SC rejects Yolanda victims' plea vs airport contracts, stresses it is not a trier of fact

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has junked a plea filed by a group of fisherfolk who were Yolanda victims assailing the “bundling” of airport operation projects for prospective bidders as it stressed that it is not a trier of facts.

The SC unanimously dismissed the petition filed by Gios-Samar Inc., a non-governmental organization of subsistence farmer and fisherfolk from Samar that was struck by Yolanda.

The group challenged the constitutionality of the bundling of projects and stop the Department of Transportation and Communication and the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines.

In December 2014, the DOTC and CAAP posted an invitation to pre-qualify and bid on airport development, operations and maintenance in Bacolod-Silay, Davao, Iloilo, Laguindingan, New Bohol and Puerto Princesa with the total cost of P116.53 billion.

The DOTC and CAAP issued instructions to prospective bidders that indicated that the projects were bundled into two groups.

“Bundling would allow companies with questionable or shaky financial background to direct access to the Projects ‘by simply joining a consortium which under the bundling scheme adopted by the DOTC said [P]rojects taken altogether would definitely be beyond the financial capability of any qualified, single Filipino corporation,” the ruling, discussing the petitioner’s arguments, read.

The petitioners argued that bundling “perpetuate an undue restraint of trade” and made a mockery of public bidding, and that the government agencies committed grave abuse of discretion when it bundled the projects without legal authority.

But the SC held that that the arguments “are inextricably intertwined with underlying questions of fact, the determination of which require the reception of evidence.”

SC is not a trier of fact

The ruling, written by Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza, also discussed the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

Quoting jurisprudence, the SC stressed: “There is after all a hierarchy of courts, That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitioners for the extraordinary writs.”

The court recalled several cases where petitioners seek for writs and it remanded the case to the appellate court.

“The consistent practice of the Court in these cases, (that is, referring such petitions to the CA for the reception of evidence) is a tacit recognition by the Court itself that it is not equipped to be a trier of facts,” it read.

The SC, however, said that it employs exception that has a common denominator: “The issues for resolution of the Court are purely legal.”

It pointed out that the petition at hand invoked “transcendental importance” or of paramount public interest but the SC stressed that the said doctrine “does not clothe us with the power to tackle factual questions and play the role of a trial court.”

The SC also said that the doctrine serves as a filtering mechanism.

It said that as of Dec. 31, 2016, 6,526 cases were filed before it, and if reinstated/revived/reopened cases are added, it would bring the number of cases docketed to 14,491.

“These, clearly, are staggering numbers,” it pointed out.

“While reflective deliberation is necessary in the judicial process, there is simply no ample time for it given this Court’s massive caseload... Such proposals are, perhaps, borne out of the public’s frustration over the slow pace of decision-making. With respect, however, no overhaul would be necessary if this Court commits to be more judicious with the exercise of its original jurisdiction by strictly implementing the doctrine of hierarchy of courts,” the ruling read.