You are on page 1of 5

CA 146, as amended Section 13 (b

)
CHAPTER II
JURISDICTION, POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION
Section 13. (a) The Commission shall have jurisdiction, supervision, and control over all public
services and their franchises, equipment, and other properties, and in the exercise of its
authority, it shall have the necessary powers and the aid of the public force: Provided, That
public services owned or operated by government entities or government-owned or controlled
corporations shall be regulated by the Commission in the same way as privately-owned public
services, but certificates of public convenience or certificates of public convenience and
necessity shall not be required of such entities or corporations: And provided, further, That it
shall have no authority to require steamboats, motor ships and steamship lines, whether
privately-owned, or owned or operated by any Government controlled corporation or
instrumentality to obtain certificate of public convenience or to prescribe their definite routes or
lines of service.
(b) The term "public service" includes every person that now or hereafter may own,
operate, manage, or control in the Philippines, for hire or compensation, with general
or limited clientele, whether permanent, occasional or accidental, and done for general
business purposes, any common carrier, railroad, street railway, traction railway, subway motor vehicle, either for freight or passenger, or both with or without fixed route
and whether may be its classification, freight or carrier service of any class, express
service, steamboat or steamship line, pontines, ferries, and water craft, engaged in
the transportation of passengers or freight or both, shipyard, marine railways, marine
repair shop, [warehouse] wharf or dock, ice plant, ice-refrigeration plant, canal,
irrigation system, gas, electric light, heat and power water supply and power,
petroleum, sewerage system, wire or wireless communications system, wire or
wireless broadcasting stations and other similar public services: Provided, however,
That a person engaged in agriculture, not otherwise a public service, who owns a
motor vehicle and uses it personally and/or enters into a special contract whereby said
motor vehicle is offered for hire or compensation to a third party or third parties
engaged in agriculture, not itself or themselves a public service, for operation by the
latter for a limited time and for a specific purpose directly connected with the
cultivation of his or their farm, the transportation, processing, and marketing of
agricultural products of such third party or third parties shall not be considered as
operating a public service for the purposes of this Act.
(c) The word "person" includes every individual, co-partnership, joint-stock company
or corporation, whether domestic or foreign, their lessees, trustees, or receivers, as
well as any municipality, province, city, government-owned or controlled corporation,
or agency of the Government of the Philippines, and whatever other persons or
entities that may own or possess or operate public services. (As amended by Com.
Act 454 and RA No. 2677)

82218 captioned "Hon.. Reyes.R. PARAS. ALBANO. Rainerio O. two (2) Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) representatives. Inc. Before the corresponding MICT contract could be signed. Meanwhile. RAZON. as well as the determination of how the revenues of the port system shall be allocated for future port works. Alo. 81947 captioned "Hon. respondent Secretary declared the ICTSI consortium as the winning bidder. Albano filed the present petition as citizen and taxpayer and as a member of the House of Representatives. Inc. Reyes etc. (ICTSI) as having offered the best Technical and Financial Proposal. Inc. Caneba. Executive Order No. by DOTC Special Order 87-346. 857 (the Revised Charter of the Philippine Ports Authority) states: . 1986. After evaluation of the several bids. CORAZON C. 1988. Accordingly. Hon. dated July 16. I. expansion. INC. No. The Bidding Committee consisted of three (3) PPA representatives. Buyco & Tan for private respondents. and authorizing the Board Chairman. provides: WHEREFORE. and preparing the corresponding contract between the PPA and the winning bidder or contractor. Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution.D. the Bidding Committee recommended the award of the contract to develop. assailing the award of the MICT contract to the ICTSI by the PPA. by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and the law. Sharp Co. which bids were opened on July 17. The petition is devoid of merit. (Annex "4"). in accordance with P. vs. et al. vs.. E." Seven (7) consortia of companies actually submitted bids. bid documents and draft contract which materials were approved by the PPA Board. a member of the nine (9) firm consortium — "Manila Container Terminals. recommending to the Board the best bid. 1987. management and operation of the Manila International Container Terminal (MICT). President of the Republic of the Philippines. vs. rehabilitation and capital dredging of the port. HON.: This is a Petition for Prohibition with prayer for Preliminary Injunction or Restraining Order seeking to restrain the respondents Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) and the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications Rainerio O. Accordingly. the President of the Philippines approved the proposed MICT Contract. REYES. 1.) and April 14. the PPA Board adopted its Resolution No. and. shall remain with the PPA. the second was Civil Case 88-43616 for "Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)" filed with the RTC of Manila by C. etc. The PPA management prepared the terms of reference.. pursuant to Article 12.F. Picazo. No. AQUINO." (Annex "I"). and the contractor shall not collect taxes and duties except that in the case of wharfage or tonnage dues and harbor and berthing fees. Inc. et al.. J. and SEALAND SERVICES. The petitioner claims that since the MICT is a public utility. RAINERIO O. et al. Secretary Rainerio O.R. one (1) Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) representative and one (1) private sector representative. Vicente Abad Santos for petitioner. petitioner. 1989 RODOLFO B. an alleged "concerned taxpayer". Restraining Orders were issued in Civil Case 88-43616 but these were subsequently lifted by this Court in Resolutions dated March 17. Bautista.respondents. INC. 857 and other applicable laws and regulations. to oversee the preparation of the technical and the documentation requirements for the MICT leasing as well as to implement this project. No. Court of Appeals. The PPA published the Invitation to Bid several times in a newspaper of general circulation which publication included the reservation by the PPA of "the right to reject any or all bids and to waive any informality in the bids or to accept such bids which may be considered most advantageous to the government. Section 6 of Presidential Decree No.. Rodolfo A. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY. ANSCOR CONTAINER CORPORATION. Inc. (ICTSI) the contract for the development. (MIPTI) and authorize the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) to take over. et al. 30. the PPA and the ICTSI perfected the MICT Contract (Annex "3") incorporating therein by "clarificatory guidelines" the aforementioned presidential directives. the petitioner. with directives that "the responsibility for planning.R. INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES. 1988 (in G. manage and operate the Manila International Port Complex at North Harbor. Reyes from awarding to the International Container Terminal Services.. Doroteo N. two successive cases were filed against the respondents which assailed the legality or regularity of the MICT bidding. On April 20. The next day. manage and operate the MICT to respondent International Container Terminal Services. created a seven (7) man "Special MICT Bidding Committee" charged with evaluating all bid proposals. Rainerio O." which had actively participated in the MICT Bidding. construction. management and operation of the MICT at the Port of Manila.G. 83551 July 11. A review of the applicable provisions of law indicates that a franchise specially granted by Congress is not necessary for the operation of the Manila International Container Port (MICP) by a private entity. LTD. 1988 (in G.. respondent Secretary Reyes. Manila and undertake the provision of cargo handling and port related services thereat. it needs a legislative franchise before it can legally operate as a public utility. 850 directing PPA management to prepare the Invitation to Bid and all relevant bidding documents and technical requirements necessary for the public bidding of the development. do hereby order the immediate recall of the franchise granted to the Manila International Port Terminals.. The first was Special Civil Action 55489 for "Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction" filed with the RTC of Pasig by Basilio H. 1987 at the PPA Head Office.") On May 18. a contract entered into by the PPA and such entity constituting substantial compliance with the law. Reyes etc. payment to the Government may be made through the contractor who shall issue provisional receipts and turn over the payments to the Government which will issue the official receipts. detailed engineering.

