SC: Comelec erred in disqualifying Smartmatic

MANILA, Philippines —  The Commission on Elections (Comelec) committed grave abuse of discretion when it disqualified service provider Smartmatic from bidding in its 2025 poll projects, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled yesterday.

According to the SC, the Comelec implemented a “discretionary pre-qualification regime” that was “antithetical” to the government’s bidding process.

“While the SC acknowledged the power of the Comelec (to run elections), the Comelec itself did not comply with its own procedures in its bidding and awards committee, which was antithetical to the appropriations law that applied,” SC spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting told reporters at a press conference in Baguio City.

However, the SC noted in its ruling that its finding is not enough to nullify the public bidding or award of the contract to Miru Systems, which won the public bidding.

The high court cited considerations of equity, justice, practicality and the doctrine of operative fact when it arrived at its decision.

“This means that the law produced consequences that cannot always be ignored or disregarded. It nullifies the law but sustains its effect. It is only resorted to as a matter of equity and fair play,” the SC said, as quoted by Ting.

Smartmatic has provided Comelec with poll machines and the technology since the 2010 national elections, the Philippines’ first automated polls. It is 100 percent privately owned and has no ties to political parties or groups, according to its website.

In 2023, the Comelec en banc disqualified Smartmatic from participating in future elections in the Philippines due to the alleged 2016 bribery scheme involving the firm and former elections chief Andres Bautista.

Smartmatic questioned Comelec’s decision before the SC through a petition for certiorari and had sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI), asking the Court to stop the poll body from implementing the disqualification.

The SC did not grant a TRO or a WPI, saying Smartmatic was merely a prospective bidder with no actual, clear and positive right and it will not suffer irreparable injury.

However, while Smartmatic did not suffer irreparable injury, the