Today is Saturday, January 11, 2025


A.M. No. 12-6-18-SC, August 7, 2018,
♦ Resolution, Bersamin, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion, Carpio, [J]

SEPARATE OPINION

CARPIO, J.:

This case involves a contractor who mistakenly claims payment for services rendered to the Court. During the pendency of the case, the contractor submitted a quitclaim, release and waiver informing the Court that there was merely a misunderstanding and the amount claimed is fully settled. Accordingly, the contractor released the Court from any liability whatsoever supposedly arising from the fully-settled contracts which the Court entered into more than a decade ago. Despite this positive development, the Resolution incorrectly finds fault for these mistaken claims and erroneously concludes that the contracts would have been annulled for violating procurement laws.

As narrated in the Resolution, on 21 December 2005, or shortly after then Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban took his oath, he declared his "judicial philosophy of safeguarding the liberty and nurturing the prosperity of the people under the rule of law."1 Pursuant to this philosophy, the National Forum on Liberty and Prosperity (held on 24-25 August 2006) and the Global Forum on Liberty and Prosperity (held on 18-20 October 2006) were conceptualized and launched.

There is no dispute that the Court, through the Program Management Office with Evelyn Toledo-Dumdum (Dumdum) as then Administrator, entered into several contracts with Artes International, Inc. (Artes) relative to the said fora, as well as other activities relative to the Retirement Ceremony of then Chief Justice Panganiban. There is also no dispute that the Court successfully hosted these events, with Artes being the events specialist hired "[t]o assist the Ad Hoc Committees, specifically by addressing the creative, logistical, physical and technical requirements of the Forum, x x x."2

Thereafter, Artes requested payment for allegedly unpaid balances arising from its contracts with the Court. However, Artes subsequently submitted a Release, Waiver & Quitclaim to the effect that "it was waiving any and all its rights and interests in the claim; and expressly stated that it was releasing the Court from any further financial liability."3

Notwithstanding, the Resolution cites the Report of the Office of the Chief Attorney on the contracts with Artes in concluding that "violations of law in the disbursement of funds of the Court as well as of funds derived from the loans extended by the World Bank appear to have been committed. The laws on procurement as well as those on auditing and official accountability were also contravened."4

The Chief Attorney is gravely mistaken.

First, Republic Act No. 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act does not apply to executive agreements.

In the Loan Agreement, dated 2 October 2003, between the Republic of the Philippines,5 represented by then Secretary of Finance Jose Isidro N. Camacho, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Bank has agreed to extend a Loan to the Philippine government in an amount equal to $21,900,000 to assist in the financing of the Judicial Reform Support Project (the Project or JRSP).

There is no question that the Loan Agreement in this case is in the nature of an executive agreement. It was entered into by the Philippine government, as a subject of international law possessed of a treaty-making capacity, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which, as an international lending institution organized by world governments to provide loans conditioned upon the guarantee of repayment by the borrowing government, is also regarded a subject of international law and possessed of the capacity to enter into executive agreements with sovereign states.6

Considering that the Loan Agreement is an executive agreement, Republic Act No. 9184 (RA 9184), or the "Government Procurement Reform Act" does not apply. Section 4 of RA 9184 provides:

SEC. 4. Scope and Application. This Act shall apply to the Procurement of Infrastructure Projects, Goods and Consulting Services, regardless of source of funds, whether local or foreign, by all branches and instrumentalities of government, its departments, offices and agencies, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations and local government units, subject to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 138. Any treaty or international or executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to which the Philippine government is a signatory shall be observed. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 4 of RA 9184 clearly recognizes the government's commitment to the terms and conditions of executive agreements, such as the Loan Agreement in this case. In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Atlanta Industries, Inc.,7 which involved a Loan Agreement between the IBRD and the Land Bank, the Court declared:

While mandating adherence to the general policy of the government that contracts for the procurement of civil works or supply of goods and equipment shall be undertaken only after competitive public bidding, RA 9184 recognizes the country's commitment to abide by its obligations under any treaty or international or executive agreement. xxx.8

In the same case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Atlanta Industries, Inc.,9 the Court held that public bidding under RA 9184 does not apply to the procurement of goods to be financed from the proceeds of the Loan Agreement subject of that case, thus:

Considering that Loan Agreement No. 4833-PH expressly provides that the procurement of the goods to be financed from the loan proceeds shall be in accordance with the IBRD Guidelines and the provisions of Schedule 4, and that the accessory SLA contract merely follows its principal's terms and conditions, the procedure for competitive public bidding prescribed under RA 9184 therefore finds no application to the procurement of goods for the Iligan City Water Supply System Development and Expansion Project. The validity of similar stipulations in foreign loan agreements requiring the observance of IBRD Procurement Guidelines in the procurement process has, in fact, been previously upheld by the Court in the case of Department of Budget and Management Procurement Service (DBMPS) v. Kolonwel Trading. (Emphasis supplied)

In Abaya v. Ebdane, Jr.,10 petitioners therein assailed the recommendation of the Department of Public Works and Highways, as the implementing agency of the projects in the Loan Agreement therein, to award the road improvement contract to China Road & Bridge Corporation for violating RA 9184. The Court ruled that Executive Order No. 4011 was applicable since RA 9184 could not be applied retroactively. The Invitation to Prequalify and to Bid was published in November and December 2002. At the time, the law in effect was EO 40. RA 9184 took effect two months later or on 26 January 2003.

Even assuming that RA 9184 could be given retroactive effect, the Court declared that RA 9184 did not apply to the Loan Agreement. According to the Court, "the terms of the Exchange of Notes dated December 27, 1999 and Loan Agreement No. PH-P204 would still govern the procurement for the CP I project."12

In DBM-PS v. Kolonwel Trading,13 citing Abaya v. Ebdane, Jr.,14 the Court made a similar pronouncement. The Court held that the Loan Agreement therein is in the nature of an executive agreement whose terms and conditions govern the procurement of goods, thus:

The question as to whether or not foreign loan agreements with international financial institutions, such as Loan No. 7118-PH, partake of an executive or international agreement within the purview of Section 4 of R.A. No. 9184, has been answered by the Court in the affirmative in Abaya, supra. Significantly, Abaya declared that the RP-JBIC loan agreement was to be of governing application over the CP I project and that the JBIC Procurement Guidelines, as stipulated in the loan agreement, shall primarily govern the procurement of goods necessary to implement the main project.

Being an executive agreement, the Loan Agreement subject of this case is governed by international law. As the Court has consistently ruled in numerous cases, the Philippine government, particularly the implementing agency, in this case the Supreme Court, is therefore obligated to comply with the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement under the international law principle of pacta sunt servanda which is embodied in Section 4 of RA 9184.

In dismissing the petition in Abaya v. Ebdane, Jr.,15 the Court held thus:

Under the fundamental principle of international law of pacta sunt servanda, which is, in fact, embodied in Section 4 of RA 9184 as it provides that "[a]ny treaty or international or executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to which the Philippine government is a signatory shall be observed," the DPWH, as the executing agency of the projects financed by Loan Agreement No. PH-P204, rightfully awarded the contract for the implementation of civil works for the CP I project to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation.

Similarly, in DBM-PS v. Kolonwel Trading,16 the Court held:

Under the fundamental international law principle of pacta sunt servanda, which is in fact embodied in the afore-quoted Section 4 of R.A. No. 9184, the RP, as borrower, bound itself to perform in good faith its duties and obligation under Loan No. 7118- PH. Applying this postulate in the concrete to this case, the IABAC was legally obliged to comply with, or accord primacy to, the WB Guidelines on the conduct and implementation of the bidding/procurement process in question.

In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Atlanta Industries, Inc.,17 the Court held:

x x x. Being similar to a treaty but without requiring legislative concurrence, Loan Agreement No. 4833-PH - following the definition given in the Bayan Muna case - is an executive agreement and is, thus, governed by international law. Owing to this classification, the Government of the Philippines is therefore obligated to observe its terms and conditions under the rule of pacta sunt servanda, a fundamental maxim of international law that requires the parties to keep their agreement in good faith. It bears pointing out that the pacta sunt servanda rule has become part of the law of the land through the incorporation clause found under Section 2, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states that the Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations."

