Smartmatic decries ‘unfair’ disqualification from Comelec procurements

Technology provider Smartmatic on Thursday questioned its disqualification from all procurements of the Commission on Elections (Comelec), saying that the basis for such were false and non-existent. 

This after the Comelec en banc recently decided to bar Smartmatic due to the bribery allegations against former Comelec chairperson Juan Andres “Andy” Bautista “in exchange for awarding a contract for election machines to Smartmatic Corp.”

Smartmatic, for its part, stressed that it has not been indicted or is facing any formal charge in the United States, in relation to Bautista’s case. 

“Thus, we can categorically state that the basis of our disqualification is not only FALSE, but NON-EXISTENT. A false accusation and, more so, a disqualification on the basis of a non-existent grounds is not only legally and morally wrong, but plain unfair,” it said in a statement. 

The service provider said that disqualifying them based on “mere news reports and unofficial, leaked documents from abroad” are “utterly and facially unacceptable in any jurisdiction, including the Philippines.” 

“On the part of Smartmatic, we assure the public that the allegations made back about contracts awarded by Comelec to our company in 2015-2016 are absolutely false. It will be dismissed once the investigations are done. We assure the public that as a company policy, we adhere to all procurement processes during biddings and contract execution. But pending the definitive conclusion of an investigation, punishing Smartmatic will not only be premature, but inconsistent with Philippine law, including its procurement laws,” it added. 

According to the en banc resolution, it was revealed that Bautista supposedly established a foreign shell company, which was used to receive bribe payments from Smartmatic. 

“The charges against Smartmatic and former chairman Bautista are of public knowledge and tend to cause speculation and distrust in the integrity of the electoral process,” the resolution read. 

The Comelec en banc noted the “gravity” of the allegations related to bribery and compromised procurement processes and recognized the “imminent threat to the strength and integrity of our democratic processes.”

Smartmatic, meanwhile, said it could have answered the allegations. 

“We are very confident that had Comelec informed us of the matter, allowed us to explain our side and present countervailing evidence, the unfair disqualification would not have been meted out,” it said. 

Baustista is reportedly facing money laundering complaints in the US over the attempted transfer of $4 million from four executives of Smartmatic subsidiaries.

He is also said to be facing bribery charges filed by a unit of the US Department of Homeland Security for accepting money from an unnamed poll company.

Smartmatic was the supplier of the vote counting machines in 2016 when Bautista served as chairperson of the poll body.

Bautista has denied the allegations.

Difficult decision

In a press conference, Garcia said that disqualifying Smartmatic “was a very difficult decision but nonetheless, it was the right decision.”

In explaining why the Comelec en banc disqualified the service provider based on the allegations against Bautista, Garcia and other Comelec commissioners who joined the press conference asserted their administrative function in addressing poll-related matters to preserve the integrity of the elections.

“Ang ibig sabihin, pag administrative function, we can act based on something which we are fully aware of, not necessarily because it was contained in any petition or whatever. So ibig sabihin, that’s being part of the entire picture,” Garcia said.

“Maybe the commission knows something which they also know in fact during the hearing of the case, nandyan ang issue na yon bakit hindi nila mismo kinounter eh part ‘yun ng kabuuan ng disqualification e. Bakit hindi nila kinounter (the issue was there but they did not counter it. Why not address that issue)?” he added.

Garcia noted that Smartmatic was aware of the allegations against Bautista.

“The point really is aware ang lahat, aware ang respondent na nag-eexist ‘yung allegation about something which happened abroad. Kung sinasabi nilang walang ganon, walang ganito, then have that contained in the petition before the Supreme Court,” he said.

(Everyone is aware, even the respondent, that an allegation about something that happened abroad exists. If they are claiming that there is nothing like that, then they should include that in a petition before the Supreme Court.)

He maintained that Smartmatic was given due process before they decided on the matter, adding that their decision was in the “best interest of our country and of the nation.”

“There was this case which we required even our Law Department to comment, we required the respondent to comment, we heard the case, there was an extensive discussion, an extensive hearing, there was the filing of the memorandum, then kayo na lang po ang mag-conclude kung nagkaroon po ng violation of equal protection clause man lang or selective justice so to speak,” he said.

(It’s up to you to conclude if there was a violation of the equal protection clause or there was selective justice so to speak.)

“But as far as the Comelec is concerned we afforded everyone—petitioner or respondent—the opportunity to be heard,” he added.

In supporting the basis of their decision, Garcia said the poll body “cannot close its eyes to the reality that there are several issues pertaining to the integrity and the credibility” of Smartmatic.

“The Comelec cannot take that risk. Election is likewise a matter of perception. Therefore, not only should the Comelec be credible and its people, but likewise all other means or modes that we are using should likewise be credible,” he said.

This decision is also part of “changing the regime since 2010,” Garcia said.

Comelec Commissioner Ernesto Fedinand Maceda Jr. likewise maintained his position to disqualify Smartmatic, saying the poll body has a “higher charge to maintain the purity of the elections.”

“We believe that if it’s the credibility of the elections, purely of the elections at stake, the Supreme Court has recognized in several cases, hindi dapat tali ang kamay ng Comelec. Kasi we are an independent body and we are the body tasked by the constitution to ensure that our election which is the bedrock of our democratic institutions is pure and clean and fair,” he said.

Commissioner Socorro Inting also shared the same view and said that their decision has merits.

“Comelec must like Caesar's wife. It must be above suspicions. That’s all. Importante ‘yung integrity ng Comelec,” she said.

'Inaccuracies'

After Comelec's press conference, Smartmatic released a new statement addressing “some inaccuracies” in the poll officials’ statements.

The firm said the Comelec was not able to present any evidence to support their decision.

Smartmatic asserted that they were never informed nor given the opportunity to present countervailing evidence on the alleged US case against Bautista.

“It is grossly misleading, therefore, to claim that we have been accorded our right to due process. On the contrary, we find the decision to have been very arbitrary and was marked by grave abuse of authority,” it said.

They likewise questioned Comelec’s interpretation of administrative function.

“Chair Garcia repeatedly mentioned that Comelec, in disqualifying Smartmatic, was not using its quasi-judicial function, which is subject to oversight, but its administrative function, which in his interpretation gave the Comelec overly broad and unfettered powers that could not be questioned,” Smartmatic noted.

“He even likened the disqualification to a simple administrative act of relocating a precinct, a faulty and dangerous analogy that trivializes the serious nature of the disqualification,” it added.

The firm said they “cannot help but be saddened by the recent turn of events.”—Giselle Ombay/Hana Bordey/AOL/LDF, GMA Integrated News