Understanding Presidential Authority in Philippine Bidding Processes

TLDR: This case clarifies that in the Philippines, the President has significant oversight over government agencies like the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), including the power to review and reverse bidding awards, ensuring public interest prevails in major government contracts. It also sets a precedent on what constitutes ‘doing business’ for foreign corporations, affecting their right to sue in Philippine courts.

[G.R. No. 131367, August 31, 2000]

INTRODUCTION

Imagine a multi-million dollar infrastructure project stalled, not by engineering challenges, but by legal battles over a bidding process. This was the reality in the Hutchison Ports Philippines Limited vs. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority case, a landmark decision that underscores the intricate dynamics of government contracts and presidential authority in the Philippines. This case isn’t just about ports and terminals; it’s a crucial lesson for anyone navigating the complexities of Philippine government projects, particularly foreign entities. At its heart, the case questions: Can the President of the Philippines overturn an award made by a government agency in a public bidding, and what are the implications for foreign companies participating in these bids?

LEGAL CONTEXT: PRESIDENTIAL PREROGATIVE AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS

Philippine law vests significant supervisory powers in the President over executive departments, bureaus, and offices. This principle of executive control extends to government instrumentalities like the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA). Letter of Instruction No. 620 (LOI 620) further solidifies this, mandating presidential approval for government contracts exceeding PHP 2,000,000.00 awarded through bidding or negotiation. This control is rooted in the idea that the President, as the Chief Executive, must ensure that all government agencies act in the best interest of the nation.

Crucially, the case also delves into the Corporation Code of the Philippines, specifically concerning foreign corporations ‘doing business’ in the country. Section 133 of the Corporation Code states that a foreign corporation needs a license to transact business or maintain a suit in the Philippines. However, an ‘isolated transaction’ is an exception. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted ‘doing business’ broadly. As the Supreme Court in this case reiterates:

“There is no general rule or governing principle laid down as to what constitutes “doing” or “engaging in” or “transacting” business in the Philippines. Each case must be judged in the light of its peculiar circumstances.”

This means even a single act can constitute ‘doing business’ if it demonstrates an intent to engage in ongoing commercial activity, not just a one-off event. Understanding these legal frameworks is essential to grasping the nuances of the Hutchison Ports case.

CASE BREAKDOWN: THE SUBIC BAY BIDDING DISPUTE

The saga began in 1996 when SBMA invited bids to develop and operate a container terminal in Subic Bay Freeport Zone. Seven companies initially responded, with three – International Container Terminal Services Inc. (ICTSI), Royal Port Services Inc. (RPSI), and Hutchison Ports Philippines Limited (HPPL) – pre-qualifying. HPPL, a consortium led by a British Virgin Islands-incorporated entity, submitted a bid that was initially deemed superior by international consultants hired by SBMA.

However, even before financial bids were opened, RPSI protested ICTSI’s participation, citing potential monopoly issues. Despite the protest, financial bids were opened, revealing HPPL’s royalty fee proposal was significantly higher than RPSI’s but lower than ICTSI’s.

Initially, SBMA’s Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) rejected ICTSI’s bid and awarded the project to HPPL. ICTSI appealed to the SBMA Board and directly to the Office of the President. The Presidential Legal Counsel recommended a re-evaluation of financial bids, which President Ramos approved. Subsequently, the SBMA Board reaffirmed HPPL as the winning bidder. Despite this, the Executive Secretary recommended a rebidding, and the Office of the President directed SBMA to conduct one, effectively setting aside the award to HPPL.

HPPL, believing it had a validly awarded contract, filed a case for specific performance and injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to compel SBMA to finalize the concession agreement and prevent rebidding. The RTC denied HPPL’s motion to stop the rebidding. HPPL then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, seeking an injunction to halt the rebidding process while the main case was pending in the lower court. HPPL argued that it had a clear right as the winning bidder and that rebidding would render the RTC case moot.

