Judicial interference?

The cancellation of the Comelec-Mega Pacific Consortium Automation Contract heightens anew the growing perception of judicial interference on the part of the Supreme Court (SC) on purely executive or administrative matters particularly on the terms, conditions and manner of entering into contracts. It all started way back in 1990 when the SC annulled the BOI decision to allow Luzon Petrochemical Corporation to transfer its plant site from Bataan to Batangas. Then it was followed by the Manila Hotel bidding where the SC annulled the award to a Malaysian consortium as the highest bidder in a duly conducted bidding. It granted the petition of the losing bidder mainly because Manila Hotel is a historical site that must not fall into the hands of foreigners. After Manila Hotel came the PEA-Amari deal which was voided because the land subject of the contract is in effect beyond the commerce of man. Subsequently the PIATCO contract on the construction of a modern international airport under the build, operate and transfer scheme was voided after the airport was almost finished in view of widespread anomalies putting the government at a grossly disadvantageous position.

Critics say that the SC cancellation of these government deals virtually scared a lot of foreign investors. Capitalists from abroad, they say, are now thinking thrice before coming in for fear that they may lose their shirts because their government deal may suffer the same fate just when they have already pumped in a lot of money in the projects. There is a dangerous notion building up in the business circle that SC imprimatur is now a condition sine qua non for the validity of contracts involving government projects. Observers claim that if fraud, dishonesty, graft, corruption and other anomalies are indeed existent in government contracts, the proper action should be to prosecute the officials involved and not to shoot down the contracts they entered into.

These criticisms however are obviously misdirected against the SC. These cases arose mainly because of the failure of the built-in mechanisms in government offices ensuring that government deals are legit and not tainted with anomalies. All government contracts are supposed to undergo stringent processes and close scrutiny precisely to prevent irregularities and to safeguard their legitimacy; that they are not contrary to law, morals, public policy or detrimental to public interests. There is supposed to be a Commission on Audit which should examine the uses and expenditures of government funds and properties.

The Supreme Court comes into the picture only when parties affected invoke its judicial power precisely because the government agency or the commission charged with ensuring the flawlessness of contracts, has been remiss in the performance of its job. The SC steps in only when there is already an actual controversy involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable since it is constitutionally bound to settle them. It has to interfere especially with respect to government contracts because they are imbued with public interest which it must protect.

More importantly, it should be noted that the 1987 Constitution expanded judicial power by expressly including the duty to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or government instrumentality. It is by virtue of this expanded power that judicial interference becomes inevitable. It has now become the explicit duty of the SC to determine whether or not any government official has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction upon proper petition filed before it. When the SC cancelled those contracts it was merely performing its mandated task. It should not be blamed for any adverse effect such decisions may have on the economy.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]