[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’ ABOVE THE LAW ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=’30’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY AYIN DREAM D. APLASCA
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=’18’ font_color=” color=”]
EARLY this week, the Commission on Audit (COA) expressed its desire to seek the cancellation of the public-private partnership (PPP) of the Bureau of Immigration (BI) for the production of alien certificate of registration identity cards (ACR I-cards).
Can it do so?
The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that the Commission has the power, authority and duty to examine, audit and settle all accounts and expenditures of the funds and properties of the Philippine government.
It has the exclusive authority to define the scope, techniques and methods of its auditing and examination procedures. It may also prevent and disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties.
The Commission may be the guardian of public funds; however, it has no vested authority to cancel a contract that is 100-percent funded by private funds. The Commission cancelling the contract and take over the facilities and equipments for the ACR I-Cards won’t make a good impression on investors.
What are these ACR I-Cards? These are issued to foreign nationals staying in the Philippines for more than 59 days. It is a microchip-based identification card with biometric security features produced by Datatrail Corp. under a build-operate-transfer (BOT) contract.
The Commission wants the contract invalidated because it views the 10-year agreement to have lapsed in 2013 yet and that its extension is grossly disadvantageous to the government.
However, the Commission should take note what the former Justice secretary Raul Gonzalez Sr. ruled.
Way back in 2007, the Commission’s findings were invalidated because according to the Justice secretary the revised financial proposal was within the NEDA Investment Coordination Committee return rate which was 19-24 percent. It was safe to say that the proposed variation cannot be considered as change in government undertaking much less a variation that can avoid the proposed variation.
The drawback in case the Commission imposes its decision is this: the government will suffer huge financial losses. Its credibility in the business world will suffer.
Why cancel? Besides, it’s legitimate, validated by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the PPP Center, and the National Economic and Development Authority.
I hope the Commission reconsiders its position.
(Atty. Ayin Dream D. Aplasca practices her profession in Iloilo City. She may be reached thru ayindream.aplasca@gmail.com/PN)
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
