Facts:

The case revolves around two petitions: G.R. No. 112399 filed by Representative Amado S. Bagatsing and G.R. No. 115994 filed by a group of lawmakers including Senators Neptali A. Gonzales and Ernesto A. Maceda, among others. Both petitions concern the bidding process and subsequent sale of a 40% block of shares of the Petron Corporation (Petron) to Aramco Overseas Company, B.V. (Aramco) on December 15, 1993. The petitioners sought to annul the bidding process and the sale on grounds of alleged arbitrariness and illegality, claiming that Petron is a vital government asset and should not be privatized as per the profit-driven objectives of the government.

Historically, Petron was originally registered as Esso Philippines, Inc. in 1966 but was nationalized by the Philippine government during the 1973 oil crisis under the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) and transformed into a wholly-owned government entity. Aimed at counteracting the volatility of global oil prices, Petron be

...

Facts:

Background and Initiation of Privatization

• The case involved two petitions filed under G.R. No. 112399 and G.R. No. 115994 challenging aspects of the privatization of Petron Corporation.
• Petitioners included Representative Amado S. Bagatsing in one case and several Senators, Representatives, and a former Senator (with one filing in a private capacity) in the other, asserting their roles as members of Congress, taxpayers, and concerned citizens.
• The petitions sought to annul the bidding and sale of a 40% block of Petron shares to Aramco Overseas Company, B.V. (ARAMCO) and to enjoin any further sale actions.

Overview of the Privatization Process and Transaction Details

• Historical Context
• PETRON originated as Esso Philippines, Inc. and was acquired by the government in 1973, later becoming a subsidiary of PNOC, with the objective of mitigating price manipulation and stabilizing the oil market.
• The privatization effort was part of a broader government policy under Proclamation No. 50 and related initiatives aimed at raising revenue and promoting private sector participation.
• Key Approvals and Government Actions
• Several resolutions and endorsements, beginning with PNOC Board approvals and subsequent presidential approvals, paved the way for the privatization of PETRON.
• The government formed the Petron Privatization Working Committee (PWC) and established a 40%-40%-20% strategy—40% of shares to a strategic partner, 20% via an initial public offering (IPO), and 40% retained by the government to maintain control.
• Bidding Process
• The invitation to bid for the 40% block of shares was widely published, with the floor price set after discussions among officials and in consultation with various stakeholders.
• Three bidders emerged—Saudi Aramco, PETRONAS, and Westmont Holdings—with Westmont later disqualified for failing to meet the technical and financial requirements.
• Ultimately, ARAMCO submitted the highest bid (US$502 million) leading to its declaration as the winner by PNOC Board resolution.
• Subsequent Developments
• Documents such as the Stock Purchase Agreement and Shareholders’ Agreement were executed with ARAMCO, and additional motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction were filed and deferred.
• The privatization procedure included provisions for an IPO for a 20% block of shares and a reserved block (10%) for small local investors, though questions arose about the sequencing and effectiveness of this arrangement.

Administrative and Procedural Details

• Implementation of Government Policies
• Key government letters and memoranda from officials (e.g., Secretary Ramon R. Del Rosario and Secretary designate Delfin L. Lazaro) supported the privatization by signaling improved investor interest and compliance with the Energy Sector Action Plan.
• The process involved adaptations based on consultations with the Commission on Audit (COA) regarding valuation and bidding methodologies.
• Allegations of Procedural Irregularity
• Petitioners argued that the bidding was conducted in haste and with arbitrariness, noting that the pre-qualification and bidding occurred on the same day.
• The petitioners raised issues regarding the alleged failure of competitive bidding and the timing of setting the floor price and opening bids.
• PETRON’s Transformation and Market Position
• As modified under privatization, PETRON remained a major player in the oil industry with substantial shares in the domestic market, significant assets, and income.
• The privatization was defended on the ground that PETRON, though a performing asset, was deemed “inappropriate or unnecessary” for government operation in the competitive petroleum industry.

Challenges Raised by Petitioners

• Questions on Locus Standi
• Petitioners disputed whether actions taken in their capacity as members of Congress could provide adequate standing, emphasizing instead their standing as taxpayers under established jurisprudence.
• Appraisal of the Privatization Policy
• Petitioners contended that PETRON did not qualify as a non-performing asset and that its privatization contravened the policy of disposing only of non-performing or unnecessary government assets.
• Alleged Bidding Irregularities and Sequencing
• There were claims that the bidding process was flawed due to the limited time allowed for review and simultaneous conduct of qualification and submission, potentially favoring ARAMCO’s bid.
• Petitioners also argued that the law mandated that a 10% block of shares be offered to small investors before proceeding with a large block sale, an arrangement they contended was not followed.

Issues Related to PETRON’s Corporate Nature

• Status as a Public Utility
• Petitioners claimed that PETRON, due to its role in oil refining, should be considered a public utility, subject to constitutional and statutory restrictions on foreign ownership and board composition.
• The contention involved whether ARAMCO’s acquisition exceeded the allowed foreign participation both in equity ownership and within the governing body of a public utility.

Issue:

Locus Standi and Legal Capacity

• Whether members of Congress have the legal standing to challenge executive actions in their official capacity or only as taxpayers.
• The applicability of the taxpayer standing doctrine as established in prior cases (e.g., Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona).

Validity of the Privatization Process

• Whether the sale of PETRON’s 40% share block to ARAMCO, amid the existing privatization policies, complied with Proclamation No. 50 and related legal frameworks.
• The challenge that privatizing a performing asset, rather than a non-performing one, deviates from the declared policy of disposing only of unnecessary government assets.

Alleged Bidding and Procedural Irregularities

• Whether the bidding process was conducted with due regard to proper procedure, particularly concerning the short period allowed for evaluation and the simultaneous conduct of qualification and bid submission.
• Whether the process amounted to a “failed bidding” due to having only one acceptable bid, despite the existence of multiple bidders.

Issues on Sequencing of Share Offers

• Whether the law (specifically Section 2(d) of R.A. No. 7181) mandates that a 10% block of shares first be offered to small local investors before proceeding with the sale of a larger block to strategic partners.
• The interpretation of the word “first” in the context of the offer, and whether it imposes a mandatory, sequential order on the privatization process.

Determination of PETRON’s Nature as a Public Utility

• Whether PETRON falls within the definition of a “public utility” under the Constitution and relevant statutes such as R.A. No. 387.
• Whether ARAMCO’s winning bid and the composition of the PETRON board (with regards to foreign participation) violate constitutional or statutory limits on foreign ownership in public utilities.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Deference to Executive Discretion

• The Court emphasized that privatization and asset disposal strategies are primarily executive functions.

• Judicial review in such contexts is limited to ensuring that the process did not violate explicit statutory provisions, rather than evaluating the wisdom of policy decisions.

Interpretation of Legislative Mandates

• The decision underscored that the phrase “first offered” in Section 2(d) of R.A. No. 7181 was not intended to delineate a rigid, sequential process.
• It was held that this provision simply grants small investors a right of first refusal, leaving the timing and sequencing to the discretion of the privatizing entities.

Validation of the Bidding Process

• The Court found that the bidding process adhered to the established COA Circular guidelines regarding what constitutes a failure of bidding.
• The fact that more than one offeror submitted bids, with proper disqu

...continue reading