The Supreme Court has directed the Department of Transportation and Communication and the Light Rail Manila Corp. to comment on a petition filed by militant groups seeking to stop its P65-billion concession agreement for extension of the Light Rail Transit Line 1 to Cavite.
In a media briefing, SC spokesman Theodore Te said the tribunal required the DoTC and LRMC to comment on the petition filed last week by the groups led by Bagong Alyansang Makabayan and Confederation for the Unity, Recognition, and Advancement of Government Employees.
The petition filed last week sought issuance of a temporary restraining order on the concession agreement between DoTC and LRMC because the deal is disadvantageous to the government and violative of constitutional provisions.
They also asserted that respondents violated the right of the people to information on matters of public concern under Section 28, Article II of the 1987 Constitution since no public consultation was made prior to the signing of the agreement.
Petitioners also alleged that the concession agreement is one sided as the concessionaires are “given payout, a risk-free revenue contract” with the government shouldering all the financial risks while also guaranteeing the profits of the consortium.
Lastly, they questioned the invalid delegation of authority by the LRTA to both the DoTC and the LRM, saying only the LRTA has the mandate to operate and build the LRT 1.
Petitioners also asked the SC to void the agreement, which 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.
Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares and Bayan secretary-general Renato Reyes Jr. led the filing of the petition.
A similar petition was filed by law school dean Salvador Belaro Jr. last February.
The respondents were given 10 days from notice to comply with the order.
Te said the SC acted on the case without necessarily giving due course to the petition.
