A REPORTER of Manila Times said he is not the source of the advance information of Commission on Elections (Comelec) chairman Jose Melo about the Supreme Court (SC) decision affirming the legality of P7-billion poll automation contract.

In a four-page Comment, Jomar Canlas told the SC Wednesday that it was Melo himself who confirmed to him the dismissal of the petition filed by the Concerned Citizens' Movement (CCM) questioning the validity of the poll automation contract between Comelec with Smartmatic-Total Information Management (TIM) Inc.

For updates from around the country, follow Sun.Star on Twitter

Canlas has earlier been ordered by the SC to file his Comment after Melo denied reports that he had confirmed the SC decision on the Smartmatic case, and pointed to several media men, including Canlas, as the source of his information.

The case was officially promulgated on September 10, but the supposed voting of the SC magistrates have been known September 8 or two days earlier, with Melo being quoted by media as having confirmed the court ruling.

Melo added that it was Canlas who on September 8 informed him through text messages that the justices have voted 11-3-1 for the questioned deal.

The high court had ordered Melo to explain why he should not be cited in contempt for the alleged leak of the supposed still unpromulgated decision on the poll automation case based on the motion to investigate him filed by CCM, through its convener UP Professor Harry Roque.

But Canlas, in his Comment, said Melo answered in the affirmative when he asked if he was already aware of the en banc's decision although the tribunal has yet to promulgate its ruling.

"Chairman Melo even told the undersigned that he is happy that the elections in the Philippines will finally be automated," he said.

Canlas admitted getting the information from his unnamed sources in the SC and texting Melo about the same. He however said he informed Melo only to get confirmation from him.

"It is to (the undersigned's) great surprise when he was singled out by Chairman Melo as the source of the leakage when, in fact, other reporters called him up to confirm the alleged Supreme Court decision," Canlas said.

He added that the stories in other newspapers the following day contained information attributed to Melo but was not part of his interview with Canlas.

"(The) honorable chairman gave them information that were not even discussed in the prior short phone conversation between him and the undersigned," the reporter said.

Melo, a retired SC justice, earlier asked the High Court to dismiss the CCM's motion to have him investigated for the leakage of the unpromulgated decision.

He attached in his Comment blown-up photos of several text messages that he received from members of the media on September 8 informing him about the supposed ruling of SC justices.

"Obviously, some sectors in the media had information about a supposed decision before I gained knowledge regarding the same, as verily, I got my information from people in the media, or learned about it from the media," he said.

Melo insisted that he learned only of the supposed SC voting on the case on September 8 after Comelec consultant Professor Renato Garcia handed him a note saying the SC had decided 11-3, with one abstention.

When he inquired where Garcia got the information, the latter told Melo that lawyer Marina Demeterio, Assistant Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman, called him to relay the news she heard on the radio.

Eager to find out how the SC resolved the issues, Melo directed his secretary Corazon Poblador to get a copy of the decision. However, upon inquiry with the Office of the Clerk of Court, no decision has as yet then been promulgated.

On the same day, he got a text message on his cell phone from a reporter of the Manila Times informing him of the supposed court decision and vote of 11-3-1 approving the automation contract.

Later on the same day, he received another text message from another reporter from an online news company who was asking for confirmation if he has heard about the decision.

"I therefore had no copy of a decision of the Honorable Court to leak. I gave out no information not already known to the media about an alleged decision. I merely reacted to queries about a supposed decision, however, cautioning the reporters who interviewed me that could not say anything about an alleged decision in the absence of one already duly promulgated," he said. (ECV/Sunnex)