Title
Albano vs. Reyes
Case
G.R. No. 83551
Decision Date
Jul 11, 1989
A legislator challenged the PPA's award of the Manila International Container Terminal contract to ICTSI, arguing it required a legislative franchise. The Supreme Court ruled the PPA had authority under its charter, dismissing the petition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 177116)

Background of the Case

On April 20, 1987, the PPA Board adopted Resolution No. 850, which mandated the preparation of an Invitation to Bid for the MICT project. Following the Board’s directives, Secretary Reyes established a Special MICT Bidding Committee to oversee the bid process. The PPA then published the Invitation to Bid in a newspaper and reserved the right to reject any bids deemed unfavorable to the government. Seven consortia submitted bids, with ICTSI being recommended as the winning bidder after the committee's evaluation.

Legal Challenges and Actions

Before the contract could be finalized, two separate cases were filed challenging the legality of the MICT bidding process. The first was a petition for prohibition filed by a taxpayer, while the second was filed by a member of a consortium that participated in the bidding. Restraining orders were initially issued but later lifted by the Supreme Court on March 17 and April 14, 1988.

Approval of the MICT Contract

On May 18, 1988, the President of the Philippines approved the MICT contract, establishing that PPA would retain operational control and define the allocation of port revenue. Immediately following this, the PPA entered into a contract with ICTSI, which incorporated the directives from the presidential approval.

Petitioner’s Argument

Albano argued that the MICT, being a public utility, required a legislative franchise under Article 12, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution. He contended that the absence of congressional authorization rendered the contract with ICTSI illegal.

Court’s Analysis of Public Utility Status

The Supreme Court dismissed Albano's argument, clarifying that the operation of the MICT by a private entity did not necessitate a franchise. The Court reviewed Executive Order No. 30, which empowered the PPA to manage the Manila International Port Complex and enter into contracts, including one with ICTSI, for its operation. Thus, it determined that the legislative granting of a franchise was not required for every public utility operation, particularly in light of the administrative powers granted to specific agencies.

Legislative and Executive Roles

The Court acknowledged the constitutional provision stating that franchising is subject to the legislative branch's authority but noted that it does not prohibit administrative agencies from issuing necessary licenses or authorizations. It pointed out that the PPA, as delineated by E.O. No. 30 and P.D. No. 857, had the option to either manage the MICT directly or contract out its operation, thereby validating ICTSI’s role under the contract.

Remaining Issues

The Court also addressed additional concer

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.