The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the petition filed by an anti-corruption group against the alleged illegality and unconstitutionality of the Land Transportation Office’s (LTO) P836 million contract in 2017 for drivers’ plastic license cards.

In a decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC ruled that the Anti-Trapo Movement (ATM), which filed the petition, has no legal standing to question the deal between the LTO and NEXTIX, Dermalog Identification Systems, and CFP Strategic Transaction Advisors Joint Venture (Dermalog) for the procurement of more than eight million plastic drivers’ license cards with a five-year validity.

The SC pointed out that even if the procedural defects would be ignored, the petition should still be dismissed as the LTO did not commit grave abuse of discretion in awarding the contract to Dermalog.

At the same time, the SC stressed that “even before the petition was filed before this Court, a notice to proceed has already been issued in favor of Dermalog directing it to proceed with the project within seven days upon issuance of the receipt of notice.”

“Injunctive remedies do not lie against ‘acts already accomplished,’” it said.

“While a substantial amount of public funds was involved in the procurement of driver's license cards, petitioner (ATM) fell short of establishing that respondent (LTO) blatantly disregarded relevant constitutional and statutory prohibitions in awarding the contract to Dermalog,” the SC said.

Also, the SC said that “the Court will only exercise the power of judicial review if the action is brought by ‘a party who has legal standing to raise the constitutional or legal question.’”

ATM told the SC that it filed the petition to protect the government from an anomalous contract, which is “manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the Filipino people.”

It said that LTO gravely abused its direction when it awarded the contract to Dermalog after the lowest bidder, Banner Plasticard, Inc., was disqualified for being non-responsive to the bid requirements.

It claimed that the LTO failed to resolve Banner’s plea for reconsideration before awarding the contract to Dermalog.

It pointed out that the cost of a single driver's license card is P89.71 under Banner's bid, while the cost under Dermalog's bid is P99.16, which is higher by 10.53 percent.

Since 8.36 million driver's license cards are required to be produced, the difference between the two costs would amount to P79,668,053.55, it stressed.

The overpriced cost, it said, would have to be shouldered by Filipino drivers.

On the procedural aspect, the SC explained that legal standing pertains to “a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged.”

The SC junked ATM’s allegation that the issues it raised involved “transcendental public importance,” which is one of the exceptions to the rule on legal standing.

It said ATM’s claim of transcendental importance must be backed by proper allegations as its plain invocation does not suffice for the Court to set aside procedural technicalities.

The submission by Banner of the lowest calculated bid does not automatically warrant an award of the contract in its favor, considering that it was found noncompliant during the mandatory post qualification, the SC said.

“ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED,” the SC ruled.