Google Search

WebPhilippine Builder

Latest Comment

Charter Chemical & C...
Sir: I am planning to paint my house on the exter...
Camp Crame mall? Yes...
Wow, yaman naman nila, wonder what would be next a...
Football stadium in ...
Looking forward to this.. Although I'm not in the ...
Problem with overzea...
The original article is by Tessa Salazar of Inquir...
Problem with overzea...
At the bottom of your article titled: 'Source'. ...

syndicate

We have 64 guests online

adsense links

Home
SC Junks Bid to Operate NAIA 3
Thursday, 08 May 2008 23:22
{mosimage}The Supreme Court, voting 7-4, has denied the petition filed by Lucio Tan’s Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corporation (AEDC), seeking to operate the controversial Ninoy Aquino International Airport – International Passenger Terminal 3 (IPT 3) after the government abandoned its contract with its builder Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO) “for lack of merit.”

In a 62-page decision penned by Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, the SC en banc said  AEDC’s assertion of being the original proponent of the NAIA-IPT 3, that it has the right to the award of the project, is “substantially and procedurally flawed.” “The rights or privileges of an original proponent of an unsolicited proposal for an infrastructure project are never meant to be absolute. Otherwise, the original proponent can hold the government hostage and secure the award of the infrastructure project based solely on the fact that it was the first to submit a proposal,” the SC said.

An unsolicited proposal, the Court added, is still subject to evaluation, which the government agency or local government unit (LGU) concerned may accept or reject outright.

The decision further noted that the rights of an original proponent depends on compliance with the procedure and conditions provided by the statutes and their Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).

Under Section 10.6 of Republic Act 6957, as amended by RA 7718 (an act authorizing the financing, construction, operation and maintenance of infrastructure projects by the private sector), the acceptance of the unsolicited proposal by the agency or local government unit is limited to the commitment of the agency to pursue the project and recognition of the proponent as the original proponent.

It further held that before the project could be awarded to the original proponent, he must have been able to match the lowest or most advantageous proposal within the prescribed period.

The Court, however, said AEDC failed to match the more advantageous proposal submitted by PIATCO at the time the 30-day working period expired on November 28, 1996. Without exercising its right to match the advantageous proposal, it cannot claim award of the project.
Trackback(0)
Comments (0)Add Comment

Write comment
quote
bold
italicize
underline
strike
url
image
quote
quote
smile
wink
laugh
grin
angry
sad
shocked
cool
tongue
kiss
cry
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
Related Articles
Your Ad Here

Featured Builder

Pablo S. Antonio

article thumbnailBorn at the turn of the century, National Artist in Architecture Pablo S. Antonio pioneered modern Philippine architecture. His basic design is grounded on simplicity, no clutter. The lines are clean...
+ Full Story

More Articles

Featured Company

Anchor Land Holdings Inc.

article thumbnailThe Company is one of the fastest growing property developers in the country whose main focus is the development of high-end condominium projects in Manila.The Company’s very first project, the Lee...
+ Full Story

More Articles

Featured Products

Matimco, Inc

article thumbnailAbout MatimcoThe year 1963 heralded the birth of Mandaue Timber Company. Founded by Mr. Lim Liu, the small outfit was engaged in selling lumber and wooden cases to soft drink and beer companies in...
+ Full Story

More Articles