G.R. No. 83551 - Albano vs. Reyes

The case is a Petition for Prohibition with a prayer for a Preliminary Injunction or Restraining Order filed by petitioner Rodolfo B. Albano.
Petitioner, a citizen, taxpayer, and member of the House of Representatives, challenged the award of the Manila International Container Terminal (MICT) contract.
The petition sought to restrain respondents—which include the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI), and other associated parties—from entering the contract for the development, management, and operation of the MICT.

On April 20, 1987, the PPA Board adopted Resolution No. 850 authorizing PPA management to prepare the Invitation to Bid and accompanying documents for the MICT project.
Secretary Rainerio O. Reyes, acting on the Board’s directive, formed a seven-man Special MICT Bidding Committee composed of:

The PPA management prepared the bid documents, terms of reference, and draft contract—all of which received Board approval.
The Invitation to Bid, published in a newspaper of general circulation, reserved the right for the PPA to reject any or all bids and to waive any informality in them.

Seven consortia submitted bids, which were opened on July 17, 1987, at the PPA Head Office.
After evaluation, the Special MICT Bidding Committee recommended the awarding of the contract to ICTSI, whose technical and financial proposal was adjudged the best.
Respondent Secretary Reyes officially declared the ICTSI consortium as the winning bidder.
Before execution of the MICT contract, legal challenges were filed in two separate cases:

Special Civil Action 55489 by Basilio H. Alo, questioning the bidding's legality.
Civil Case 88-43616 by C.F. Sharp Co., Inc., a member of another consortium.

Restraining Orders issued in the latter case were later lifted by this Court as set in separate resolutions dated March 17, 1988, and April 14, 1988.

On May 18, 1988, the President of the Philippines approved the proposed MICT Contract, accompanied by specific directives regarding the management and distribution of port revenues.
The following day, the PPA and ICTSI perfected the MICT Contract, incorporating clarificatory guidelines that embodied the presidential directives.

Petitioner argued that because the MICT is a public utility, its operation requires a legislative franchise pursuant to Article 12, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution.
He insisted that the contract with ICTSI was illegal in the absence of such a congressional franchise.

Whether the PPA, under its charter and pursuant to existing laws (notably Presidential Decree No. 857 and Executive Order No. 30), possessed the authority to contract out the operation, management, and development of the MICT without a legislative franchise.
Whether the delegation of power under E.O. No. 30 and the enabling provisions of P.D. No. 857 effectively waived the need for a congressional franchise for a project that might be classified as a public utility.

Whether the procedure, including the formation of the bidding committee, publication of the Invitation to Bid, and subsequent evaluation of bids, was carried out in accordance with legal and administrative requirements.
Whether the President’s directives and subsequent perfecting of the contract with ICTSI substantively altered the bidding process or the contractual obligations.

Whether petitioner, as a citizen, taxpayer, and legislator, had sufficient standing to challenge the validity of the contract.
Whether the Courts should intervene in what was essentially an administrative decision left to the specialized expertise of the PPA.

Whether the opinions and resolutions by committees in Congress regarding the necessity of a legislative franchise create a conflict between the Executive and Legislative branches requiring judicial resolution.
Whether such legislative concerns have any direct legal bearing on the validity of the contract and the PPA’s actions.