Law: Political Law, Administrative Law
Cited Law/Order: Section 3(e) R.A. No. 3019, Section 48 of R.A. No. 9184, Section 53 of R.A. No. 9184, Section 53.2 of the IRR, GPPB Resolution No. 018-2006
Issue: Release of 2.5 Million to Construction for road project even if no public bidding was done
FACTS:
Tio serves as the Mayor and Cadiz as Municipal Accountant of the Municipality of Luna.
Municipality of Luna and the Provincial Government entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that the latter will provide funds amounting 5Million Peso for the construction of a concrete road while the former obligated to implement the project.
The members of the Bids and Awards Cormnittee (BAC) declared that are unaware of the road project and cannot produce the documents to support the disbursement of the 2.5Million Pesos, in favor of Double A.
Tio issued a Disbursement Voucher in favor of of Double A Gravel & Sand Corporation amounting 2.5Million Pesos. Commission on Audit issued a Notice of Suspensions against the payment to Double A.
On December 16, 2008, the road concreting project was certified as 100% complete and accepted by the affected barangays within the Municipality.
ISSUE:
- Whether or not parties are guilty to the 1st and 3rd element of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019
- Whether or not parties are guilty to the 2nd element of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019
- Whether or not procurement without public bidding is justified in this case
- Whether or not provision in the MOA that the funds be released when 50% of the projects be completed is found.
- Whether or not Availability of funds is required to prior bidding before a procurement of a government project.
- Whether or not Contract between the Municipality and Double A is void
- Whether or not Cadiz has participation of the release of the 2,500,000.00 to Double A.
RULING:
- Guilty, 1st and 3rd element (b). Not Guilty to 3rd element (a)
2.
3. No. Absence of Public bidding in procurement is not justified. Parties failed to satisfy the justifications provided in Section 48 of R.A. No. 9184, Section 53 of R.A. No. 9184, Section 53.2 of the IRR, GPPB Resolution No. 018-2006
4. No. No provision in the MOA that the funds be released when 50% of the projects be completed.
5. Yes. Availability of funds is required to prior bidding before a procurement of a government project.
These steps must be followed:
a. Procurement must be within its approved budget during the procurement planning stage
b. Issuance of the invitation to bid-the Municipality may have other qualified suppliers.
6. Yes. Contract between the Municipality and Double A is void. The contract is void because there is an absence of public bidding.
7. Yes. Cadiz has participation of the release of the 2,500,000.00 to Double A.
She certified that the supporting documents were complete, and the allotment of the 2,500,000.00 is for the purpose specified in the Disbursement Voucher. However, the allotment had not been obligated.
Lesson for this case:
No public funds be released without Public Bidding.
Local Chief Executive and its Treasurer must observe the Procurement Law. Every process must be followed in R.A. No. 3019 to have a lawful procurement.
Cited Jurisprudence:
People v Tio
People of the Philippines v. Raquel Austria Naciongayo
Jose Tapales Villarosa v People of the Philippines
Sison v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 230132
Office of the Ombudsman v. Celiz,
Jacomille v. Sec. Abaya, et al.,
Liberty B. Tiangco v. People ofthe Philippines,
Rivera v People
No comments:
Post a Comment