To repeat, under Section 4 of RA 9184, the Government Procurement Reform Act does not apply to executive agreements such as the Loan Agreement in this case. Consequently, RA 9184 does not apply in the procurement of goods and services pursuant to the Loan Agreement between the Philippine government and the IBRD for the Judicial Reform Support Project.

Moreover, the Loan Agreement for the Project expressly provides that the procurement of goods and services shall be in accordance with World Bank guidelines.

Section 3.02 of the Loan Agreement provides: "Except as the Bank shall otherwise agree, procurement of goods, works and services required for the Project and to be financed out of the proceeds of the Loan shall be governed by the provisions of Schedule 4 to this Agreement."18 Schedule 4, in turn, provides: "Goods and works shall be procured in accordance with the provisions of Section I of the 'Guidelines for Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits' published by the Bank in January 1995 and revised in January and August 1996, September 1997 and January 1999 (the Guidelines) x x x."19

The Court's Administrative Circular No. 60-2003,20 which has the force and effect of a legal instrument for compliance of all concerned with the implementation of the JRSP,21 expressly provides that the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement shall be observed in the procurement of goods, works, and consulting services in accordance with World Bank guidelines, thus:

5.1.1 JRSP LOAN AGREEMENT. The Loan Agreement executed by and between the GOP and the WB on October 2, 2003 shall govern the legal relationship between the Bank and the Supreme Court as the Project's Implementing Agency. The terms and conditions set forth therein for the procurement of goods, works and consulting services shall be observed in consonance with the Bank Guidelines. (Emphasis supplied)

Second, the World Bank, from whom the funds for these events were charged, did not consider the expenses for these events ineligible.

To implement the Project, the Philippine government "shall maintain until completion of the Project, a Program Management Office in the Supreme Court, responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Supreme Court's Action Program for Judicial Reform and the Project, chaired by a Director, and said Office to be provided at all times with adequate funds and other resources and staffed by qualified and experienced personnel in adequate numbers as shall be necessary to accomplish its objectives."22

In implementing the Project, the PMO, with the approval of the Court, procured the services of Artes through several contracts for the subject events. Significantly, during and after the implementation of the Project, the PMO never received any notice from the World Bank classifying the contracts with Artes, including the incurred expenses for the subject events, as ineligible expenditures. Neither did the World Bank question in any forum the procurement procedures undertaken by the PMO with respect to these contracts. In other words, the World Bank considered these expenditures as eligible, which are defined as "expenditures in respect of the reasonable cost of goods, works and services required for the Project and to be financed out of the proceeds of the Loan allocated from time to time to the eligible Categories x x x."23

On the other hand, based on the PMO Memorandum dated 18 June 2012, the World Bank's list of ineligible transactions consisted of five major activities, to wit: (1) Conduct of the distinguished lecture series; (2) Conduct of the seminar on "Revisiting the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel; (3) Conduct of and attendance of SC and Judiciary officials to local and international training, seminars and workshops on court administration, international commercial law and facilitating workshops and trainings; (4) Printing of the Reporter's Case Index for the use of justices, judges, court attorneys and legal researchers, and (5) Procurement of IT equipment for various SC offices. The World Bank considered these as ineligible transactions for being (1) not connected with the project development objective; (2) not agreed with the World Bank; or (3) not reflected in the procurement plan. Attached hereto as Annex "A" is the PMO Memorandum, as well as the list of the ineligible expenditures.

A review of the list of ineligible expenditures shows that there is absolutely no item of expenditure which is even remotely related to the questioned contracts with Artes. In fact, the name Artes or Dumdum does not appear in the list of the names of officials, contractors or suppliers of the ineligible expenditures. Notably, the ineligible expenditures referred to various activities conducted in the years 2010 and 2011, or at least four years after the questioned events were held.

While the PMO in the same Memorandum claims that the listed ineligible transactions were "in fact, incurred in furtherance of the project development objectives of the JRSP" and were "actually regular and eligible transactions undertaken in the course of the JRSP's implementation," the PMO adjusted the total amount to US$115,416.00, instead of US$132,766.00, and recommended the refund for the first four transactions from the JRSP-GOP Counterpart Fund and for the procurement of IT equipment from the Court's Fiscal Autonomy Fund.

