Querobin v. COMELEC

GR No. 218787
December 8, 2015

Facts

The COMELEC en banc opened a Bid for the procurement of additional Precinct-based Optical Mark Reader (OMR) which will be used for the 2016 elections. Smartmatic JV was one of the bidders and won the bid. However, the Bids and Awards Committee(BAC) disqualified Smartmatic JV on the basis of the latter’s failure to submit Articles of Incorporation (AOI) and to meet technical requirement. Smartmatic JV asked for motion for reconsideration which the BAC dismissed. Aggrieved, Smartmatic JV protested on the COMELEC en banc which unanimously granted the protest.

Thus, the petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari the assailed decision of the COMELEC en banc which granted the protest of Smartmatic JV. Petitioner alleged that the decision was repugnant of the provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 68 and RA No. 9184. Moreover, they prayed that the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts be dispensed with.

On the other hand, the respondent prayed for outright dismissal. They argued that Section 42 of BP Blg. 68 does not preclude the Smartmatic JV from further contracting for the automation of the Philippine elections beyond 2010.

Issue

W/N the petitioner may resort directly to the Supreme Court under the exceptions of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts as ruled in The Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC?

Ruling

Yes. The Supreme Court enumerated in The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC the specific instances where direct resort to the Supreme Court is allowed, to wit:

1. When there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time;
2. When the issues involved are of transcendental importance;
3. Cases of first impression;
4. When the constitutional issues raised are best decided by this Court;
5. When the time element presented in this case cannot be ignored;
6. When the petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ;
7. When there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law;
8. When public welfare and the advancement of public policy so dictates, or when demanded by the broader interest of
   justice;
9. When the orders complained of are patent nullities; and
10. When appeal is considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.

In this case, the petitioner should resort directly to the Supreme Court since the petition is under the second, fifth, and sixth exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Here, the Supreme Court finds that the petition is of transcendental importance as the assailed election automation contracts is a great factor for the success or failure of the election, the time element presented in this case cannot be ignored since 2016 elections is coming and result to RTC would delay the procurement process, and the petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ such as the COMELEC.

Hence, the case at bar is an exception to the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts.