G.R. No. 221190 -

Ruling

Accordingly, the Awards Committee declared a failure of bidding for the LRT 1 Extension Project. [7] Following a failed bidding, the government modified the terms of the LRT 1 Extension Project. The revised terms were approved by the NEDA Board in November 2013. [8] On December 3, 2013, the Invitation to Qualify and Bid for the LRT 1 Extension Project was again announced in several newspapers. The Instructions to Bidders were likewise made available. [9] Subsequently, DOTC and LRTA (collectively, grantors) met with prospective bidders to explain the bidding process. Following several meetings between them and the prospective bidders, the terms of the Concession Agreement were amended, and the final version was approved and released on April 27, 2014. [10] On May 28, 2014, the scheduled date for the submission of the bid proposals, only LRMCcomposed of the Metro Pacific Light Rail Corporation, Ayala Corporation's AC Infrastructure Holdings Corporation, and the Philippine Investment Alliance for Infrastructure's Macquarie Infrastructure Holdings PTE Limitedsubmitted a bid proposal. [11] On September 12, 2014, a Notice of Award was issued to LRMC. [12] On October 2, 2014, the grantors and LRMC executed the Concession Agreement, [13] under which LRMC was authorized to: (1) construct the LRT Line 1 extension from Baclaran to Bacoor, Cavite; and (2) "operate and maintain the existing LRT Line 1" for 32 years. [14] Petitioners then filed the present Petition, alleging that the Concession Agreement was unconstitutional and detrimental to the Filipino people. [15] According to petitioners, this Court has recognized that a rule 65 petition is an appropriate remedy to question the Concession Agreement's constitutionality. They stress that Araullo v. Aquino III [16] held that petitions for certiorari and prohibition may be used to invoke this Court's power of expanded judicial review and challenge acts of both legislative and executive officials. [17] They assert that the allegations in their petition demonstrate that the Concession Agreement's execution was tainted with grave abuse of discretion warranting the institution of a rule 65 petition. [18] Petitioners justify their direct resort to this Court on the ground that they raise pure questions of law. They contend that the constitutional issues involved may be resolved without delving on the factual assertions stated in their petition. They also insist that direct resort to the Supreme Court is proper since they advance "serious and important" constitutional issues of transcendental significance. [19] On the substantive issues, petitioners submit that the Concession Agreement and the Schedules between respondents DOTC, LRTA, and LRMC should be declared null and void based on the following: First, respondents violated the constitutional right to information on matters of public concern when they refused to furnish petitioners with copies of the Concession Agreement, its annexes, and the documents relati