To repeat, the questioned contracts with Artes and the expenses related to the subject fora and retirement ceremony have not been identified as ineligible expenditures by the World Bank, and in fact, were not among those ineligible expenditures which the PMO recommended to be refunded by the Court using the JRSP-GOP Counterpart Fund or the Court's Fiscal Autonomy Fund. Suffice to state, if there indeed were any violation of the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement, or any of its procurement procedures, then the World Bank would have categorized such expenses as ineligible and required the Supreme Court to refund the amount of the ineligible expenditures, as what it did for the expenditures in 2010 and 2011 enumerated in its Aide Memoire, covering the period during the incumbency of then Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

In fact, if the World Bank has found any irregularity or misprocurement related to the subject events, it would have cancelled that portion of the loan allocated to such misprocured goods or services. This is clearly spelled out in the IBRD Guidelines,24 thus:

Misprocurement
1.12 The Bank does not finance expenditures for goods and works which have not been procured in accordance with the agreed provisions in the Loan Agreement and as further elaborated in the Procurement Plan. In such cases, the Bank will declare misprocurement, and it is the policy of the Bank to cancel that portion of the loan allocated to the goods and works that have been misprocured.

However, no finding of misprocurement or declaration to that effect, with respect to the subject contracts, was ever made by the World Bank.

Third, the COA's Annual Audit Reports on the Supreme Court from 2006 to 2008 and the COA's Annual Audit Reports on the Judicial Reform Support Project from 2004 to 2011 do not contain any finding or observation of irregularity or anomaly as to the Court's contracts with Artes.

In COA's Annual Audit Report on the Supreme Court for calendar year 2006, when the subject events were conducted, there was no finding, observation or recommendation regarding the subject contracts with Artes. Notably, among the deficiencies for 2006 which the COA found was the splitting of contracts in the procurement of steel filing safe cabinets.

Paragraph 4 of the Executive Summary of COA's Annual Audit Report on the Supreme Court for calendar year 200725 states that "Commitment Fees in the amount of P13,754,859.51 were incurred due to slow utilization of the proceeds of Loan No. 7191-PH with International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)." Accordingly, the COA recommended "that management implement the programs and projects of the JRSP strictly in accordance with timetables and to speed up the procurement of works, goods and services to avoid incurrence of commitment fees." Aside from this observation regarding the slow utilization of the loan proceeds, there was no COA finding, observation or recommendation regarding the subject contracts with Artes.1âшphi1

Paragraph 17 of the Executive Summary of COA's Annual Audit Report on the Supreme Court for calendar year 200826 states that "[t]he government paid a commitment fee amounting to P1,509,043.62 for the unwithdrawn principal amount of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) Loan No. 7191-PH for the Judicial Reform Support Project (JRSP) due to low utilization rate of the loan." Accordingly, the COA recommended that "management fully implement the reforms and measures instituted by the Court to fast-track the procurement of works, goods and services and finally, to stop the incurrence of commitment fees." Similar to the 2006 and 2007 COA Audit Reports, there was no COA finding, observation or recommendation regarding the subject contracts with Artes.

The COA Annual Audit Reports on the Judicial Reform Support Project for the years 2004 to 2011 yielded the same observation. There was no specific report on the contracts with Artes, much less any finding of irregularity with respect to the expenditures for the subject events.

In COA's Annual Audit Report on the JRSP for calendar year 2009, the COA reported that "[t]he government paid the amount of P1,320,124.97 due to commitment fees incurred for the unwithdrawn principal amount of the loan"27 and recommended that "management should immediately resolve the implementation issues that arose during the year and to fully implement the reforms and measures instituted by the Court to fast-track the procurement of works, goods and services and finally, to stop the incurrence of commitment fees."28

Paragraph 10 of the 2009 Executive Summary on the status of the implementation of prior year's recommendation states that "the audit recommendation for CY 2007 to adopt measures to avoid the incurrence of commitment fees was fully implemented by Management, however, the audit recommendation for CY 2008 to fully implement the reforms and measures to fast-track the procurement of works, goods and services was only partially implemented."29 There was no observation or recommendation regarding the contracts with Artes for the subject events.

