Misguided bullets

It seems that the Light Rail Transit Administration (LRTA) is being hit by bullets being fired by people who should be aiming their guns on someone else.

One case in point is the P6.2-billion LRT North Extension “Closing the Loop” project which involves the construction of a 5.71-km fully elevated mass transit line joining Monumento (Line 1) and North Avenue (Line 3).

The FFCruz-Filsystems group has been accusing the LRTA, headed by Mel Robles, of copyright infringement or unauthorized copying of the group’s design for the LRT 1 extension project from Monumento to North Avenue.

How can LRTA be guilty of copyright infringement when the project was bidded out on a design-and-build scheme, meaning it is the winning bidder which must design and construct the project?   In any case, insiders say that the basic design of the extension project was based on the existing 25-year old Line 1, which was merely being extended to North Avenue and which they add was definitely not designed by FF Cruz-Filsystems.

Remember that under the Copyright Law, it is not the registration or more accurately the act of depositing a copy of the work with the National Library that gives the right to the author. In the case of artistic works, they are protected from the moment of their creation. They also have to be original intellectual creations, unless they are derivative works. Who copied who? That’s a big question mark.

The law also states that no protection shall extend to any idea or concept. The LRTA insists that what FFCruz-Filsystems had shown to the Cabinet in 2006 was a mere concept based on the existing Line 1, which only identified the locations of the proposed stations.  According to Filsystems, it took them one-and-a-half years and over P106 million to complete the feasiblity study and design concept for the LRT 1 extension. A concept is still a concept, not matter how expensive and painstakingly thought of. It cannot be protected by copyright.

Another case in point is the supposed inaction by the LRTA on the unsolicited proposal of Filsystems.

The group claims that its entire LRT extension design was submitted as an unsolicited bid proposal to the LRTA in July 2004. But records reveal that the proposal was submitted to the Department of Transportation and Communications, not the LRTA, way before Robles became administrator. It was only in Nov. 2006 that the Cabinet instructed the LRTA to implement the Line 1 extension project, (note that the alleged design was registered on April 24, 2006) which by then had been conferred priority project status.

LRTA says it is not obliged to reply to an unsolicited proposal which was never submitted to it and did not require its action, even under the rules on unsolicited proposals under the build-operate-transfer law. If there was any inaction, then FFCruz-Filsystems should blame the DOTC.

Notwithstanding all these, the group’s argument has become moot and academic after the Cabinet conferred national priority status to the project. Under the BOT Law, unsolicited proposals cannot qualify for national priority projects.

Third point is the alleged anomalous disqualification of the FFCruz-Filsystems joint venture from bidding on the LRT 1 extension project.

The group may have forgotten that the rules require the prospective bidder to complete all bid requirements, including the submission of electronically filed income tax returns.  This is a requirement of the BIR, not the LRTA, to ensure that a bidder or supplier has filed the proper taxes under the new procurement laws of the government.  While FFCruz did submit, unfortunately, its joint venture partner did not. It was only in their third motion for reconsideration when Filsystems finally submitted the required return, meaning belatedly.

The fourth point covers alleged plans to file charges of syndicated estafa against Robles and other LRTA officials. The LRTA says it welcomes the group’s plan to go to court, where all the evidence to refute the charges being made in media can be presented. Take note too that all decisions being made by the LRTA management emanate from the LRTA board, and not from the administrator’s office.

Finally, the LRTA is being accused by a losing bidder of buying 48 trains when the construction of the rails on which they would roll has not even started.

Robles has already clarified that all these coaches are now being used to more than double the number of passengers being carried on LRT Line 1 that runs from Baclaran to Monumento.  Some congressmen were led to believe by a disgruntled bidder that the coaches were bought for the future Cavite extension project. In fact, LRTA will be needing 44 more coaches for the Cavite project on top of the 48 trains purchased three years ago for Line 1.

For comments, e-mail at [email protected]