This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| On March 6, 2012, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9373[8] resolving to seriously consider exercising the OTP subject to certain conditions. On March 21, 2012, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9376[9] resolving to exercise the OTP the PCOS and CCS hardware and software in accordance with the AES contract between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM in connection with the May 10, 2010 elections subject to the following conditions: (1) the warranties agreed upon in the AES contract shall be in full force and effect; (2) the original price for the hardware and software covered by the OTP as specified in the AES contract shall be maintained, excluding the cost of the 920 units of PCOS and related peripherals previously purchased for use in the 2010 special elections; and (3) all other services related to the 2013 AES shall be subject to public bidding. On March 29, 2012, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9377[10] resolving to accept Smartmatic-TIM's 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[11] (Extension Agreement, for brevity). The aforesaid Extension Agreement was signed on March 30, 2012.[12] On even date, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9378[13] resolving to approve the Deed of Sale between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM to purchase the latter's PCOS machines (hardware and software) 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[14] was forthwith executed. | |||||
|
2012-01-18 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| CCC/GCC/Penta presented the same arguments in Reynoso, as it has done now. Even assuming that any of its present arguments is novel, it would be unavailing if it is based on the same factual milieu under which the Reynoso ruling was made. The orderly administration of justice and basic considerations of fair play abhor a piecemeal presentation of points of law, theories, issues, and arguments.[28] At any rate, CCC/GCC/Penta fails to identify any change in the facts upon which Reynoso was predicated as to warrant a different conclusion in the present case. | |||||
|
2010-05-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Respondent's claim that there is no proof a request has been made for the release of the public records mentioned in the petition is belied by its allegation in its own Comment that this matter has already been addressed in the recent case of Roque v. Comelec.[9] Quoting the Court's ruling in that case on the issue of disclosure of the source code, respondent unwittingly admits a prior request for disclosure: The fact that a source code review is not expressly included in the Comelec schedule of activities is not an indication, as petitioners suggest, that Comelec will not implement such review. Comelec, in its Comment on the Motion for Reconsideration, manifests its intention to make available and open the source code to all political and interested parties, but under a controlled environment to obviate replication and tampering of the source code.[10] | |||||