Alas, why must high court rule against logic?

I am specifically referring to the recent unanimous rejection by the Supreme Court of the P268.8-million contract between the Commission on Elections and Smartmatic for the repair of 82,000 automated voting machines to be used in the 2016 elections (“Brillantes warns of manual voting in 2016 polls,” News, 4/22/15). The contract, according to the ruling, should have been subjected to public bidding, as required by the Government Procurement Reform Act.

But let’s get real: If you were the owner of a brand-new Toyota car that suddenly breaks down and needs repair, would you take it to a Mitsubishi, or a Ford, or a Honda shop? A matter of plain common sense, isn’t it?

And so, I cannot agree more with Smartmatic president Cesar Flores, who said: “We have always believed that as manufacturer of the PCOS machines and the only legitimate source of original spare parts, Smartmatic is the rightful and capable entity in ensuring that these voting machines are in the best possible condition for the next elections with the least amount of risk involved.”

Maybe—well, just maybe!—the high court had been irked by former Commission on Elections Chair Sixto Brillantes’ allegedly “midnight deal” in signing the contract just three days before he retired last Feb. 2, and probably wished to kind of “punish” Brillantes or teach him a lesson. That, in a nutshell, is beating the cat to hurt the dog! I mean, as of now, it is not as much Brillantes personally as the entire government per se that is extremely confused on what to do come May 2016.

—RUDY L. CORONEL, rudycoronel [email protected]