Justice is (NOT) for sale, maybe.
\nTime to revamp the supreme court.<\/p>\n
Judicial overreach
\nIn its MR filed in September 2014, the BCDA broadened its case with a new argument: that the Court has encroached upon the powers of the executive. It built its case by showing that questions hounded the integrity of the previous process and that it was within the powers of the Office of the President to \u201cexercise control\u201d over all the executive departments \u2013 including changing the mode of disposition of government properties.
\n\u2018\u2026the haste and the reckless manner by which the TROs were served and re-served create an impression of bias and manifest partiality in the minds of the respondents and erode their faith in the Honorable Court.\u2019 \u2013 BCDA
\nWhen he took over, President Aquino suspended the privatization and development of the 33-hectare property via competitive challenge or \u201cSwiss Challenge\u201d as part of a wide-ranging policy review and due diligence process. Fort Bonifacio was not singled out; the Food Terminal Inc complex and the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway were subjected to the same rigor.
\nIn 2012, Aquino decided that the Bonifacio property should be opened to public bidding.
\nIn its narration, the BCDA said that \u201ca shadow was cast on the integrity of the process\u201d because the previous board appeared to have rushed approval of the unsolicited proposal of SM Land days before the May 2010 elections.
\n\u201cThe undue haste by which the award was made was a cause for concern of the newly appointed directors and for President Aquino himself,\u201d the BCDA wrote.
\nMoreover, the offer of SM Land was way below the market value of the land. The BCDA cited the recent appraisal by Cuervo Appraisers placing the cost of each square meter at P78,000. Besides, the BCDA pointed out, SM Land can participate anew, this time in a public bidding.
\nvia Was SC justice partial in BCDA-SM Land issue?<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Justice is (NOT) for sale, maybe. Time to revamp the supreme court. Judicial overreach In its MR filed in September 2014, the BCDA broadened its case with a new argument: that the Court has encroached upon the powers of the executive. It built its case by showing that questions hounded the integrity of the previous … <\/p>\n