First of three parts
Philippine public-private partnership (PPP) is pictured on the web site of the PPP Center as all rosy. But behind the good work, awards, accolades, citations and infographics are unpublished or unheralded stories and “truths” about PPPs.
While good news must be trumpeted, not-so-good news must be equally underscored. Negative or unpopular news must not be dismissed. They must be viewed as opportunities for reform and introspection. The public—the reason for PPPs—must know and embrace PPPs, warts and all. Public officials are actually doing a disservice if news on PPPs are sanitized, if those outside government are branded as filibusters, and when leaders and consultants claim infallibility.
(1) 11, not 12 PPP projects. It is reported in the media that this administration has awarded 12 projects—three road/expressway, two classroom, one hospital, one airport, two light rail-related, one water and two transport-system projects. But reality is, only 11 will push through, to date.
The modernization of the Philippine Orthopedic Center has been aborted since the winning proponent opted to back out. Two years was more than enough for the Department of Health to issue the certificate of possession over the site. Earlier on, stakeholders opposed this project, fearing that the PPP could mean the end of free services to
indigent patients.
(2) 11 out of more than 100 promised projects. When this administration launched its PPP Program in November 2010, it promised to award 100 or so projects. The list was contained in an official publication, entitled PPP projects. Despite the hype, however, to date, only 12 projects have been awarded.
In an attempt to do more, this administration has lined up 14 projects that it wants to seal before it steps down. This is the reason the PPP Center sought exemption from the Commission on Elections regarding the application of the election ban on public works. How many will, in fact, push through before June 30? Some say two or three.
(3) Two PPP definitions, instead of one. In this case, having more is problematic. Having two definitions of PPP by two administrative agencies, where one is attached to the other, causes confusion and shows internal policy inconsistencies.
The PPP Center’s definition, lifted from the build-operate-and-transfer (BOT) law, is project finance-based, while the definition of the National Economic and Development Authority is partnership-based. Which one should we follow? I subscribe to the broader one.
(4) More than six projects awarded under previous presidents. In comparing the number of awarded PPP projects under four presidents, the PPP Center shows the following count: two under President Fidel V. Ramos, three under President Joseph Estrada, one under President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and 12 under the incumbent. Apparently, the graph shows the incumbent is more PPP savvy.
Because its definition of PPP is confined to the BOT law, the PPP Center did not include in its infographic the two concession agreements of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System in 1996, the concession agreement with the National Grid Corp. of the Philippines and five joint ventures (JVs) by government-owned and -controlled corporations entered into during the last administration, among others.
Concessions and JVs are not considered PPPs by the PPP Center.
To be continued