LTO trouble: fading licenses, not PCs

The court acted swiftly after all on a BSP case against ten banks of the Legacy Group. Only a week after the BSP urgently re-pleaded for a ruling, the Court of Appeals 11th division on Sept. 30 did rule — against it and for the banks. Before that, the division was embroiled in the Meralco v. GSIS bribery, holding up all cases including the BSP’s since June. But the justices have overcome (Gotcha, 8 Oct. 2008). I couldn’t have divined it at the time of writing; the decision was delivered afternoon of the day the piece came out.

The CA upheld Legacy’s claim to due process and transparency. So, the BSP examiner who audited the ten banks in 2007 shall not submit the adverse findings to the Monetary Board. And if already submitted, the Board shall not enforce the harsh recommendations. Upheld was a Manila judge’s earlier verdict that the BSP, after all its audit meetings with the bank managers, did not show them the final report.

Legacy lawyer Christine Antenor Cruz-Limpin took issue with BSP’s likening it to a detective being forced to first show his findings to a suspect. “Such is precisely the nature of due process,” she wrote The STAR, “that any person, natural or juridical, be guaranteed his rights, among which are to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, be heard by himself and counsel, be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him, meet the witnesses face to face, and have the right to produce evidence in his behalf.”

Hmm, shouldn’t all that come after a detective reports to the police chief, who in turn files a case, and then the prosecutor calls in the accused?

At any rate, Cruz-Limpin went on: “The issue is whether the banks are entitled to be furnished said Report, and the CA ruled that ‘the argument that the respondent banks should not be given copies of the ROE ahead of the Board because the ROE should remain confidential in order to protect the interests of the depositors and to prevent the owners of the bank concerned from dissipating the assets is specious and gossamer. Our view is that the alleged confidentiality of the ROE may not be invoked against the respondent banks as it should not prevail over the principle of transparency, which is an essential ingredient of fairness and fair.”

The lawyer also found fault in my quoting newsbits on Mayor Celso de los Angeles as the common denominator in the ten banks. Though not mentioned in the case, she said, he is a minor stockholder of Legacy that in turn owns majority or minority shares in the banks, and has been cleared by the Board and courts.

*      *      *

 The problem at the Land Transportation Office is not the computers. Computerization of all 250 LTO branches nationwide in fact sped up driver licensing and car registration to just an hour from the old two to five days. Info queries too now take only a few seconds and traffic fine settlement 30 minutes, plus the databank helps to curb vehicle theft and smuggling.

The trouble at LTO is more basic. Its driver’s licenses fade. Depending on where you keep the plastic card — in hip pocket or handbag — your picture, signature and LTO markings will rub off in a month or so. And it was LTO chief Bert Suansing’s announcement of a bidding by Dec. for a new card supplier that brought the two matters to the fore.

Out of the blue a congressman attacked Stradcom, the firm that runs the LTO mainframe. Obviously not understanding info-tech, he claimed as unfavorable LTO’s build-own-operate contract with Stradcom. It should be build-operate-transfer, he insisted, so that when Stradcom’s term lapses, the LTO will get to own the computers. Good thing the lawmaker was told that if that happens, LTO would be stuck with obsolete PCs for which it will even spend millions of pesos to warehouse. Computer hard and software need upgrading every six to 18 months to keep up with newer, faster functions. Yet, unlike tollways, they depreciate rather than appreciate in time. That’s why, as the Commission on Audit acknowledged in 2005 to overturn its older opinion, the LTO-Stradcom B-O-O scheme is proper. B-O-T for computer networks was proven wrong years ago in the SSS. When the builder-operator transferred the system to the provident fund, it went haywire and began to take six months to issue membership cards. And so the congressman learned too that B-O-O, like B-O-T and B-T-O and B-O, are all variations under the Build-Operate-Transfer Law.

With that, attention shifted to Amalgamated Motors Philippines Inc., the firm that churns out driver’s licenses. Since the Marcos years AMPI has been the LTO supplier of the paper and then the plastic versions, and for a while also of car plates. It bid for the computerization in 1997, but lost to Stradcom. But that’s a different story. What’s odd is that the LTO then, while raving about efficiencies thru computerization, junked the planned end-to-end range of services. It set a separate contract for driver license production, which AMPI thus continued to handle. A first contract lapsed in 2001, and another in 2005. AMPI reportedly has been supplying since then without a contract. That may be valid under the principle of quantum merit, as AMPI has long been servicing LTO and so deserves recompense in an extended contract. But the extension must be for a reasonable period; three years is simply too long without public bidding.

And so Suansing is going to hold one. Who knows, the LTO might get a better license card supplier at lower price. Or, AMPI might win again, but with a promise to improve its printing quality.

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]