G.R. No. 93709 - People vs. Rabanes

The petition concerns the procurement process of the Land Transportation Office Motor Vehicle License Plate Standardization Program (MVPSP).
The MVPSP is a government project designed to supply new license plates for both old and new vehicle registrants and is crucial for proper vehicle identification.
The Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and its line agency, the Land Transportation Office (LTO), are responsible for the implementation of the project.

On February 20, 2013, the DOTC published the Invitation to Bid for MVPSP, indicating an Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC) of Php 3,851,600,100.00 and stating funding would come from the General Appropriations Act (GAA).
Subsequent pre-bid conferences were held on February 28 and March 7, 2013, with amendments issued on March 6, 2013, and an extension of the bid submission deadline to April 8, 2013.
The Notice of Award was issued on July 22, 2013 to the lowest bidder, a joint venture between the Netherlands’ J. Knieriem B.V. Goes and Power Plates Development Concepts, Inc. (JKG-Power Plates).
Despite the issuance of the notice on July 22, 2013, the contract signing was delayed until February 21, 2014, after the project was eventually funded by the GAA 2014 appropriation.

Petitioner Reynaldo M. Jacomille, a registered vehicle owner and taxpayer, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition alleging:

The procurement process exceeded the mandatory bidding timeline provided under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9184 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).
There was a lack of adequate budgetary appropriation in GAA 2013, as the invitation mentioned an ABC of Php 3.851 billion while the actual appropriation was only Php 187.293 million.
The procuring entity failed to secure the required Multi-Year Obligational Authority (MYOA) from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) before commencing the procurement process.
The project, involving a multi-year contract (MYC), should have been subject to review and approval by the Investment Coordination Committee (ICC)/ National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) under R.A. No. 7718.

Asserted that the issues had become moot and academic since the full funding was eventually appropriated in GAA 2014 (Php 4,843,753,000.00).
Contended that the timeline issues were not fatal, emphasizing that the overall procurement was completed within a reasonable period despite delays.
Claimed that the ABC need not correspond exactly to the earlier allocation in GAA 2013 and that securing MYOA was unnecessary when full funding was available.
Argued that the project did not fall under the purview of R.A. No. 7718, since MVPSP involved no capital investment nor was it a public-private partnership.

Maintained that petitioner lacked locus standi because he was not directly injured as a bidder and the project was funded by payments from vehicle owners.
Reiterated that procurement commenced despite the alleged funding issues, asserting that the absence of the full funding did not affect the validity of the contract formation under the applicable procurement law.

The petition sought certiorari and prohibition to nullify the procurement process on the grounds stated.
Before addressing the substantive merits, the Court evaluated procedural issues including whether the controversy had become moot and if the petitioner possessed the requisite legal standing as a taxpayer.

Whether the controversy is moot and academic, given that the full funding was later appropriated through GAA 2014.
Whether the petitioner, as a taxpayer and a registered vehicle owner, has the legal standing (locus standi) to raise the issues.

Whether the procurement process of the MVPSP complied with the mandatory timelines prescribed under R.A. No. 9184 and its IRR, particularly the three-month period from bid opening to contract award and the ten-day period for contract signing.
Whether MVPSP was sufficiently funded at the commencement of the procurement process, considering the discrepancy between the ABC stated in the invitation to bid and the appropriation available in GAA 2013.
Whether securing a Multi-Year Obligational Authority (MYOA) was mandatory prior to the commencement of the procurement process for a multi-year project (MYP) involving a multi-year contract (MYC).
Whether MVPSP should have undergone review and approval by the ICC/NEDA under R.A. No. 7718 given the magnitude and nature of the project.