For calendar year 2010, the COA made a similar observation of slow/low availment/utilization rate of the loan for the Project which resulted in the payment of commitment fees.30 The COA also found, among others, a discrepancy of P40,893,091.88 in reporting the balances of the Property, Plant & Equipment (PPE) accounts between the actual physical count and the accounting records in the PPE account. There was no observation or recommendation regarding the contracts with Artes for the subject events.

In the 2011 Annual Audit Report on the JRSP, the COA observed, among others, that:

1. Procurement of IT equipment in CY totaling P3,850,257.87 was not included in the JRSP Implementation Procurement Plan contrary to the agreement between the Supreme Court and the World Bank. Purchases of IT Equipment were done mostly through shopping instead of competitive public bidding. x x x.

2. Various expenses amounting to P3,038,812.17 incurred were not related to the project/program objectives and not agreed upon in writing with the World Bank. x x x.

3. Out of the four contracts for tri-media monitoring services entered into by the Supreme Court and the Mediabanc Manila Monitoring Services, Inc., two contracts x x x were irregular due to the absence of a signed contract to cover the undertaking. Contracts were signed two to four months after consultancy services had been rendered. x x x.

4. Payment of P982,960.00 to twenty contractual personnel under retroactive Contracts of Services of the Lapu-Lapu Trial Courts were not duly supported with individual work accomplishment report x x x.

5. The Judicial Reform Support Project – Government of the Philippines (GOP) Counterpart Fund temporarily borrowed from the Fiscal Autonomy (FA) Fund the amount of P150,000.00 for the conduct of the Media Forum on Judiciary Coverage x x x but the same was refunded twice resulting in the overstatement of traveling expenses x x x.31

Again, there was no observation or recommendation regarding the contracts with Artes for the subject events.

Indeed, were the contracts with Artes irregular or unlawful, or violative of procurement laws and regulations, the COA could have made such a finding in its Audit Reports, as what the COA did in its 2011 Annual Audit Report on the Project. However, there was none, clearly establishing that the contracts were legal and the expenditures were in accordance with the World Bank guidelines and the terms of the Loan Agreement. Attached hereto as Annexes "B" and "C," respectively, are the Executive Summaries of the COA Annual Audit Reports on the Supreme Court for the years 2006 to 2008, as well as the Executive Summaries of the COA Annual Audit Reports on the JRSP for 2004 to 2011.

Fourth, the Court, upon Dumdum's resignation, issued a Certificate of Clearance dated 7 January 2008, clearing Dumdum of all accountabilities enumerated therein insofar as the Court is concerned, including records and other accountabilities in the Project Management Office. Thereafter, then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno approved Dumdum's application for terminal leave, which was filed on 15 February 2008. Attached as Annexes "D" and "E," respectively, are Dumdum's Certificate of Clearance and approved Application for Terminal Leave.

Clearance from money and property accountability refers to the act of releasing an official or employee from responsibility and/or liability due to the money and property granted and/or entrusted to officials/employees.32

On the other hand, a Clearance Certificate is a certificate given to the officials or employees with properly documented turnover or surrender, liquidation, and transfer of the money/property granted to them, or fulfillment of certain obligations as a condition of such grant when applying for leave of absence or personnel movement. The Clearance is a requirement for the voluntary separation from the service (i.e. resignation, transfer, and optional retirement).33

As stated, the Court issued a Certificate of Clearance, which in no uncertain terms cleared Dumdum of all accountabilities in the Court.

Fifth, contrary to the Resolution, there was no splitting of contracts in this case.