The Supreme Court, however, sided with the government. Justice Ynares-Santiago, in the ponencia, emphasized the President’s power of control over SBMA and the provisional nature of injunctions. The Court stated:

“As a chartered institution, the SBMA is always under the direct control of the Office of the President, particularly when contracts and/or projects undertaken by the SBMA entail substantial amounts of money… The President may, within his authority, overturn or reverse any award made by the SBMA Board of Directors for justifiable reasons.”

Furthermore, the Court tackled HPPL’s legal capacity to sue. It determined that HPPL, a foreign corporation participating in a Philippine government bidding, was indeed ‘doing business’ in the Philippines, and therefore required a license to sue in Philippine courts, which it lacked. The Court reasoned:

>

“Participating in the bidding process constitutes “doing business” because it shows the foreign corporation’s intention to engage in business here. The bidding for the concession contract is but an exercise of the corporation’s reason for creation or existence.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed HPPL’s petition, lifted the temporary restraining order, and upheld the President’s directive for rebidding.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FOR BUSINESSES AND FOREIGN INVESTORS

The Hutchison Ports case provides critical insights for businesses, especially foreign entities, engaging with the Philippine government:

• Presidential Authority is Paramount: Decisions by government agencies, even those seemingly autonomous, are subject to presidential review and reversal, especially for significant contracts. Bidders must recognize this ultimate authority.
• Bidding is ‘Doing Business’: Foreign corporations participating in Philippine government bids are considered ‘doing business’ in the Philippines. This necessitates securing a license to do business *before* engaging in bidding activities if they anticipate needing to pursue legal action in Philippine courts.
• Injunctions are Not Guarantees: Injunctive writs are provisional remedies and require a ‘clear and unmistakable right.’ A preliminary award in a bidding process, subject to presidential review, does not automatically confer such a right.
• Transparency and Compliance are Key: While HPPL’s bid was initially favored, procedural and legal considerations, along with presidential prerogative, ultimately led to rebidding. Strict adherence to bidding rules and transparent processes are crucial for all participants.

Key Lessons:

• For businesses bidding on Philippine government projects: Understand the full scope of presidential oversight and ensure meticulous compliance with all bidding requirements.
• For foreign corporations: Secure a license to do business in the Philippines *before* participating in bidding processes to ensure legal standing in Philippine courts. Do not assume ‘isolated transaction’ status for bidding activities.
• For both: Engage experienced legal counsel to navigate the complexities of Philippine government contracts and bidding procedures.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q1: Can the Philippine President really overturn decisions of government agencies like SBMA?

A: Yes, especially in matters of significant public interest and large government contracts. The President has broad supervisory powers and LOI 620 explicitly requires presidential approval for certain contracts.

Q2: What does ‘doing business in the Philippines’ mean for foreign companies?

A: It’s broadly defined and case-specific. Engaging in activities that demonstrate an intent to conduct continuous business operations, even a single significant transaction like bidding for a major project, can be considered ‘doing business’.

Q3: Why did Hutchison Ports lose despite initially being declared the winning bidder?

A: Primarily because the President, exercising his authority, directed a rebidding. Additionally, HPPL’s lack of a Philippine business license hampered its legal standing to pursue the case in Philippine courts.

Q4: What is the significance of LOI 620?

A: Letter of Instruction No. 620 reinforces presidential control over government contracts by requiring presidential approval for contracts exceeding PHP 2 million, ensuring fiscal oversight and alignment with national interests.

Q5: If a foreign company participates in just one bid, do they still need a license to do business in the Philippines?

A: Potentially, yes. The Hutchison Ports case suggests that even participating in a bid for a major project can be construed as ‘doing business,’ requiring a license, especially if they anticipate needing to legally enforce any rights arising from the bidding process in Philippine courts.

Q6: What should foreign companies do before bidding on Philippine government projects?

A: They should consult with Philippine legal counsel to assess if their activities constitute ‘doing business’ and, if so, secure the necessary license. Thorough due diligence and understanding of Philippine procurement laws are crucial.

ASG Law specializes in government contracts, foreign investments, and corporate litigation in the Philippines. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.