SC orders Abaya to reply to petition vs LRT extension project
The Supreme Court has ordered Transportation Secretary Joseph Emilio Abaya and the other respondents to comment on the petition seeking to stop the implementation of the P65-billion concession agreement for the Cavite Extension Project.
“The Court, acting on the petition…required, without necessarily giving due course, respondents to comment on the petition and the application [for temporary restraining order] within 10 days from notice,” high court’s Information Chief Theodore Te said at a press conference Monday.
Aside from Abaya, other respondents include LRTA administrator Honorito Chaneco, and winning bidder Light Rail Manila Corporation (LRMC).
The petition was filed by Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) represented by its secretary general Renato M. Reyes Jr., Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares, commuter group Train Riders Network (TREN), COURAGE chair Ferdinand Gaite, RILES convenor Sammy Malunes, Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) employee Maria Kristina Cassion and scientist group AGHAM represented by its secretary general Feny Cosico.
The petitioners are seeking the nullification of the concession agreement for not complying with the Build-Operate-Transfer Law and most especially the 1987 Constitution.
The P65-billion LRT-1 Concession agreement was signed in October, 2014. It covers the privatization of the operation and maintenance of the current LRT Line 1 as well as the construction and extension of LRT Line 1 from 20.7 kilometers to 32.4 kilometers by providing trains originating from the end of Baclaran, traversing the municipalities of Parañaque and Las Piñas and ending in Bacoor, Cavite.
The petitioners told the high court there should be full disclosure of the transactions and negotiations on the project.
The petitioners questioned why the contract was negotiated in secret especially since it involved increasing train fares and other profit guarantees that will impact on the commuters.
They also questioned why the winning bidder was given a guaranteed fare hike every two years, and if it failed to collect such fare increase, it would be the government that would be shouldering the deficit payment.
“The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development shall be afforded the citizen subject to such limitations as may be provided by law,” the petitioners said.
The petitioners said that because of the contract, it will be the commuters and taxpayers who would shoulder the business risks associated with the operation of the train system.
The petitioners also questioned the invalid delegation of authority by the LRTA to both the DOTC and the LRMC. It said that it was the LRTA which has the mandate to operate and build the LRT 1. The LRTA was built during the Marcos administration. AU
