Vicente Abad Santos For Petitioner. Bautista, Picazo, Buyco & Tan For Private Respondents
Vicente Abad Santos For Petitioner. Bautista, Picazo, Buyco & Tan For Private Respondents
Vicente Abad Santos For Petitioner. Bautista, Picazo, Buyco & Tan For Private Respondents
the RTC of Pasig by Basilio H. Alo, an alleged "concerned taxpayer", and, the second was
Civil Case 88-43616 for "Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)"
filed with the RTC of Manila by C.F. Sharp Co., Inc., a member of the nine (9) firm
consortium "Manila Container Terminals, Inc." which had actively participated in the MICT
Bidding.
Restraining Orders were issued in Civil Case 88-43616 but these were subsequently lifted
by this Court in Resolutions dated March 17, 1988 (in G.R. No. 82218 captioned "Hon.
Rainerio O. Reyes etc., et al. vs. Hon. Doroteo N. Caneba, etc., et al.) and April 14, 1988 (in
G.R. No. 81947 captioned "Hon. Rainerio O. Reyes etc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.")
On May 18, 1988, the President of the Philippines approved the proposed MICT Contract,
with directives that "the responsibility for planning, detailed engineering, construction,
expansion, rehabilitation and capital dredging of the port, as well as the determination of
how the revenues of the port system shall be allocated for future port works, shall remain
with the PPA; and the contractor shall not collect taxes and duties except that in the case of
wharfage or tonnage dues and harbor and berthing fees, payment to the Government may
be made through the contractor who shall issue provisional receipts and turn over the
payments to the Government which will issue the official receipts." (Annex "I").
The next day, the PPA and the ICTSI perfected the MICT Contract (Annex "3") incorporating
therein by "clarificatory guidelines" the aforementioned presidential directives. (Annex "4").
Meanwhile, the petitioner, Rodolfo A. Albano filed the present petition as citizen and
taxpayer and as a member of the House of Representatives, assailing the award of the
MICT contract to the ICTSI by the PPA. The petitioner claims that since the MICT is a public
utility, it needs a legislative franchise before it can legally operate as a public utility, pursuant
to Article 12, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution.
The petition is devoid of merit.
A review of the applicable provisions of law indicates that a franchise specially granted by
Congress is not necessary for the operation of the Manila International Container Port
(MICP) by a private entity, a contract entered into by the PPA and such entity constituting
substantial compliance with the law.
1. Executive Order No. 30, dated July 16, 1986, provides:
WHEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by
virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and the law, do hereby order the
immediate recall of the franchise granted to the Manila International Port Terminals, Inc.
(MIPTI) and authorize the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) to take over, manage and operate
the Manila International Port Complex at North Harbor, Manila and undertake the provision
of cargo handling and port related services thereat, in accordance with P.D. 857 and other
applicable laws and regulations.
Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 857 (the Revised Charter of the Philippine Ports
Authority) states:
a) The corporate duties of the Authority shall be:
xxx xxx xxx
(ii) To supervise, control, regulate, construct, maintain, operate, and provide such facilities or
Page |2
services as are necessary in the ports vested in, or belonging to the Authority.
xxx xxx xxx
(v) To provide services (whether on its own, by contract, or otherwise) within the Port
Districts and the approaches thereof, including but not limited to
berthing, towing, mooring, moving, slipping, or docking of any vessel;
loading or discharging any vessel;
sorting, weighing, measuring, storing, warehousing, or otherwise handling goods.
xxx xxx xxx
b) The corporate powers of the Authority shall be as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(vi) To make or enter into contracts of any kind or nature to enable it to discharge its
functions under this Decree.
xxx xxx xxx
[Emphasis supplied.]
Thus, while the PPA has been tasked, under E.O. No. 30, with the management and
operation of the Manila International Port Complex and to undertake the providing of cargo
handling and port related services thereat, the law provides that such shall be "in
accordance with P.D. 857 and other applicable laws and regulations." On the other hand,
P.D. No. 857 expressly empowers the PPA to provide services within Port Districts "whether
on its own, by contract, or otherwise" [See. 6(a) (v)]. Therefore, under the terms of E.O. No.
30 and P.D. No. 857, the PPA may contract with the International Container Terminal
Services, Inc. (ICTSI) for the management, operation and development of the MICP.
2. Even if the MICP be considered a public utility, 1 or a public service 2 on the theory that it is a
"wharf' or a "dock" 3 as contemplated under the Public Service Act, its operation would not
necessarily call for a franchise from the Legislative Branch. Franchises issued by Congress are
not required before each and every public utility may operate. Thus, the law has granted certain
administrative agencies the power to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of certain
public utilities. (See E.O. Nos. 172 and 202)
That the Constitution provides in Art. XII, Sec. 11 that the issuance of a franchise, certificate
or other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be subject to
amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress does not necessarily, imply, as petitioner
posits that only Congress has the power to grant such authorization. Our statute books are
replete with laws granting specified agencies in the Executive Branch the power to issue
such authorization for certain classes of public utilities. 4
As stated earlier, E.O. No. 30 has tasked the PPA with the operation and management of the
MICP, in accordance with P.D. 857 and other applicable laws and regulations. However, P.D.
857 itself authorizes the PPA to perform the service by itself, by contracting it out, or through
other means. Reading E.O. No. 30 and P.D. No. 857 together, the inescapable conclusion is
that the lawmaker has empowered the PPA to undertake by itself the operation and
management of the MICP or to authorize its operation and management by another by
contract or other means, at its option. The latter power having been delegated to the PPA, a
franchise from Congress to authorize an entity other than the PPA to operate and manage
Page |3
contracted service should be left to the sound judgment of the PPA. The PPA, having been
tasked with the formulation of a plan for the development of port facilities and its
implementation [Sec. 6(a) (i)], is the agency in the best position to evaluate the feasibility of
the projections of the bidders and to decide which bid is compatible with the development
plan. Neither the Court, nor Congress, has the time and the technical expertise to look into
this matter.
Thus, the Court in Manuel v. Villena (G.R. No. L-28218, February 27, 1971, 37 SCRA 745]
stated:
[C]ourts, as a rule, refuse to interfere with proceedings undertaken by administrative bodies
or officials in the exercise of administrative functions. This is so because such bodies are
generally better equipped technically to decide administrative questions and that non-legal
factors, such as government policy on the matter, are usually involved in the decisions. [at p.
750.]
In conclusion, it is evident that petitioner has failed to show a clear case of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as to warrant the issuance of the writ of
prohibition.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.