Cited Laws
Accordingly, the SBMA-JVSP issued a Resolution dated 22 April 2010, recommending the award of the project to petitioner. [34] Acting on the recommendation, on 07 May 2010, the SBMA Board issued Resolution No. 10-05-3646 (Approval Resolution). [35] The SBMA Board adopted the recommendation of the SBMA-JVSP to award the project to petitioner, without prejudice to the action of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) on SBMA's request for election ban exemption (since the contract period coincided with the election ban) and subject to the favorable opinion of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC). The requirement of an election ban exemption was rendered functus officio after the election period lapsed without any further action on the JVA. [36] Meanwhile, SBMA-JVSP noticed an error in the computation of the bid security earlier posted by petitioner. Hence, it advised petitioner to post an additional bid security in the corrected amount of PhP100 Million, to which petitioner immediately complied. [37] On 12 July 2010, the SBMA, through Arreza, formally sought a legal opinion from the OGCC. [38] Pending receipt of the OGCC legal opinion, petitioner continuously renewed its bid security. [39] On 23 May 2011, NEDA informed SBMA that the JVA's compliance with the 2008 JV Guidelines "could not be ascertained" because: (1) there was no COMELEC exemption; (2) the JVA was executed as early as Stage Two of the process; (3) the bid security was inadequate; and (4) SBMA failed to submit the JVA to NEDA. [40] In its reply to NEDA's letter, SBMA countered that the COMELEC exemption requirement had been rendered inapplicable since the election period had lapsed for more than a year. No harm was done by the signing of the JVA during the Stage Two of the process, as the JVA itself provides that it was not a final and executory contract and was subject to the result of competitive challenge. The error on the value of the bid security was made in good faith and had already been corrected. SBMA also excused the non-submission of the JVA to NEDA, arguing that the same was not yet executory. [41] On 22 June 2011, SBMA received the OGCC's favorable legal opinion. [42] The OGCC stated that the signed JVA complied with the 2008 JV Guidelines and is consistent with JV principles. [43] Nonetheless, the OGCC recommended certain revisions "to ensure clarity and avoid confusion", in light of the issues raised by the NEDA and SSTI's counsel, among others. [44] These proposed amendments were accepted by SBMA and petitioner in writing. [45] However, on 05 July 2011, NEDA withdrew its endorsement of the project based on alleged violations of the 2008 JV Guidelines, i.e., the execution of the JVA as early as Stage Two of the process and a supposed material change in the project cost from approximately PhP763.029 Million to around PhP5.537 Billion after the competitive challenge. [46] SBMA requested for reconsideration. Nonetheless, the SBMA Board issued Resolution No.