Post by grifter on Oct 20, 2005 8:42:23 GMT 7
THE Supreme Court has dismissed the petition by a group of squatters seeking to halt the P6.6-billion NorthRail railway project in Bulacan province, on the ground that the high court was the wrong forum to tackle the issue.
“This court is not a trier of facts,” said the high court in a decision dated October 18 and signed by Clerk of Court Ma. Luisa D. Villarama.
The high court said the petitioners, the League of Urban Poor for Action (LUPA) and the University of the Philippines Law Center, should seek relief from the lower courts or the Court of Appeals as the resolution of the issues that they raised “[required] the establishment of key facts.”
The petitioners asked the tribunal to void the NorthRail project, claiming it did not go through the required public bidding and was overpriced.
The UP Law Center claimed that the laws on procurement should have applied in the NorthRail project as it was covered by a mere agreement between two corporations, the state-owned North
Luzon Railways Corp. and the China National Machinery and Equipment Corp. Groups (CNMEG), rather than between two states.
Credentials questioned
The NorthRail project’s first phase involves the rehabilitation of the 32-km railway that runs from Caloocan City to Malolos City in Bulacan, using a loan from China’s Export-Import Bank (Eximbank).
The contract for the railway was awarded to the China-based CNMEG, whose credentials the petitioners have questioned.
Among the facts that the court said needed to be established in a trial court were: whether a competitive bidding was held; whether public funds were appropriated for the project; whether CNMEG was a bona fide contractor in China; and whether the proper procedure for the relocation of squatters in the project areas were followed.
The high court said it was dismissing the petition “without prejudice to it’s re-filing in the appropriate trial court.”
Lawyer Harry H. Roque, who led the group of UP lawyers in filing the petition, deplored the decision and said the petitioners would file a motion for reconsideration.
“This is an issue of law, not an issue of fact,” he said.
He said that unlike the high court, the lower courts cannot issue a temporary restraining order against infrastructure projects of the government.
He said the decision would remove the legal impediments to the squatters’ relocation and the demolition of their dwellings.
“By the time the issue is brought back to the Supreme Court, the houses of the informal settlers would have all been demolished,” Roque said in a telephone interview.
He asked the high court to order a temporary halt to the project as the squatters have already been issued “notices to vacate.”
Squatter relocation
Vice President Noli de Castro, who is in charge of the squatter relocation program for the NorthRail project, welcomed the decision but stressed that the legal issues raised by the petitioners in the case had nothing to do with the relocation of squatters.
“The petitioner can still raise the legal question before a lower court. However, the government will proceed with the relocation of the affected families regardless of the outcome of the case,” he said.
He said that mayors of the Bulacan towns affected by the project have denied that the displaced residents were protesting their relocation.
Guiguinto Mayor Ambrosio Cruz said all the mayors in the affected section in Bulacan had signed a manifesto of support for the relocation as well as the NorthRail project.
The mayors said the relocation program would solve the decades-long problem of squatting in the affected areas.
Named respondents in the case were Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Finance Secretary Margarito Teves, Budget Secretary Romulo Neri, Socio-Economic Planning Secretary Augusto Santos, the North Luzon Railways Corp. and CNMEG.
Apart from the group of UP lawyers, the other petitioners were the Urban Poor for Action, Bulacan Urban Poor Federation, Kilusan ng Maralita sa Meycauayan (Movement of Poor in Meycauyan), and the Saug Informal Settlers Association.
*courtesy of INQ7.net
“This court is not a trier of facts,” said the high court in a decision dated October 18 and signed by Clerk of Court Ma. Luisa D. Villarama.
The high court said the petitioners, the League of Urban Poor for Action (LUPA) and the University of the Philippines Law Center, should seek relief from the lower courts or the Court of Appeals as the resolution of the issues that they raised “[required] the establishment of key facts.”
The petitioners asked the tribunal to void the NorthRail project, claiming it did not go through the required public bidding and was overpriced.
The UP Law Center claimed that the laws on procurement should have applied in the NorthRail project as it was covered by a mere agreement between two corporations, the state-owned North
Luzon Railways Corp. and the China National Machinery and Equipment Corp. Groups (CNMEG), rather than between two states.
Credentials questioned
The NorthRail project’s first phase involves the rehabilitation of the 32-km railway that runs from Caloocan City to Malolos City in Bulacan, using a loan from China’s Export-Import Bank (Eximbank).
The contract for the railway was awarded to the China-based CNMEG, whose credentials the petitioners have questioned.
Among the facts that the court said needed to be established in a trial court were: whether a competitive bidding was held; whether public funds were appropriated for the project; whether CNMEG was a bona fide contractor in China; and whether the proper procedure for the relocation of squatters in the project areas were followed.
The high court said it was dismissing the petition “without prejudice to it’s re-filing in the appropriate trial court.”
Lawyer Harry H. Roque, who led the group of UP lawyers in filing the petition, deplored the decision and said the petitioners would file a motion for reconsideration.
“This is an issue of law, not an issue of fact,” he said.
He said that unlike the high court, the lower courts cannot issue a temporary restraining order against infrastructure projects of the government.
He said the decision would remove the legal impediments to the squatters’ relocation and the demolition of their dwellings.
“By the time the issue is brought back to the Supreme Court, the houses of the informal settlers would have all been demolished,” Roque said in a telephone interview.
He asked the high court to order a temporary halt to the project as the squatters have already been issued “notices to vacate.”
Squatter relocation
Vice President Noli de Castro, who is in charge of the squatter relocation program for the NorthRail project, welcomed the decision but stressed that the legal issues raised by the petitioners in the case had nothing to do with the relocation of squatters.
“The petitioner can still raise the legal question before a lower court. However, the government will proceed with the relocation of the affected families regardless of the outcome of the case,” he said.
He said that mayors of the Bulacan towns affected by the project have denied that the displaced residents were protesting their relocation.
Guiguinto Mayor Ambrosio Cruz said all the mayors in the affected section in Bulacan had signed a manifesto of support for the relocation as well as the NorthRail project.
The mayors said the relocation program would solve the decades-long problem of squatting in the affected areas.
Named respondents in the case were Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Finance Secretary Margarito Teves, Budget Secretary Romulo Neri, Socio-Economic Planning Secretary Augusto Santos, the North Luzon Railways Corp. and CNMEG.
Apart from the group of UP lawyers, the other petitioners were the Urban Poor for Action, Bulacan Urban Poor Federation, Kilusan ng Maralita sa Meycauayan (Movement of Poor in Meycauyan), and the Saug Informal Settlers Association.
*courtesy of INQ7.net
