Filtered By: Topstories
News

The Comelec-Mega Pacific Consortium Deal Timeline


COMELEC BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE

Eduardo Mejos, Director IV,Finance Service Dept.
Chairman

Atty. Jose P. Balbuena Jr., Director IV, Law Dept.; Atty. Lamberto P. Llamas, Director IV, Planning Dept.; Atty. Bartolome J. Sinocruz, Director IV, Election and Brgy. Affairs Dept.; Gideon G. de Guzman, Director III, Finance Services Dept.
BAC members

December 22, 1997 - Congress enacted RA 8436 Election Modernization Act, authorizing the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to use an automated election system.

October 29, 2002 - the Comelec adopted, in its Resolution No. 02-0170, a modernization program for the 2004 elections.

January 24, 2003 - President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 172, which allocated the sum of P2,500,000,000 to exclusively fund the automated elections in time for the May 10, 2004 elections.

January 28, 2003 - the Comelec issued an Invitation to Bid for the procurement of supplies, equipment, materials and services needed for the complete implementation of all three phases of the automated elections.

February 10, 2003 - upon the request of the Comelec, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 175, authorizing the release of a supplemental P500 million budget for the automated elections. It also instructed the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to ensure that the additional amount will be used exclusively for the automated elections.

April 15, 2003 - the Comelec promulgated Resolution No. 6074, which awarded the contract for Phase II of the automated elections to Mega Pacific Consortium. On the same day, the Comelec entered into a separate contract with Philippine Multi-Media System, Inc. (PMSI) for the lease of 1,900 units of satellite-based Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSAT) for the canvassing each unit consisting of an indoor and outdoor equipment, to PMSI for possessing the legal, financial and technical expertise necessary to meet the project’s objectives. The COMELEC bound and obliged itself to pay PMSI the sum of P298,375,808.90 as rentals for the leased equipment and for its services.

May 29, 2003 - Individuals and entities, including the Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines wrote a letter to Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr. protesting the award of the Contract to MPC “due to glaring irregularities in the manner in which the bidding process had been conducted." They asked for a re-bidding, citing the noncompliance with eligibility as well as technical and procedural requirements.

June 6, 2003 - the Comelec chairman -- speaking through Atty. Jaime Paz, his head executive assistant -- rejected the protest and declared that the award “would stand up to the strictest scrutiny.".

August 5, 2003 - the ITFP filed a petition with the Supreme Court to stop the Comelec from implementing the contract and conduct a rebidding of the project.

January 13, 2004 - the Supreme Court declared as void the Php1 billion contract entered into by the Comelec with the Mega Pacific for the supply of automatic computing machines. The SC cited “clear violation of law and jurisprudence" and “reckless disregard of [Comelec’s] own bidding rules and procedure" as among the reasons.

January 14, 2004 - Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo issued an order directing the then Fact-Finding and Intelligence Research Office now Field Investigation Office to conduct an in-depth inquiry on the Comelec-Mega Pacific case.

Feb. 14, 2006 - Acting on the manifestation and supplemental motion of petitioner ITFP, the SC issued its resolution directing the Ombudsman to show cause why it should not be held in contempt of court for its failure to comply with the High Court's January 13 decision and to manifest compliance with the directive within 10 days from receipt of the said resolution.

March 2, 2006 - The Ombudsman invoked its autonomy as an independent body in its reply to the Supreme Court, saying the Court cannot interfere with the Ombudsman's investigating powers.

March 28, 2006 - The Supreme Court directed the Office of the Ombudsman, under pain of contempt to report on a regular basis—once every three months, starting June 30, 2006, the steps it has taken and the corresponding results of those actions to determine the criminal liability if any of the public officials involved in the said contract.

May 3, 2006 - The Supreme Court issued a Resolution directing the Office of the Ombudsman “under pain of contempt", to report by June 30 its final determination on the liability of public and private individuals involved in the nullified contract.

June 9, 2006 - In a 34-page motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman’s Office of Legal Affairs said the Supreme Court’s Resolutions “impinge on the constitutional independence" of the Office enshrined in Sec. 5, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution." The Ombudsman said it recognizes that the High Court’s power to punish for contempt is inherent but there should be a balance between its contempt powers and the Ombudsman’s constitutional independence.

June 14, 2006 - The Supreme Court rejected the Office of the Ombudsman's motion for reconsideration “for utter lack of merit." Its directive to the Ombudsman, according to the Court, did not “in any way impinge upon the [Ombudsman’s] independence as provided under the Constitution."

June 27, 2006 - In an urgent manifestation, the Ombudsman said it “wasted no time in conducting its investigation on the possible criminal liability of Comelec officials" involved in the contract. It added that “the need for further investigation forestall the final determination by June 30 2006, on the existence or non-existence of probable cause against all public officials" concerned.

June 30, 2006 - The Ombudsman released a resolution dated June 28, 2006 that cited Commissioner Borra, but left it to the House of Representatives whether or not to impeach him because it has no jurisdiction over an impeacheable official like Borra. The resolution also meted a penalty of dismissal from government service against the members of the Comelec BAC, and recommended they be charged before the Ombudsman with with violation of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in conspiracy with private respondents Willy U. Yu, Bonnie Yu, Enrique Tansipek, Rosita Y. Tansipek, Pedro O. Tan, Johnson W. Fong, Bernard L. Fong, and Lauriano Barrios. The same resolution however dismissed the charges against other Jaime Paz, and Zita Buena-Castillon, of the Comelec; Jose Tolentino and Rolando Viloria of the Dept. of Science and Technology (DOST); for lack of sufficient evidence.

September 27, 2006 - The Ombudsman, in a resolution, absolved all respondents involved in the Mega Pacific controversy of all administrative and criminal liabilities "for lack of probable cause." It also reversed its June 28 resolution which contained factual findings that can be used by the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against Comelec Commissioner Resureccion Borra.

October 13, 2006 - Nine senators submitted before the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the Ombudsman’s September 27 resolution and to cite Ombudsman Gutierrez in contempt.

Source: GMA News Research

LOADING CONTENT