“x x x.
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. Suffice it to state that, under the automation contract, Smartmatic is given a specific 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:
6.7 Subject 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 COMELECs personnel and officials and their performance, completion and final results according to specifications and within specified periods shall be the shared responsibility of COMELEC and the PROVIDER. (Emphasis added.)
The aforequoted provision doubtless preserves Comelecs 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 back-up 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 scenariothe wholesale breakdown of the 80,000 needed machines nationwide and of the 2,000 reserved unitshave 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.
X x x.”
Read:
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 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, G.R. No. 188456, FEBRUARY 10, 2010; with accompanying case: PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA vs. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its President, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, G.R. No. 188456, FEBRUARY 10, 2010.
Re: Pars. (f) and (g), Section 6 of Republic Act No. (RA) 8436, or the Election Modernization Act, as amended by RA 9369.
Decretal : RESOLUTION, dated February 10, 2010, denying the MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PETITIONERS in re: the DECISION, dated September 10, 2009.