Splitting of contracts means the breaking up of contracts into smaller quantities and amounts, or dividing contract implementation into artificial phases or subcontracts, for the purpose of making it fall below the threshold for shopping or small value procurement, or evading or circumventing the requirement of public bidding.34

The Resolution states that "the JRSP WB Loan was used to fund both the National Forum and Global Forum in the respective amounts of P7.5 million and P20.6 million; but instead of conducting a public bidding for the two events, Ms. Dumdum entered into several letter-contracts or quotation­ contracts with Artes for various phases of the events, each phase involving amounts that were well within her authority to approve under SC Administrative Circular No. 60-2003. x x x."35

However, there is no dispute that then Chief Justice Panganiban approved the budgets for the National Forum and the Global Forum in the respective amounts of P7.5 million and P20.6 million. The approval of these budgets was within the authority of then Chief Justice Panganiban. The unconditional approval by the Chief Justice of the contracts with Artes entered into by Dumdum, on behalf of the Court, signifies clearly that the hosting of these events, as well as the corresponding expenses for these events embodied in the said contracts, was completely sanctioned by the Court. More importantly, the World Bank has not found any irregularity in the several letter-contracts or quotation-­contracts with Artes for the various phases of the National Forum and the Global Forum.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote that this case be considered closed and terminated. Since the contracts with Artes were entered into in accordance with the Loan Agreement, an international executive agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the contracts complied with the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement, the contracts with Artes are therefore legal and valid under Section 4 of the Government Procurement Reform Act (RA 9184).



Footnotes

1 Resolution, p. 2.

2 Id.

3 Id. at 27.

4 Id. at 41.

5 For this Loan Agreement, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo authorized then Secretary of Finance Jose Isidro N. Camacho "to conclude, sign, execute and deliver, in accordance with law, for and on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, the Loan Agreement and any other documents relating to the Judicial Reform Support Project, x x x" and, together with then Ambassador of the Philippines to the USA Albert F. Del Rosario, were "granted full power and authority to do and perform every act and thing which may be requisite and necessary to be done for the accomplishment of the special power x x x as the President of the Philippines, might or could do if acting personally, x x x. (Special Authority, dated 9 May 2003)

6 See Land Bank of the Philippines v. Atlanta Industries, Inc., 738 Phil. 243, 259-260 (2014).

7 738 Phil. 243 (2014).

8 Id. at 257.

9 Id. at 261-262.

10 544 Phil. 645 (2007).

11 Section 1 of EO 40 provides:

Section 1. Scope and Application. This Executive Order shall apply to the procurement of: (a) goods, supplies, materials and related services; (b) civil works; and (c) consulting services, by all National Government agencies, including State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), Government-Owned or-Controlled Corporations (GOCCs) and Government Financial Institutions (GFIs), hereby referred to as "Agencies." This Executive Order shall cover the procurement process from the pre-procurement conference up to award of contract.

Nothing in this Order shall negate any existing and future government commitments with respect to the bidding and award of contracts financed partly or wholly with funds from international financing institutions as well as from bilateral and other similar foreign sources.

12 Supra note 10, at 688.

13 551 Phil. 1030, 1049 (2007).

14 Supra note 10.

15 Supra note 10, at 693.

16 Supra note 13, at 1049.

17 Supra note 7, at 260.

18 Rollo, p. 92. Page 5 of the Loan Agreement.

19 Id. at 104. Page 18 of the Loan Agreement.

20 Entitled "Procurement Policy Guidelines and Procedures For the Judicial Reform Support Project." Dated 18 November 2003.

21 Section 5.1 of SC Administrative Circular No. 60-2003.

22 Rollo, p. 112. Page 25 of the Loan Agreement.

23 Id. at 115. Page 28 of the Loan Agreement.

24 GUIDELINES PROCUREMENT UNDER IBRD LOANS AND IDA CREDITS. Dated November 2003. < http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROCUREMENT/Resources/Procurement-Guidelines-November-2003.pdf > (visited 14 April 2018).

25 Page iii of the Audit Report.

26 Page vii of the Audit Report.

27 Rollo, p. 257.

28 Id.

29 Id.

30 Id. at 292.

31 Id. at 330-331.

32 See < http://dotr.gov.ph/images/issuances/DO/2012/department%20order%202012-02.pdf > (visited 13 April 2018).

33 Id.

34 Guidelines for Shopping and Small Value Procurement < http://www.gppb.gov.ph/issuances/Guidelines/09-ShoppingSmallValue.pdf > (visited 14 April 2018).

35 Resolution, p. 38.


The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation


hindipapwedengipost