The Supreme Court has been asked to stop the implementation of the P65-billion concession agreement for the Cavite Extension Project between the Department of Transportation and Communications and Light Rail Manila Corp. for being grossly disadvantageous to the government.
The Bagong Alyansang Makabayan represented by its secretary general Renato M. Reyes Jr., Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares, commuter group Train Riders Network, Courage president Ferdinand Gaite, Riles convenor Sammy Malunes, Light Rail Transit Authority employee Ma. Kristina Cassion and scientists’ group Agham secretary general Feny Cosico sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order, and subsequently to declare the concession agreement invalid for its failure to comply with provisions of the Constitution and other existing laws.
“We are filing this petition on behalf of other thousands of daily LRT commuters as well as the Filipino taxpayers who will shoulder the ill-effects of the contract for the next three decades. The contract is loaded with sovereign guarantees that are contrary to law and detrimental to the people. The Aquino government, through the DoTC, negotiated a lopsided contract that will place us deep in debt,” Reyes said in a statement.
The concession agreement covers the privatization of the operation and maintenance of the current LRT Line 1 as well as the construction and extension of the existing 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 lamented that respondents DoTC, LRTC and LRMC, violate the right of the people to information on matters of public concern under Section 28, Article II of the 1987 Constitution.
According to them, no public consultations were conducted prior to the signing of the concession agreement.
The petitioners noted that bidding was initially conducted in 2013 for the project but was declared a failure, resulting to negotiations which were kept from the public.
“It is submitted by the petitioners that it is within the spirit of the people’s constitutional right to information to be apprised of the extent of government undertakings in the concession agreement,” the petition stated.
“There must be public hearings conducted before the concession agreement could be fully implemented since it is within the right of the public to be informed of the details of the agreement which are supposed to accrue for the public interest,” the petitioners added.
According to the petitioners, the concession agreement is one-sided as the concessionaires are, in effect, “given payout and a risk-free reveue contract,” with the government shouldering all the financial risks while also guaranteeing the profits of the consortium.