Requesting Entity: Ready Form Incorporated (RFI)
Issues Concern: Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) Resolutions on the Guidelines on the Procurement of Printing Services
Whether GPPB Resolution Nos. 04-2010 and 05-2010 are valid issuances considering the incompatibility between the GAAs 2010, 2011, and 2012 and Section 10 of RA 9184.
RA 9184 is the special law covering the modernization, standardization, and regulation of the procurement activities of the National Government.
On the other hand, x x x GAA is a general law, which outlines the share in the national fund of all branches of the national government.
A subsequent statute, general in character as to its terms and application, is not to be construed as repealing a special or specific enactment, unless the legislative purpose to do so is manifest. In this case, it is evident that the inclusion of the provision of RGPs in the GAAs already passed through Congress and was subsequently approved by the President. Given the rigid process in the passage of the GAA, it is evident and clear that both the Legislative and Executive Departments intended to limit the printing of Accountable Forms and Sensitive High Quality/Volume requirements to the three (3) identified RGPs.
Based on the foregoing, it is our position that given the incompatibility between the GAAs and Section 10 of RA 9184 and its IRR, GPPB Resolution Nos. 05-2010 and 04-2011 are valid issuances, insofar as the RGPs are concerned relative to the printing of Accountable Forms and Sensitive High Quality/Volume printing requirements, pursuant to the relevant provisions in the GAAs of 2010, 2011 and 2012, and they shall remain applicable inasmuch as the policy enunciated in the GAA of 2010 is entirely adopted in the succeeding GAAs, unless a contrary or inconsistent policy is adopted
Whether the GPPB Resolution 05-2010 was validly issued in view of the allegation of RFI that only six (6) of the twelve (12) members of the Certified True Copy (CTC) GPPB signed the resolution.
Section 64 of the IRR provides for the membership of the Board, which consists of twelve (12) member agencies and one (1) private sector representative. In making any decisions or resolving any issues presented before it, the Board members act as a collegial body with at least seven (7) votes constituting the majority. We note that RFI seriously erred in counting the correct number of Board members who should sign the Resolution in excluding the private sector representative. In the subject CTC, the Resolution was signed by the representatives from the (1) Department of Budget and Management; (2) Department of National Defense; (3) Department of Public Works and Highways; (4) Department of Education; (5) Department of Trade and Industry; (6) Department of Finance; and, (7) Private Sector. RFI's claim that the issuance of GPPB Resolution 05-2010 is highly irregular is clearly unfounded, misinformed, and without any legal basis. To even suggest that the act of the GPPB in issuing Resolution No. 05-2010 may constitute falsification is a grave accusation that warrants careful and responsible review and study of available documents and papers; unfortunately apart from being misguided, the claim is obviously not substantiated by the very evidence to which RFI bases its false allegation.
Whether Local Government Units (LGUs) are within the coverage of GPPB Resolution 05-2010.
Section 4 of RA 9184 applies to all procurement of any branch, agency, department, bureau, office, or instrumentality of the Philippine government, including government-owned and/or -controlled corporations (GOCCs), government financial institutions (GFIs), state universities and colleges (SUCs) and LGUs. Consequently, all the policies, rules and regulations, including guidelines that the GPPB issues, would have the same general application and coverage.