Title
Supreme Court
Jacomille vs. Abaya
Case
G.R. No. 212381
Decision Date
Apr 22, 2015
Petitioner challenged LTO's license plate procurement for inadequate funding, MYOA non-compliance, and delays; SC dismissed as moot but highlighted procurement law violations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170599)

Applicable Law

The case was adjudicated in accordance with the 1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant statutes including Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), as well as R.A. No. 7718 concerning the Build-Operate-Transfer law.

Legal Framework and Purpose of the MVPSP

The MVPSP was initiated by the LTO with the aim of standardizing and renewing motor vehicle license plates. The DOTC outlined a significant budget of approximately PHP 3.85 billion to execute the project, covering both new and existing vehicle registrants. The project faced scrutiny primarily due to alleged procedural violations during its procurement process.

Grounds for Petition

The petitioner raised multiple grounds for his challenge:

  1. Lack of Adequate Budgetary Appropriations: The claim asserted that the project commenced without adequate funds allocated in the General Appropriations Act of 2013, which only provided PHP 187 million for related activities.

  2. Failure to Obtain Multi-Year Obligational Authority (MYOA): The petitioner contended that the DOTC did not secure the necessary MYOA from the DBM prior to the procurement, violating stipulations that govern the initiation of multi-year projects.

  3. Non-Referral to Investment Coordination Committee/NEDA: It was argued that the MVPSP should have been reviewed and approved by the ICC/NEDA, as mandated by law for projects involving significant investments.

Arguments and Procedural Considerations

The respondents countered by stating that the issues raised had become moot due to subsequent appropriations made in the General Appropriations Act of 2014, which provided adequate funding for the program. They argued that the project effectively had secured necessary appropriations per relevant legislation.

Discussion of Locus Standi

Petitioner Jacomille was asserted to have standing as a taxpayer and vehicle owner affected by the implementation of the MVPSP. The court recognized that taxpayer suits can precede judicial review on matters of public expenditure and governance, especially where issues of significant public interest are concerned.

Substantive Analysis of Procurement Violations

The court focused on the timeliness and appropriateness of the procurement process under R.A. No. 9184. It was noted that the procurement timelines delineated within the law were not properly adhered to. Specifically, the notice of award was issued significantly after the legally mandated periods established under the law, leading to concerns about the contract's validity.

Funding and Project Implementation

A central issue was whether the MVPSP had sufficient funding at the time procurement was initiated. The court found that no legal basis existed to initiate the procurement without viable budgetary provisions as required by law, affirming that all government contracts must be backed by appropriate funding at the procurement’s commencement.

MYOA Requirements

The court acknowledged the requirement of securing a MYOA before commencing procedures for multi-year projects. Given that the MVPSP was considered to fall under the category that demands such authorization, the absence of a MYOA rendered t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.