The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the petition that challenged the government’s approval in 2014 to privatize the Philippine Orthopedic Center (POC) in Quezon City.
While the petition was dismissed, the dismissal was not based on the weakness of the issues presented by those who were against POC’s privatization. Neither was the petition junked because the government successfully justified POC’s privatization.
The SC said the withdrawal in 2015 by the Consortium which won the bidding for the privatization was the supervening event that led to the dismissal of the petition filed in 2014 by POC indigent patients, nurses and physicians who were joined by some legislators in the case.
“WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for being moot and academic,” the SC ruled in a full court decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando.
The decision was promulgated on May 11, 2021 and posted on the SC’s website last June 30.
It took the SC more than five years to settle the issue after the winning bidder, the consortium of Megawide Construction Corporation and World Citi Medical Center (Consortium), filed in 2015 its manifestation that its contract with the government on POC’s privatization had been terminated.
Justice Hernando was appointed to the SC in 2018. The petition must have been unloaded to him by any of the justices after his appointment. It was not known immediately when the case was unloaded to him for study and recommendation.
Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, who was appointed head of the SC and the whole judiciary last April 5, vowed to resolve immediately cases that have been pending with the SC for many years.
Gesmundo, who will be Chief Justice until 2026, also pledged that the SC will adhere to the constitutional mandate that cases filed must be resolved 24 months from their submission for decision – a period when no other pleadings are required from the parties and the only work left undone is to resolve them.
The plan to privatize POC started in 2012. Under the government-approved Modernization of the POC Project (MPOC Project) in 2014, a new hospital facility will be constructed within the National Kidney and Transplant Institute compound along East Avenue, Quezon City.
To be set up and to be provided by the winning Consortium, among other things, were a 700-bed capacity specialty care hospital providing orthopedic clinical services and allied services; procurement, installation, operations and management of modem diagnostics and clinical equipment; procurement, installation, operations and management of IT facilities; operation and maintenance of the new hospital facility; and provision of administrative and ancillary services.
After 25 years, the new facility will be turned over by the Consortium to the Department of Health (DOH).
The MPOC Project will be implemented through a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) arrangement under the provisions of Republic Act No. 6957 as amended by RA 7718, otherwise known as the "Build-Operate-and-Transfer (BOT) Law" and pursuant to the Public Private Partnership (PPP) Program of the government.
On March 6, 2014, a Build-Operate-Transfer Agreement (BOT Agreement) was signed by the DOH with the Consortium of Megawide Construction Corporation and World Citi Medical Center.
Even before the signing of the agreement, a petition was filed with the SC on Feb. 3, 2014 to stop the privatization of POC and the subsequent award of the project to the Consortium.
Among other issues, the petitioners claimed that the privatization of the POC will result in the denial of medical services to thousands of indigent Filipinos, which they claimed is a clear violation of their constitutional right to health.
They told the SC that under the POC set-up, 85 per cent of the 700-bed capacity or 562 beds are allotted to non-paying patients.
But they said that if POC is privatized, only 10 percent of the 700-bed capacity would be for non-paying or service patients who would be denied of expert medical care.
They pointed out that under the law, all government hospitals should operate with not less than 90 percent of its bed capacity for free or as charity beds.
Refuting the allegations in the petition, the respondents – led by the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) and DOH – said the MPOC Project is not an abdication but is, in fact, in recognition of the State's duty to provide and ensure the people's access to quality hospitals and health care facilities.
The two agencies cited the deteriorating state of the POC like its outdated or broken machines that can no longer accommodate the increasing number of patients and provide quality health care services to them.
On Nov. 10, 2015, the winning Consortium filed with the DOH a “notice of termination” of the agreement.
The Consortium cited various delays committed by the DOH in the implementation of the agreement like the failure to turn over the project site through the issuance of a certificate of possession.
It said that if the delays in the execution of any of the provisions in the agreement exceed 180 days, it could terminate the agreement without liability.
“This 180-day period came and went over a year ago on Sept. 2, 2014. Accordingly, the BOT Agreement will terminate on Nov. 15, 2015,” the Consortium told the DOH.
The “notice of termination” was manifested by the Consortium before the SC on Nov. 27, 2015. It told the SC that the “termination” rendered the petition moot and academic.
The SC said:
“In the case at bar, there is no dispute that the action for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners has been mooted by the termination of the BOT Agreement of private respondents (the Consortium and the government).
“The staleness of the claims becomes more manifest considering the reliefs sought by petitioners, i.e., to annul and set aside the BOT Agreement for the modernization of the POC; and to permanently enjoin respondents from implementing the MPOC Project, are hinged on the existence of the BOT Agreement.
“The eventual termination of the BOT Agreement rendered the resolution of the issues relating to the prayers for certiorari and prohibition of no practical or legal effect.
“Simply stated, petitioners in this case would no longer be entitled to any actual substantial relief regardless of this Court's disposition on the merits of the present petition.”