an act of spending splurge of the Commission which must be stopped by the Honorable Court,” petitioners said.
Petitioners added that the Comelec also violated the law when it failed to consider other prospective bidders.
“What is more disturbing is the apparent preferment of the [Comelec] for Smartmatic Joint Venture… the supplier of the PCOS machines and provider of the election management system in the 2010 and 2013 national and local elections,” the petition read.
Petitioners also urged the high court to issue a restraining order while the case is being heard on its merits. Tetch Torres-Tupas/AC
