Comelec to SC: Nothing to hide in P17-B poll automation deal
MANILA, Philippines — The Commission on Elections (Comelec), through the Office of the Solicitor General, defended its handling of the P17.99-billion automation contract for the 2025 elections, maintaining it complied with all Freedom of Information (FOI) obligations.
This was the poll body’s response to a petition before the Supreme Court seeking transparency on the joint venture (JV) implementing the automated election system.
In its comment filed on April 10, the Comelec argued the constitutional right to access official records, documents and data related to government actions and policymaking is not absolute but subject to legal limitations.
“While Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitution recognizes the people’s right to access official records, documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, this right is subject to such limitations as may be provided by law, such as those imposed under Sections 20 and 21 of Public Respondent Comelec’s FOI Manual,” the poll body said in its 50-page response to the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by the Right to Know, Right Now! (R2KRN) Coalition.
READ: Comelec told: Prove joint venture’s contract still follows 60/40 rule
The group is composed of journalists Maria Lourdes Mangahas, Rowena Paraan, Karol Ilagan, Jaemark Tordecilla, Paul Soriano and Maria Diosa Labiste; former education undersecretary Nepomuceno Malaluan; as well as organizations such as the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, and Philippine Press Institute, among others.
In their petition, the coalition said it sought information from the Comelec and technology provider Miru Systems after the withdrawal of one of Miru’s partners from the joint venture.
‘Partial, evasive replies’
However, R2KRN noted the Comelec only partially responded to its request, while Miru allegedly gave evasive replies.
Comelec said R2KRN had requested disclosure of a risk assessment report prepared by Miru-JV on the implications of the partner’s withdrawal and contingency plans, along with a breakdown of each remaining partner’s financial, technical and operational contributions.
The poll body maintained it could not be compelled to release these documents, as they were neither in its possession nor required to be submitted under existing procurement laws.
Despite this, Comelec said it provided R2KRN with available information, including the adjusted contributions of the Miru-JV partners and a new financial capability certificate.
“Thus, public respondent Comelec cannot be said to have breached petitioner R2KRN’s constitutional right to information,” it said.
