PNCC: Rising GOCC Phoenix-9

PRESIDENT PNOY, in his SONA’s anti-corruption tirade, started by citing Philippine National Construction Corporation’s plunder during the previous Administration.

What we are currently serializing was the mother of this scam!

Anyway, and to continue with the Supreme Court ruling on the Radstock cases, on the issue of whether PNCC can be audited/post-audited by COA, the SC held in the affirmative – just like any other GOCC. But in doing so, COA must apply Presidential Decree 1445 or the Government Auditing Code (GAC).

5. On whether PNCC can apply to the monetary require-ment of the Compromise Agreement its TOLL COLLECTIONS, the High Court stressed that PNCC’s franchise EXPIRED on May 1, 2007– or 30 years from May 1, 1997, which was the end of its corporate life under Presidential Decree 1112 and Presidential Decree 1113, as amended by Presidential Decree 1894.

(What PNCC continues to have, now, is its “ADMINISTRA-TIVE FRANCHISE” –whatever this means– which it continues to exercise in joint venture with foreign investors.)

With the expiration of PNCC’s franchise, all the assets and facilities of PNCC were, by operation of law, automatically turned over to the government at NO cost, as provided for in Section 2 of PD 1113, in relation to Section 5 of PD 1894.

Accordingly, TOLL FEES now form part of the national government’s general fund. That being so, the said toll fees may only be disposed of in accordance with the fundamental principles governing financial transactions and operations of any government agency, to wit:
(a) No money shall be paid out of the treasury, except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law (Section 29(1), Article II, Constitution; and
(b) Government funds/property shall be spent or used SOLELY for public purposes (Presidential Decree 1445, Section 4(2).
The indicated constitutional provisions have been implanted in Sections 84 and 85 of PD 1445, which instruct that a law must first be enacted by congress appropriating P6.185 Billion as COMPROMISE MONEY before payment can be validly made to Radstock. Otherwise, said the High Court, such payment violates a prohibitory law and, thus, VOID under Article 5 of the Civil Code. (To be continued)


About Gwenn

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply