Also posted on the author’s Facebook page in this link.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AFJEZfUCa
Don’t get me wrong. I never said there was anything wrong with the City Council resolution in 2020 choosing the PPP modality to use in redeveloping the city market.
In fact, that point is moot and academic.
The City Government did, in fact, follow that resolution that’s why we ended up where we are now.
So there’s no need to add teeth to that resolution–it had served its purpose—and the only thing those teeth have to “bite” on is us anyway.
We’re the only ones who have to contend with that resolution—and isn’t that what we are doing now?
Having elected to go the PPP way, then by all means let’s see what the PPP Law (R.A. 11966) tells us we can do. If you’re Googling this please refer to the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). Don’t stop at the main text of RA 11966 because it only has 32 sections.
The law’s IRR provides that all PPP proposals must first be endorsed by the National PPP Center. Finding the proposal to be COMPLETE, the National PPP Center forwards it to the City Government which can accept it or REJECT it (Section 54 par “a” Roman iteration “iii”) if the project is in conflict with the city development plan.
The City Council did not exercise this option to reject it outright because the City Development Council—the all-appointive consultation body that’s supposed to help the city formulate its development plan (I haven’t seen one) is all excited to get behind Mayor Magalong, who appointed all of them, in his legacy project
Fine. Then the City Council goes through negotiation with SM, contingent on the results of which they can then vote to either approve the proposal or, finding it unsatisfactory, reject it (Section 57 par “c”).
After rejecting it, they can just proceed to put it up for public bidding (par “d”), like it would do for any other project. In other words, if the unsolicited proposal bombs, the City can then SOLICIT other proposals STILL under the PPP Law.
That’s NOT going out of bounds of Resolution No. 399 series of 2020, it just breaks out of the “lock on” with SM. That does not create any liability or duty to reimburse SM for anything. It’s a business and like any business failure risk comes with the territory.
On the contrary, it is the City that is entitled to reimbursement under the scenario in Section 49. That’s when the City would have spent a substantial amount of money in early development costs for a project that is subsequently taken over midway by a successful unsolicited PPP proposal.
In other words, if the City Council rejects the SM-Magalong mallification plan, SM cannot sue the City Government (ROTFL), that would be absurd!
In fact, if the voting goes against SM that decision is final and unappealable, under the second paragraph of Section 57.
I only pointed out that a Resolution will not operate to put the City in estoppel—because estoppel generally does not apply against the State. The State, by whichever governmental embodiment such as an LGU, can always change its mind.
No, that’s not being fickleminded. That’s being dynamic and making decisions in 2025 based on factors and conditions obtaining in 2025, not 2020.
Even in following City Resolution 399-series of 2020—meaning doing it the PPP way—the PPP Law ITSELF gives the City Council not one but TWO (2) exit points WITHOUT abandoning the 2020 resolution–in fact entirely pursuant to it.
That’s why I did not call for the “repeal” of that resolution because how, pray tell, can you repeal a resolution that you are currently operating under?
My point of objection is against citing that resolution to imply that the City Council’s choices are only two: (1) accept the SM-Magalong mallification plan AS IS, or (2) accept the SM-Magalong mallification plan WITH REVISIONS.
That’s the subterfuge. That’s the sleight-of-hand right there.
Even if we set aside all this hairsplitting about whether a resolution has the same effect as an ordinance, the bottomline is that the resolution chooses the modality but does NOT RESERVE the market redevelopment project to SM or any other private corporation, for that matter.
It does, in so many sweetheart-candy-coated ways, give it the inside track by lowering its handicap in almost all the parameters, terms and conditions.
For the obvious and the most justifiably selfish of reasons, the people of course want those terms to be most onerous against SM and most advantageous in favor of the people.
If not, we want our City Council to WALK AWAY from it. Is that so hard to understand?*
The post above can also be found on the author’s Facebook account in the link below.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AFJEZfUCa