a franchise from Congress to authorize an entity other than the PPA to operate and manage the MICP becomes unnecessary. by contract. its operation would not necessarily call for a franchise from the Legislative Branch. the inescapable conclusion is that the lawmaker has empowered the PPA to undertake by itself the operation and management of the MICP or to authorize its operation and management by another by contract or other means." (Section 6(a) ii. Franchises issued by Congress are not required before each and every public utility may operate. Nos.a) The corporate duties of the Authority shall be: xxx xxx xxx (ii) To supervise. 857 itself authorizes the PPA to perform the service by itself.D. No. citing Severino v. No. public interest is definitely involved considering the important role of the MICP in the economic development of the country and the magnitude of the financial consideration involved. Thus. No. as petitioner posits that only Congress has the power to grant such authorization. (See E. coupled with the President's written approval. The latter power having been delegated to the PPA. For these reasons the contention that the contract between the PPA and ICTSI is illegal in the absence of a franchise from Congress appears bereft of any legal basis. P. including but not limited to — — berthing. in accordance with P. at its option. Sec." On the other hand. In the case at bar. PPA's acts of privatizing the MICT and awarding the MICT contract to ICTSI are wholly within the jurisdiction of the PPA under its Charter which empowers the PPA to "supervise.D. constitute the necessary authorization for ICTSI's operation and management of the MICP. imply. operate and provide such facilities or services as are necessary in the ports vested in. Inc. chose to contract out the operation and management of the MICP to a private corporation. That petitioner herein is suing as a citizen and taxpayer and as a Member of the House of Representatives. sufficiently clothes him with the standing to institute the instant suit questioning the validity of the assailed contract. mooring. storing.O. and provide such facilities or services as are necessary in the ports vested in. 857 and other applicable laws and regulations. xxx xxx xxx b) The corporate powers of the Authority shall be as follows: xxx xxx xxx (vi) To make or enter into contracts of any kind or nature to enable it to discharge its functions under this Decree. XII. or otherwise handling goods.D. However. the following observations may be made: Thus. Our statute books are replete with laws granting specified agencies in the Executive Branch the power to issue such authorization for certain classes of public utilities. there is no evidence which clearly shows the constitutional infirmity of the questioned act of government. This is clearly within its power to do. 63915.O. Thus. (ICTSI) for the management. 30 and P. with the management and operation of the Manila International Port Complex and to undertake the providing of cargo handling and port related services thereat. under the terms of E. 857 expressly empowers the PPA to provide services within Port Districts "whether on its own. or docking of any vessel. measuring. — sorting. 30.D. G. The award of the MICT contract approved by no less than the President of the Philippines herself enjoys the legal presumption of validity and regularity of official action. or through other means.D. by contract. 857) The contract between the PPA and ICTSI. operation and development of the MICP. 857 together. — loading or discharging any vessel. 1985.R. Governor General. certificate or other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be subject to amendment. the PPA. 1 or a public service 2 on the theory that it is a "wharf' or a "dock" 3as contemplated under the Public Service Act.O. [Cf. moving. regulate. No. the PPA may contract with the International Container Terminal Services. No. 857. 172 and 202) That the Constitution provides in Art. construct. the law provides that such shall be "in accordance with P. In the instant case. 4 As stated earlier. 30 has tasked the PPA with the operation and management of the MICP. alteration or repeal by Congress does not necessarily. warehousing. or otherwise) within the Port Districts and the approaches thereof. construct.D. 6(a) (v)]. regulate. While the expenditure of public funds may not be involved under the contract. operate. weighing. by contracting it out. where the Court considered the petitioners with sufficient standing to institute an action where a public right is sought to be enforced. control. the law has granted certain administrative agencies the power to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities.] 3. 366 (1910).136 SCRA 27. or belonging to the Authority.O. Even if the MICP be considered a public utility. Reading E. 30 and P.D. 857.D. or otherwise" [See. while the PPA has been tasked. 16 Phil. On the peripheral issues raised by the party. xxx xxx xxx (v) To provide services (whether on its own. control. No. No. Consequently. Therefore. 11 that the issuance of a franchise. Tañada v.O. No. P. xxx xxx xxx 2. maintain. E. in the exercise of the option granted it by P. slipping. maintain. the disclosure provision in the Constitution 5would constitute sufficient authority for upholding petitioner's standing. April 24. No. A. or belonging to the PPA. P. 857 and other applicable laws and regulations.] . towing. [Emphasis supplied. Tuvera. under E.

