jacomille vs abaya

8/18/2019 Jacomille vs Abaya

1/16

SECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 212381, April 22, 2015REYNALDO M. JACOMILLE, Petitioner , v. HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A. AAYA, IN HIS CAPACI!YAS SECRE!ARY O" !RANSPOR!A!ION AND COMM#NICA!IONS $DO!C%& A!!Y. AL"ONSOV. !AN, JR., IN HIS CAPACI!Y AS ASSIS!AN! SECRE!ARY O" !HE LAND!RANSPOR!A!ION O""ICE $L!O%& HON. "LORENCIO AAD, IN HIS CAPACI!Y ASSECRE!ARY O" #DGE! AND MANAGEMEN! $DM%& HON. ARSENIO M. ALISACAN, INHIS CAPACI!Y AS DIREC!OR GENERAL O" !HE NA!IONAL ECONOMIC ANDDEVELOPMEN! A#!HORI!Y $NEDA%& HON. MARIA GRACIA M. P#LIDO !AN, IN HERCAPACI!Y AS CHAIRPERSON O" !HE COMMISSION ON A#DI! $COA% AND PO'ER PLA!ESDEVELOPMEN! CONCEP!S, INC.,(J. )NIERIEM .V. GOES $J)G% $JOIN! VEN!#RE%REPRESEN!ED Y I!S MANAGING DIREC!OR, CHRIS!IAN S. CALALANG,Respondents.D E C I S I O NMENDO*A, J.+Government projects are the tangible manifestation of hard-earned public funds. Theseundertakings are built brick-by-brick through the combined eorts of the nation's taxpayers. urla!s have ventured into great lengths to establish the rigorous safeguards and procedures in theplanning, procurement and implementation of these projects, through robust policies on "scalgovernance and public accountability. #nd the $udiciary must do its part and carry out its duty to

ensure that these projects do not result in regretful potholes, stale construction sites andsubstandard products, looming into the memories of empty promises and generic assurances

%efore this &ourt is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under ule () of the *++ evisedules of &ivil rocedure !hich assails the legality of the procurement of the and Transportation/ce 0otor 1ehicle icense late 2tandardi3ation rogram

!-A/---/

The 4epartment of Transportation and &ommunications 5DOTC6 is the primary policy, planningprogramming, coordinating, implementing, regulating, and administrative entity of the 7xecutive%ranch of the government in the promotion, development and regulation of dependable and

coordinated net!orks of transportation and communications systems as !ell as in the fast, safe,e/cient, and reliable postal, transportation and communication services. ne of its line agenciesis the and Transportation /ce 5LTO6 !hich is tasked, among others, to register motor vehiclesand regulate their operation

8n accordance !ith its mandate, the T is re9uired to issue motor vehicle license plates !hichserve to identify the registered vehicles as they ply the roads. These plates should at all times beconspicuously displayed on the front and rear portions of the registered vehicles to assure 9uickand expedient identi"cation should there be a need, as in the case of motor vehicle accidents orinfraction of tra/c rules

ecently, the T formulated the 0otor 1ehicle icense late 2tandardi3ation rogram 5MVPSP6 to

supply the ne! license plates for both old and ne! vehicle registrants. n :ebruary ;


2/16

0otor 1ehicles 5016 and approximately +,+(@,


3/16

n 0arch **, ;


4/16

0otor 1ehicle late-0aking roject.@

Doticeably then, t&e DOTC )idded o"t MVPSP even w&ie t&ere was no s"4cient %"nds e0a(appropriated for this purpose under the G## ;


5/16

n the merits, the 2G argued that, 8rst , the timeline for the procurement activity under .#. Do.+*@B !as not mandatory. Dotably, 2ection =@ of the said la! states that the procurement activityshall be completed !ithin a reasonable period

The notice of a!ard of contract !as issued by the 4T& to $EG-o!er lates as early as $uly ;;,;


6/16

!hile the project !as being implemented. Thus, 0I# !as not a re9uirement for projects thatalready had full funding in the G## in a speci"c year. The full budgetary re9uirement of =.@)*billion of 012 !as already provided for in G## ; 5*6 !hether the issue had been rendered moot and academicFand 5;6 !hether petitioner has a legal standing or oc"s standi to "le the presentsuit.chanoblesvirtuala!libraryPro-6r;l M;//-r

T&e case is aread( #oot and acade#ic9 notwit&standin0 t&e s")stantive iss"es needed to )eresoved

etitioner assails the procurement process of 012 !ith a budget of =,@)*,(


7/16

8n David v. Arro(o,*@ for instance, several petitions assailed the constitutionality of thedeclaration of a state of national emergency by then resident Gloria 0acapagal-#rroyo. 4uringthe pendency of the suits, the said declaration !as lifted. Donetheless, this &ourt still resolvedthe cases on the merits because the issues involved a grave violation of the &onstitution andaected the public interest

ecently, there !as De"tsc&e Ban: AG v. CA,*+ !hich involved the consolidation of dierentpetitions forcertiorari before the assailing an order in the rehabilitation court. Lhile the case!as on going, the private respondent therein moved to !ithdra! its earlier motion to consolidatethe petitions. The &ourt ruled that the issue of !hether the could validly order theconsolidation of cases, although rendered moot, !as capable of repetition. Thus, the &ourtproceeded to resolve the issues therein

