08 Angat Hepp - Motion For Partial Reconsideration 07 November 2012
08 Angat Hepp - Motion For Partial Reconsideration 07 November 2012
08 Angat Hepp - Motion For Partial Reconsideration 07 November 2012
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SO ORDERED.
within which to file their motion for reconsideration; hence, the timeliness
Honorable Court on all the issues except the ruling on the legality and
validity of the bidding conducted and the Notice of Award (NOA) issued
Honorable Court to take a second hard look on its decision regarding the
-page 3-
legality and validity of the bidding and the NOA issued by PSALM to K-
prescribed in Sec. 2, Art. XII of the fundamental law of the land. Thus,
Honorable Court to revisit the basis for the unfortunate ruling declaring
the bidding process and issuance of NOA to K-Water as legal and valid.
Petitioners most humbly pray this Honorable Court to reverse and set
aside the said ruling for being contrary to the Constitution and the law.
______________________________
cited as legal basis Republic Act No. 7718 or the Amended Build-
With all due respect, the reliance of this Honorable Court on the
plants, the glaring fact ignored by the decision that the instant case had
State. Finally, under BOT, the operation, management and use of the
resources and property revert to the government after the period fixed in
Amended BOT Law in upholding the legality and validity of the bidding
10. To the mind of the Court, the power generation process does
3
Ibid., p. 39.
-page 6-
11. With all due respect, the distinction made by this Honorable
Court is flawed. It flies in the face of reality that power generation cannot
Very clearly, to maximize the use of the water from Angat Dam,
potential energy - shall be under the full control and supervision of the
State, and that such activities must be undertaken with Filipino citizens
13. The Honorable Court correctly ruled that Petitioners have the
compliance with the letter dated May 14, 2010 as insufficient.4 However,
K-Water.
Court cited, Chavez v. Public Estates Authority (384 SCRA 152). In the
said case, the Joint Venture Agreement entered into by PEA and Amari
Considering that the instant case is on all force with Chavez, it is only
logical that the same ruling be applied in the case at bar – declaring the
PSALM.
4
Ibid., p. 24.
-page 8-
pray that the Decision dated 9 October 2012 of this Honorable Court be
NULL AND VOID the bidding process and issuance of Notice of Award
Such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are
c/o
EXPLANATION
Copy furnished: