|
VOTING
11-3, the Supreme Court dismissed for being moot three
consolidated petitions seeking to declare null and void
the contract for the $330-million national broadband
network (NBN) project of the government with China’s ZTE
Co.
Associate Justice Ruben Reyes said the Court en banc had
considered that, owing to the aborting of the project by
President Arroyo, it granted the motion of the Solicitor
General for the dismissal of the petitions.
Associate Justice Antonio Carpio dissented, arguing that
the decision of the government to abandon the NBN-ZTE
project has not rendered the petitions moot for several
reasons.
The
Court did not give credence to the claim of petitioners
that declarations made by the officials of the Executive
department on the decision to scrap the project “are
self-serving, thus, inadmissible.”
“Since
we consider the act of cancellation by President Arroyo
of the proposed ZTE-NBN Project…with Chinese President
Hu Jintao of China as an official act of the Executive
department, the Court must take judicial notice of such
official act without the need of evidence.”
The
Court explained that under Section 1, Rule 129 of the
Rules of Court, it is mandatory for the Court to take
judicial notice of the official acts of the President of
the Philippines without introduction of evidence.
“When
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, acting in her
official capacity during the meeting held on October 2,
2007, in China, informed China’s President Hu Jintao
that the Philippine government had decided not to
continue with the ZTE-National Broadband Network Project
due to several reasons and constraints, there is no
doubt that all the other principal prayers in the three
petitions [to annul, set aside and enjoin the
implementation of the ZTE-NBN Project] had also become
moot.”
The
dismissed petitions were filed by Vice Gov. Rolex
Suplico of Iloilo, Amsterdam Holdings Inc. (AHI) and
Nathaniel Sauz of the Lawyers and Advocates for
Accountability, Transparency, Integrity and Good
Governance.
Malacañang is reserving comment on the decision until
the judgment is rendered final and executory, Press
Secretary Jesus Dureza said on Monday.
He noted
that “the parties can still pursue remedies available so
it is best to wait for the moment.” He added that
Malacañang has yet to obtain a copy of the ruling.
Besides
being moot, the SC said it cannot rule on the petitions
since it would warrant the examination of facts and
evidence—something it will not do since it is not a
trier of facts, which is specifically within the
jurisdiction of the trial courts.
Furthermore, the High Tribunal noted that “it would be
too presumptuous on the part of the Court to summarily
compel the respondents to comply with the provisions
with regard to procurement of government infrastructure
projects without prior determination of the particular
violations committed by specific government officials.”
In its
petition, AHI sought full access to all agreements
entered into by the respondents involving the NBN
project pursuant to Article 8, Section 5 (1) of the
Constitution with its president, Sauz, insisting that
under the Constitution, the people have the right to
seek information involving government projects such as
the NBN.
Suplico
also asked the SC to scrap the government’s deal with
China’s ZTE Co. for being unconstitutional; and
petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing respondents
to produce all documents pertaining to the NBN so the
public would know the actual terms and conditions of the
agreement.
In his
dissenting opinion, Justice Antonio Carpio argued the
government’s decision to abandon the NBN-ZTE project has
not rendered the petitions moot, maintaining that the
Court should decide on the legal issues raised by the
petitions because the ZTE supply contract “itself is
capable of being resurrected”—not having manifested to
the Court that it (ZTE) agrees with the cancellation of
the project.
“This
case is of transcendental importance to the nation since
it involves the constitutionality of a $329.48-million
government procurement contract awarded and signed
without an appropriation from Congress and without
public bidding….The Court has duty to resolve the
important issues in this case, including the novel
question on the status of executive agreements that
conflict with national law, to prevent a recurrence of
government contracts that violate the Constitution and
existing statutes,” said Carpio. (With Mia Gonzalez) |