C. Padilla and Sarmiento. After going over the pleadings of the present petition. does not necessarily create a conflict between the Executive and the Legislative Branches needing the intervention of the Judicial Branch. (2) respondent Marina Port Services and not the petitioner was better qualified to handle arrastre services. refuse to interfere with proceedings undertaken by administrative bodies or officials in the exercise of administrative functions. 750. I was surprised during the oral arguments of the present petition to hear the counsel for PPA submit diametrically different statements regarding the capabilities and worth of E. I would feel more comfortable in the thought that the above rulings are not only grounded on firm legal foundations but are also factually accurate if the PPA shows greater consistency in its submissions to this Court. nor Congress. Cruz. Inc. v.R. as a rule.] In conclusion. the development. There is the distinct possibility that we may have been unfair in the earlier petition because of assertions made therein which are contradictory to the submissions in the instant petition. in their respective reports. such as government policy on the matter. The court is not faced with a situation where the Executive Branch has contravened an enactment of Congress. That certain committees in the Senate and the House of Representatives have. This is so because such bodies are generally better equipped technically to decide administrative questions and that non-legal factors. I recall that in E. JJ. Cortes. took no part.B... L-28218. Feliciano. was not what was subsequently contracted. inadequate equipment. it shared in the benefits of the violation of law. is the agency in the best position to evaluate the feasibility of the projections of the bidders and to decide which bid is compatible with the development plan. Villena (G. Razon. Griño-Aquino. 37 SCRA 745] stated: [C]ourts. WHEREFORE. as an arrastre operator. of its submissions that: (1) the petitioner therein committed violations as to outside stevedoring services. this Court decided the case in favor of the PPA because. The determination of whether or not the winning bidder is qualified to undertake the contracted service should be left to the sound judgment of the PPA.R. neither is the Court confronted with a case of one branch usurping a power pertaining to another. JR. concurring: I concur in the Court's decision that the determination of whether or not the winning bidder is qualified to undertake the contracted service should be left to the sound judgment of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA). The PPA. having been tasked with the formulation of a plan for the development of port facilities and its implementation [Sec. Razon. has the time and the technical expertise to look into this matter. Philippine Ports Authority (151 SCRA 233 [1977]). Separate Opinions GUTIERREZ.. Medialdea and Regalado. J. [at p. Bidin. Inc. thus rendering the bids and projections immaterial and the procedure taken ineffectual. but merely dealt on the details of its implementation. I am now convinced that it is the submissions of PPA in this case and not its contentions in G.. D.. and (4) even if the petitioner may not have shared in the illegal intention behind the transfer of majority shares. The time difference between the two petitions is insubstantial. C.. Narvasa. the petition is hereby DISMISSED. it is evident that petitioner has failed to show a clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as to warrant the issuance of the writ of prohibition. management and operation of the MICP. the Court in Manuel v. 75197 which are accurate and meritorious. and non-compliance with certain port regulations. declared their opinion that a franchise from Congress is necessary for the operation of the MICP by a private individual or entity. Melencio-Herrera. reliability and competence of E. SO ORDERED.. (3) the petitioner being controlled by Alfredo Romualdez could not enter into a management contract with PPA and any such contract would be null and void. February 27. 1971.e.. 6(a) (i)].. for its successful operations. Thus. considering the conditions imposed by the President in her letter of approval. As discussed earlier. Fernan.J. among others. delayed submission of reports. It now turns out that the Manila International Container Terminal will depend a great deal on the expertise. JJ. J. Razon. Petitioner's contention that what was bid out. I agree that the PPA is the agency which can best evaluate the comparative qualifications of the various bidding contractors and that in making such evaluation it has the technical expertise which neither this Court nor Congress possesses. The conditions imposed by the President did not materially alter the substance of the contract. concurs in the result. Neither the Court. No. is not supported by the established facts. and the latter in a resolution as well. However. No such doubts would exist if the Government is more consistent in its pleadings on such important factual matters as those raised in these two petitions. No. Gancayco. . concur. Inc. i. are usually involved in the decisions.