E. Razon vs. PPA

E. Razon petitioner, appellant vs. PPA respondents

FACTS

On April 20, 1987, the PPA Board adopted its Resolution No. 850 directing PPA management to prepare the Invitation to Bid and all relevant bidding documents and technical requirements necessary for the public bidding of the development, management and operation of the MICT at the Port of Manila, and authorizing the Board Chairman, Secretary Rainerio O. Reyes, to oversee the preparation of the technical and the documentation requirements for the MICT leasing as well as to implement this project.

Accordingly, respondent Secretary Reyes, by DOTC Special Order 87-346, created a seven (7) man “Special MICT Bidding Committee” charged with evaluating all bid proposals, recommending to the Board the best bid, and preparing the corresponding contract between the PPA and the winning bidder or contractor. The PPA management prepared the terms of reference, bid documents and draft contract which materials were approved by the PPA Board.

Seven (7) consortia of companies actually submitted bids, which bids were opened on July 17, 1987 at the PPA Head Office. After evaluation of the several bids, the Bidding Committee recommended the award of the contract to develop, manage and operate the MICT to respondent International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) as having offered the best Technical and Financial Proposal. Accordingly, respondent Secretary declared the ICTSI consortium as the winning bidder.

Before the corresponding MICT contract could be signed, two successive cases were filed against the respondents which assailed the legality or regularity of the MICT bidding. C.F. Sharp Co., Inc. and nine (9) firm consortium filed TRO/Injunction with RTC. Meanwhile, the petitioner, Rodolfo A. Albano filed the petition as citizen and taxpayer and as a member of the House of Representatives, assailing the award of the MICT contract to the ICTSI by the PPA. The petitioner claims that since the MICT is a public utility, it needs a legislative franchise before it can legally operate as a public utility, pursuant to Article 12, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution.

ISSUE 

Whether or not the award and the contract awarded to ICTS is valid

HELD

Conclusion, it is evident that petitioner has failed to show a clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as to warrant the issuance of the writ of prohibition.2. The Courts, as a rule, refuse to interfere with proceedings undertaken by administrative bodies or officials in the exercise of administrative functions. This is so because such bodies are generally better equipped technically to decide administrative questions and that non-legal factors, such as government policy.
3. A review of the applicable provisions of law indicates that a franchise specially granted by Congress is not necessary for the operation of the Manila International Container Port (MICP) by a private entity, a contract entered into by the PPA and such entity constituting substantial compliance with the law.on the matter, are usually involved in the decisions.

3. In the instant case, the PPA, in the exercise of the option granted it by P.D. No. 857, chose to contract out the operation and management of the MICP to a private corporation. This is clearly within its power to do. Thus, PPA’s acts of privatizing the MICT and awarding the MICT contract to ICTSI are wholly within the jurisdiction of the PPA under its Charter which empowers the PPA to “supervise, control, regulate, construct, maintain, operate and provide such facilities or services as are necessary in the ports vested in, or belonging to the PPA.” (Section 6(a) ii, P.D. 857)

4. The contract between the PPA and ICTSI, coupled with the President’s written approval, constitute the necessary authorization for ICTSI’s operation and management of the MICP. The award of the MICT contract approved by no less than the President of the Philippines herself enjoys the legal presumption of validity and regularity of official action. In the case at bar, there is no evidence which clearly shows the constitutional infirmity of the questioned act of government.