During the Baguio City Council’s discussion on September 17, 2024, representatives from the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Center confirmed that the local legislative body holds the final authority over all unsolicited PPP projects in the city.
The discussion arose from the city council’s invitation to the PPP Center to clarify the guidelines and procedures for reviewing and approving local PPP projects under the PPP Code of the Philippines and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).
For context, three projects have been announced to proceed with the procurement process this year under the new PPP Code: the Baguio City Integrated Terminal, the Market Redevelopment Project, and the Smart Urban Mobility Project.
The Baguio City Integrated Terminal project, designed to accommodate provincial buses, jeepneys, and taxis, was confirmed by the City Development Council (CDC) and forwarded to the city council for further review. However, the project was issued a notice of incompleteness after a review of all documents and was sent back to the executive department for information and appropriate action.
The Market Redevelopment Project and the Smart Urban Mobility Project have recently been successfully negotiated and will also pass through the CDC for confirmation before heading to the city council for review.
Jhoel Jorda, PPP Project Development Officer, presented the timeline for the approval process of PPP projects based on PPP Governing Board Resolution Number 2024-07-02.
Following the endorsement by the CDC, the project documents are forwarded to the Secretary to the Sanggunian. The secretary has seven calendar days from receipt to assess whether the submission is complete. If the documents are complete, a notice of completeness is issued. If not, a notice of incompleteness is sent back to the interim negotiating panel, specifying the missing information. Should the secretary fail to make a determination within the given period, the submission is considered incomplete.
Upon receipt of complete documents, the Sanggunian has 120 days to review and decide whether to approve or disapprove the proposed project. If approved, they issue a notice of approval. If disapproved, documents are returned to the interim negotiating panel. If the Sanggunian fails to render a decision within 120 calendar days, the proposed PPP project is automatically deemed approved.
If approved by the city council or by default, the next step would be the comparative challenge which allows other interested parties to submit counter-proposals that challenge the original proposal submitted by the original proponent.
Councilor Betty Lourdes Tabanda raised concerns about proponents delaying responses to the city council’s proposed amendments to run out the 120-day period.
To address this, Raphael Badillo, another PPP Center representative, said the city council can set deadlines for responses and that failure to meet these deadlines could be grounds for the city council to reject the proposal.
The PPP Center representatives explained that a feasibility study is one of the required documents for submission to the city council for PPP project approval. According to the guidelines, information in the feasibility study should not be older than three years from the date of submission.
They stressed that an ideal feasibility study should include details of the stakeholder consultations conducted during the feasibility study or negotiation period. This should cover the results of these consultations and the general feedback received from the stakeholders.
They also confirmed that the city council has the discretion to conduct additional public consultations within the 120-day period if previous public consultations were deemed insufficient. However, they cautioned that the city council should be careful not to disclose information that could disadvantage the original proponent.
The PPP Center representatives confirmed that the city council has the authority to prescribe modifications to the negotiated parameters and conditions. If the city council proposes amendments, the project returns to the interim negotiating panel to discuss with the proponent, who can either accept or reject the changes. They clarified that if the proponent does not accept the amendments, the project is considered rejected.
Tabanda posed a scenario in which the local chief executive might disagree with the local legislative body’s decision or proposed amendments to the terms and conditions of the project. In response, the PPP representatives clarified that the local legislative body’s ruling is final and binding.
Councilor Jose Molintas expressed concerns about confidentiality and transparency in the PPP process, particularly with regard to feasibility studies and stakeholder consultations. He questioned how to strike a balance between transparency and the proponent’s need for confidentiality, especially in situations where the public demands information and the proponent invokes confidentiality to prevent giving an undue advantage to other bidders.
Jorda and Badillo clarified that blanket claims of confidentiality cannot be accepted. They explained that the proponent must submit a table identifying which portions of their proposal are considered confidential along with a justification for this classification. They added that stakeholder consultations generally focus on relevant information that requires public input, rather than the entire proposal.
However, once the project reaches the comparative challenge stage, more information will become public including the project information memorandum, qualification documents for challengers, and new bid parameters.
Councilor Mylen Yaranon clarified that the city council’s goal is to secure the best proposal for the public. She explained that the original proponent and negotiating panel aim to maintain confidentiality specifically for the comparative challenge process, meaning that while sensitive details such as business models shall remain confidential, other aspects of the project proposal can be disclosed.
Integrated termnial project revisited
The proposed Baguio City Integrated Terminal will be executed through a lease agreement, with Megawide as the private partner. The proposed terminal will be constructed in Dontogan Barangay and is currently governed by a usufruct agreement between the Bureau of Animal Industry and the city government. It will be operated and developed along with a commercial facility within or adjacent to it.
The terminal is designed to serve as a central hub for various modes of transportation including provincial buses, public utility vehicles (PUVs), jeepneys, modern jeepneys, and taxis. It has various facilities such as ticketing booths, designated circulation areas for passengers and vehicles, weather-protected and comfortable passenger waiting areas, restrooms, diaper changing areas, lactation stations, commercial parking for terminal users, and parking and park-and-go services.
The project aims to reduce traffic congestion in the Central Business District by streamlining the movement of southbound vehicles and various public transportation modes.
However, Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representative (IPMR) Maximo Edwin Jr. expressed concern that many Indigenous Peoples (IPs) residing in Dontogan Barangay had not been consulted during the initial stakeholder consultations. He inquired about the process for obtaining Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC).
The PPP Center representatives clarified that the FPIC process is separate from the 120-day city council review period. They explained that if the project site is within an ancestral domain, as Edwin indicated, the proponent must comply with the FPIC requirement and cannot proceed with the project without it.
Edwin said, in his capacity as the city’s IPMR, he can coordinate with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and personally conduct consultations with the residents to obtain FPIC. He said his goal is to ensure that the FPIC requirement is completed in advance, so that if the project goes through the comparative challenge, the FPIC results are already available and do not delay the process.
Meanwhile, Councilor Peter Fianza raised concerns about the feasibility study submitted in 2020, which is now over three years old. He suggested that it should be returned for resubmission.
The PPP Center representatives acknowledged this observation and explained that during the negotiation stage, some information in the project’s feasibility study was found to be outdated. He mentioned that the proponent was permitted to update the information during the 150-day negotiation period to ensure compliance with the PPP Code. **Jordan G. Habbiling
