2016-03-21

NPM No. 024-2016

Requesting Entity: City Government of Antipolo (CGA)

Issues Concern: Posting in the Philippine Government Electronic System (PhilGEPS)

 

Details

Whether or not the CGA should authorize payment of the claims notwithstanding the lack of posting in the PhilGEPS website?



The determination of the legality or validity of the actions and decisions of the BAC, including contracts emanating therefrom, is not within the express mandate of the GPPB. However, we find it important to discuss the relevant provisions of the procurement law, rules and regulations pertinent to a valid procurement activity.



It bears stressing that all procuring entities are mandated to fully use the PhilGEPS in the conduct of procurement procedures.



Thus, if the posting in the PhilGEPS website is not observed, it renders the proceeding to which it relates illegal and void, or the violation of which makes the decision therein rendered invalid because Article 5 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity. RA 9184, having been enacted for the advancement of public welfare and to enhance transparency, undoubtedly contains mandatory provisions, such as the aforementioned provision.



Notwithstanding violations of the procurement laws and its IRR, we wish to reiterate that the GPPB or its TSO is not in the position to give opinion on whether CGA should authorize payment of the claims before it, or whether its officials and employees will incur personal liability in case of payments of such claims, since these concerns would involve issues not within our jurisdiction.