8n the case at bench, the issues presented must still be passed upon because paramount publicinterest is involved and the case is capable of repetition yet evading revie!. 012 is anation!ide project !hich aects ne! and old registrants of motor vehicles and it involves=,@)*,(4 C5*6 the character of the funds or other assets involvedin the caseF 5;6 the presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutoryprohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the governmentF and 5=6 thelack of any other party !ith a more direct and speci"c interest in the 9uestions being raised.C;=

etitioner su/ciently sho!ed that his case presents a matter of transcendental importancebased on the above-cited determinants. Ae elucidated that, 8rst , around =.@)* billion in publicfunds stood to be illegally disbursedF second, the 8 of .#. Do. +*@B and .#. Do. *@ !ere

violated and the contract for 012 !as a!arded to respondent $EG-o!er lates despite theutter disregard of the said la!sF t&ird, there !as no other party !ith a more direct and speci"cinterest !ho had raised the issues thereinF and%o"rt&, 012 had a !ide range of impactbecause all registered motor vehicles o!ners !ould be aected.;B

etitioner also established a valid taxpayer's suit. # person suing as a taxpayer must sho! thatthe act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived fromtaxation.;) &ontrary to the assertion of $EG-o!er lates, 012 clearly involves the expenditureof public funds. Lhile the motor vehicle registrants !ill pay for the license plates, the biddocuments and contract for 012;(indicate, that the government shall bear the burden ofpaying for the project. 7very portion of the national treasury, !hen appropriated by &ongress,must be properly allocated and disbursed. Decessarily, an allegation that public funds in the


8/16

amount of =.@)* billion shall be used in a project that has undergone an improper procurementprocess cannot be easily brushed o by the &ourt

Aaving passed the procedural barriers, the &ourt shall no! discuss the substantive merits of thepetition on the follo!ing issues> 5*6 !hether the 012 follo!ed the timelines in .#. Do. +*@Band its 8F 5;6 !hether 012 !as su/ciently funded !hen its procurement process beganF 5=6!hether 0I# is re9uired for 012F and 5B6 !hether the 8&&?D74# is obliged to revie! andapprove 012 under .#. Do. *@.chanoblesvirtuala!libraryS69/;/i:- M-ri/

The present petition revolves around the procurement of 012. &urrently, the la! that governsthe government procurement processes !ould be .#. Do. +*@B. #s early as the year *+-r-/ pro6r-7-/ ;/i:i/i- ;ll 9- o7pl-/-


9/16

8f no action on the contract is taken by the head of the procuring entity, or by his duly authori3edrepresentative, or by the concerned board, in the case of government o!ned and?or controlledcorporations, !ithin the periods speci"ed in the preceding paragraph, the contract concernedshall be deemed approved. 57mphases supplied6etitioner contends that the public respondents failed to comply !ith the periods provided byla!, speci"cally the =-month period from the opening of the bids up to the a!ard of the contractunder 2ec. =@ of .#. Do. +*@B. The 2G admits that the =-month period !as not complied !ith,but argues that it !as not fatal because the provision !as only directory

The &ourt does not agree !ith the 2G that the =-month period is merely directory. The saidprovision contains the !ord CshallC !hich is mandatory in character. 2uch period !as placed in aseparate provision under 2ection =@, rather than compressed !ith 2ection =, to emphasi3e itsimportance. There is nothing in the la! !hich states that the =-month period can be disregardedDon-compliance !ith the period !ill certainly aect the validity of the bidding process. 8n fact,2ection =@.* of the 8 of .#. Do. +*@B rea/rms the obligatory =-monthperiod>chanroblesvirtualla!library

The procurement process from the opening of bids up to the a!ard of contract ;ll not exceedthree 5=6 months, or a shorter period to be determined by the procuring entity concerned. #llmembers of the %#& shall be on a Cjury dutyC type of assignment until the Dotice of #!ard isissued by the Aead of the rocuring 7ntity in order to complete the entire procurement processat the earliest possible time. 57mphasis supplied6Devertheless, t&e #andator( period o% t&ree +, #ont&s "nder Section ,< was co#pied wit& )( t&e p")ic respondents. The la! clearly refers to the period from the opening of the bids up tothe a!ard of the contract and not, as petitioner claims, up to the posting of the notice of a!ardin the hilG72 !ebsite. The opening of the bids !as done on 0ay ( and , ;a v. COA,== the &ourt invalidated a contract entered into by then 0ayor


10/16

4uterte because the agreed cost for the project !as !ay beyond the appropriated amount. 8t!as stated therein that C%"nd avaia)iit( is as it &as awa(s )een an indispensa)e prere/"isiteto t&e e;ec"tion o% an( 0overn#ent contract invovin0 t&e e;pendit"re o% p")ic %"nds )( a0overn#ent a0encies at a eves.C

ecently, in P7R v. Kanaon Constr"ction 'nterprise Co. !nc.,=B the &ourt invalidated threecontracts bet!een D and Eanlaon because they did not comply !ith the re9uirement of acerti"cation of appropriation and fund availability. The clear purpose of these re9uirements is toinsure that government contracts are never signed unless supported by the correspondingappropriation la! and fund availability

The re9uirement of availability of funds before the execution of a government contract, ho!everhas been modi"ed by .#. Do. +*@B. !- ;i l;< pr--/ ; o:-l poli@ chanroblesvirtualla!library2ection ). 4e"nition of Terms. - xxx

5a6 #pproved %udget for the &ontract 5#%&6 - refers to the budget for the contract duly approvedby the Aead of the rocuring 7ntity, ; pro:i- or i /- G--r;l Appropri;/io A/;(or o/i6i ;ppropri;/io, in the Dational Government #genciesF the &orporate%udget for the contract approved by the governing %oards, pursuant to 7..Do.)*@, series of*++, in the case of Government :inancial 8nstitutions and 2tate niversities and &ollegesF andthe %udget for the contract approved by the respective 2anggunian, in the case of ocaGovernment nits.crala!la!libraryxxxx

2ection . rocurement lanning and %udgeting inkage. - All pro6r-7-/ o6l 9-


11/16

TA7 &A#80#D> Aindi. 2o base din dun sa invitation to bid, ang amount ng proyekto is =.@)billion, tama, hindi baN

0. #%#I#> Ies, Iour Aonor

TA7 &A#80#D> #ng nakalagay sa G## of ; The G## ;chanroblesvirtualla!library


12/16

.). The #%& as reMected in the # or 0 shall be at all times consistent !ith theappropriations for the project authori3ed in the G##, continuing, and automatic appropriations,the corporate budget, and the appropriation ordinance, as the case may be. "or NGA, /o;ili/;/- /- i77-i;/- i7pl-7-/;/io o pro-/ -:- p-i ;ppro:;l o /-GAA, /- AC ;ll 9- 9;- o /- 96-/ l-:-l 6-r /- propo- ;/io;l 96-/697i//- 9@ /- Pr-i-/ /o Cor-. 57mphasis supplied6

The same provision in the 8 !as extended in the G% &ircular Do.


13/16

Sec. 13. Contractin0 M"ti-6ear Pro=ects. 8n the implementation of multi-year projects !here thetotal cost is not provided in this #ct, department, bureaus and o/ces shall re9uest the 4%0 forthe issuance of a 0ulti-Iear bligational #uthority follo!ing the guidelines under 4%0 &ircularetter Do. ;


14/16

proposed budget submitted to &ongress. Lith the issuance of 0I#, the 4%0 commits torecommend to &ongress the funding of the 0I until its completion. 7vidently, !ithout 0I#, thegovernment runs the risk of breach of contractual obligations if its "nancial commitments are notmet for lack of funding

The case of COM'L'C v. @"i=ano-Padia,B* involving the procurement of the 1oter's egistrationand 8denti"cation 2ystem roject 5VR!S Pro=ect 6, mentioned the re9uirement of 0I#. The saidproject !as a!arded to ATE8D# on account of its bid in the amount of (.)@@ billion. nderthe G##, ho!ever, the appropriated fund for the project !as only 8 billion. ATE8D# arguedthat the a!arded project !as only for the hase 8 of the !hole 182 roject and, thus, there !asno need to allocate for the entire fund. The &ourt disagreed !ith such argument because no0I# !as secured by the procuring agency. The &ourt held that not only !as the arrangementdisallo!ed by our budgetary la!s and practices, but it !as also disadvantageous to the&077& because of the uncertainty that loomed over its moderni3ation project for an inde"niteperiod of time

Aere, petitioner contends that 012 is 0I and it involves 0I&, but the 4T& failed to securethe necessary 0I#. The 2G, on the other hand, argues that although 012 is 0I, it doesnot involve 0I& because the appropriations for the project !as available in full during its "rstyear of implementation in ;


15/16

#s to the issue of !hen the 0I# should be secured by the procuring agency, 4%0 &ircular Do.;chanroblesvirtualla!libraryndeniably, 6-r /- O! L;


16/16

'HERE"ORE, the petition is DISMISSED for being moot and academic

SO ORDERED.chan

jacomille vs abaya

Documents