In a statement, lawyer Federico Alday Jr. pointed out that an analysis of the high court’s decision as well as the dissenting opinions reveal that majority of the justices did not find basis to impute possible criminal liability on Comelec commissioners and other poll officials in awarding the poll automation contract to Mega Pacific.
"The decision of the Supreme Court, which should be taken in its entirety, voided the election automation contract between Comelec and MegaPacific. But a majority of the Court did not find basis to ascribe any criminal intent or liability on the part of the Comelec officials," Alday said.
He said the opinion of former Chief Justice Hilario Davide should have been given greater weight as he had served as chairman of the Comelec himself.
Alday said Davide even emphasized that there was no suggestion that graft and corruption attended the bidding process, or that the contract price was excessive or unreasonable.
Davide, he added, even said that the petitioner, Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines (ITFP), did not impute any anomaly in the deal, and merely claimed that the bidding and the award process were flawed.
Alday also pointed out that the Office of the Ombudsman, in conducting its investigation, had failed to consider the decision of the Supreme Court in its entirety, which should include not only the majority ruling, but the separate dissenting and concurring opinions authored by the other justices.
Comelec officials had repeatedly said that the deal actually saved the government P2.28 billion, which makes it the most advantageous deal in the government’s bid to modernize the electoral process.