G.R. No. 221190 - Bagong Alyansang Makabayan vs. Hon. Joseph Emilio A. Abaya, et al.

Petitioners: Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), Representative Neri Javier Colmenares, Train Riders Network (TREN), and individual members.
Respondents: Secretary Joseph Emilio A. Abaya of DOTC, Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), Administrator of Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA), LRTA itself, and Light Rail Manila Corporation (LRMC).

In November 2010, the Philippine Government adopted the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) program for infrastructure development.
Among priority PPP projects was the Manila Light Rail Transit 1 (LRT 1) Extension, Operations and Maintenance Project.
Initial approval by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Board on March 22, 2012.
An Invitation to Qualify and Bid (Invitation to Qualify) was published in June 2012.
The Special Bids and Awards Committee shortlisted four pre-qualified bidders, but only LRMC submitted a proposal on the deadline.
LRMC’s initial bid was rejected for non-compliance with submission conditions, leading to a failed bidding.

Government revised project terms; NEDA approved new terms in November 2013.
The second bidding started with publication in December 2013; bid instructions were clarified in consultations.
LRMC remained the sole bidder and submitted a proposal on May 28, 2014.
Notice of Award was given on September 12, 2014; the Concession Agreement executed on October 2, 2014.
Under the Agreement, LRMC was authorized to construct the LRT 1 extension and to operate and maintain the existing LRT 1 for 32 years.

The Concession Agreement was unconstitutional and involves grave abuse of discretion.
They assert violation of constitutional rights to information due to refusal of respondents to furnish copies of the Agreement and related documents.
Fare adjustment without notice and hearing violated due process under the Public Service Law.
The Agreement infringes upon LRTA employees’ security of tenure allowing concessionaire to dismiss employees for economic reasons.
The Agreement is essentially a public utility franchise that only Congress can grant; respondents have no authority for concession delegation.
The Agreement contains unconscionable provisions, including financial risks disproportionately borne by the government.
Petitioners highlight issues raised by the Commission on Audit (COA) and Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) regarding contract provisions and financial guarantees.
They pray for nullification and enjoinment of the implementation.

Procedurally, petitioners lack standing; Rule 65 remedies do not cover executive acts.
The government complied with constitutional right to information through publication and conducting pre-bid conferences.
The Concession Agreement is not a lopsided contract; LRMC assumed substantial financial obligations.
The government’s acquisition of right-of-way is legal and expedient.
Fare adjustments are subject to legal requirements including notice and hearing where applicable.
VAT is an indirect tax and may be included in the fare.
The assumption of real property taxes by the government is permissible under the BOT Law to encourage private investments.
The Agreement was reviewed and found compliant by the Department of Finance (DOF), OGCC, and COA.
LRTA’s delegation of authority to DOTr and LRMC is valid under Executive Order No. 603 and the BOT Law.
Legislative approval or franchise was not required for execution.

Validity of the petition for certiorari and prohibition as a vehicle to assail the Agreement.
Compliance with requisites for judicial review including standing, ripeness, and hierarchy of courts.
Whether the fare adjustment provision violates due process rights.
Whether VAT inclusion in fare is lawful.
Validity of government’s assumption of real property tax liability.
Whether the Agreement violates security of tenure rights.
Legitimacy of award and absence of legislative franchise.
Violation of constitutional rights to information and full disclosure.
Whether the contract is lopsided favoring LRMC unfairly.

Is the use of certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 proper to challenge the execution and validity of the Concession Agreement?
Do petitioners have legal standing to question the Agreement?
Is the petition ripe for judicial review and proper under the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?
Does the Concession Agreement’s fare adjustment process comply with due process under the Public Service Act and applicable laws?
Can VAT be legally included in the LRT fare?
Is the government’s assumption of real property tax liability lawful and valid?
Does the Concession Agreement violate LRTA employees’ constitutional security of tenure rights?
Was the Agreement validly awarded without a legislative franchise?
Were petitioners’ constitutional rights to information or full disclosure violated?
Is the Concession Agreement a lopsided contract favoring the concessionaire unjustly?