By Amado P. Macasaet
The other losing bidder for the installation or modernization of PCOS for counting electoral votes is reported to be planning to go to the Supreme Court to contest the award of the project to Smartmatic.
Widespread protests against the plan of the Department of Transportation and Communications to increase fares for the MRT and the LRT will likely be resolved in the same Court.
The country has earned the business cases to the courts for final resolution. The first effect is a delay in the implementation of the project by the group that got the award.
Worse, questions are brought to court to suggest, in fact directly point out, what complainants claim as anomalies or one-sided conditions purposely made to ensure the victory of a favored bidder.
There are lessons to learn from all these. First is the belief bid terms and conditions are not that tight to prevent recourse to the court by the losing bidder. Yet, the tightest of terms and conditions are open to questions in court. That is democracy!
By all these we proclaim to the world the imperfections — nay, corruption — in our bidding processes. They become a big blow to the intentions of reputable local and foreign firms to participate in the bidding of vital projects.
In a very large sense, controversies in awards of bidding help promote perception of corruption, not only in the economy but more importantly in the judiciary which has commercial courts.
The tragedy is in the fact that the Court is right even when it is wrong, a judicial doctrine in democratic countries that remain its weakness and strength. Sadly, by the educational background and experience of magistrates, they may not be in the best position to rule with finality on business
So who will rule? Nobody should rule! There must be a way of having transparency such that nothing is ever left to doubt that in turn encourages a losing bidder to raise questions in court and hope to win..
His victory in the hands of the court is judicial, not necessarily based on the merits of his proposals as evaluated by the bidding committee. What sits squarely with law as seen in the best lights of the jurists does not necessarily sit with the vital requirements for full, speedy implementation of a project won in public bidding but thwarted by the Supreme Court.
This space supports the massive protests and court actions proposed by those who oppose the increase in fares in the MRT and LRT by the Department of Transportation and Communication.
Our understanding of this problem is that the riding public is being forced to pay for the inefficiency of the railway systems. The first mistake, clearly in consideration of public effect, is setting the fares too low without as much as figuring out how long they could be sustained at the cost of efficiency.
The railways are a mass transit system. The system is called mass for the convenience — meaning speed and comfort of ordinary workers who must be at work on time — not necessarily to save them a few cents in fares.
Many young professionals working in Metro Manila, more particularly in Makati and in the Fort Bonifacio area, go home to Lipa after work. They ride air conditioned buses for about P100 one way. They sit in a reclining couch and take a nap during the trip.
What makes Joseph Emilio Abaya think the railway systems can charge fares of as high as P25 to P30 for a one-way trip that is probably one third of the distance to Lipa?
The move to raise fares for the MRT and LRT opens a door for a more serious study on government subsidies. Close to a P100 billion must have been spent for the so-called conditional cash transfers. What do we have to show for it? I do not see much.
The Board of Investments and other state institutions grant tax exemptions to what they consider deserving industries. What do we have to show for it except huge amounts of taxes missed?
Some groups must sit down and thoroughly study the relationship between subsidies to government owned and controlled corporations, subsidies to “deserving” industries; subsidies to poor people for three meals and subsidies to those who break their backs trying to support themselves and their families, and in many cases, rely completely on the MRT and LRT in going to work and coming home.
This controversy should not be settled by the Supreme Court. The DOTC should back out from the fare hike plan. Doing so is a greater service than pampering some sectors of business with tax holidays and incentives that deny the state with revenues to serve its people.
* * * *
email: amadomacasaet@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment