Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zu?no is belatedly finding out that the court of public opinion is much different from the court of justice which he is familiar with.

Zu?o has been condemned in the court of public opinion even without any evidence in what appears to be a trial by publicity in the so-called Alabang Boys case by ?prosecutors? whose expertise is ?psywar? and not the law.

His ?sin?, if you can call it that, is that he approved the findings of the prosecutor assigned to the Alabang Boys case finding no probable cause against the suspects.

Zu?o, of course, can take some consolation from the fact that he is spared from any accusation that he received any bribe.

Zu?o maintains that he did nothing wrong in supporting the findings of the prosecutors. He stresses: ?My role as Chief State Prosecutor is not to prosecute at all costs or by any means. While I personally accept that law enforcement agents may, by their zeal, risk breaching these rights, a prosecutor conducting preliminary investigation must subject the law against a balancing sheet.?

He explains that ?Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Ethics instructs that a prosecutor?s duty is not to convict, but to see that the law is carried out, and that justice is done.?

Those who have followed Zuno?s career, spanning more than three decades, in the prosecution arm of the Justice Department are saddened at the abuse Zu?o has been getting because of the Alabang Boys case.

They say that if you look at Zuno?s record as a prosecutor including his handling of such high profile cases like the Vizconde massacre, the Jalosjos case, the case of Calauan Mayor Sanchez, and the so called drug queen Yu Yok Lai, then you would find the accusations leveled against him on the Alabang Boys case unbelievable.

They point out that when he was assigned at the Task Force- Airport for three years, he was able to get 10 convictions in drug-related cases.

Zu?o says that he is confident that he will be vindicated. He says that he is retiring next year and all he wants is to clear his reputation for the sake of his wife and his two sons.

***

It?s been often said that in the Philippines, whether it?s an election or a bidding, there are no losers?only winners and those who were cheated.

The protest being aired by FF Cruz/Filsystems who lost in the bidding for the P6.2-billion LRT North Extension seems to be another case of a loser unable to accept the results of the bidding and is now claiming that it was cheated.

Thankfully the media campaign of the losing bidder is not affecting the crucial ?closing the loop? which will connect LRT Line 1 with the MRT Line 3 and enable commuters to go anywhere in the Edsa/Avenida circle using just one light railway system.

Piecing together all the issues based on news and columns, our radio interview with LRTA Administrator Mel Robles over Karambola, and the documents we requested from Robles, it seems that there are three major charges being made losing bidder FF Cruz/Filsystems.

First is the issue of the disqualification of FF Cruz/Filsystems joint venture from the bidding.

FF Cruz/Filsystems was disqualified because it failed to submit, as required by the Government Procurement Law, an electronically filed income tax return.

The new Government Procurement Law is very strict. It provides for a list of requirement and bids that are reviewed on a pass/fail basis. A bidder has to pass all requirements. A failing mark on any requirement means automatic disqualification.

In a recent bidding by a government agency, one of the bidders failed to notarize a document. It was disqualified. In the same bidding, another proponent failed to submit the curriculum vitae of a partner who hold just a little more than 2 percent of the stocks of the company. It too was disqualified.

Under the procurement law, no discretion is allowed for the bids and awards committee of the agency conducting the bidding.

In the case of the FF Cruz/Filsystems consortium bid submission, FF Cruz was able to submit the required electronically filed tax return. Filsystem, however, failed to do so.

In its first and second motions for reconsideration the consortium was told by the BAC that it was disqualified because Filsystems failed to submit the electronically filed tax return. In their third motion reconsideration, Filsystems finally submitted the requisite return. But it was too late. The procurement law also prohibits the BAC from allowing a bidder to correct anything lacking in its submission once the deadline has passed.

Another issue raised by the FF Cruz/Filsystems consortium is that there is a supposed copyright infringement of the FF Cruz/Filsystem design for the LRT 1 extension project from Monumento to North Avenue.

However, it should be pointed out that what was bid out was the design-and-build scheme of the project. If indeed, as the consortium claims, there were infringements of the copyright, then Felipe Cruz Jr. of FF Cruz/Filsystems should sue the winning bidder who made the design.

The winning bidder in this case is D.M. Consunji which is owned and controlled by FF Cruz Jr.?s first cousins.

But in any case the basic design for the LRT 1 extension was based on the existing 25-year-old LRT Line 1. Of course, Line 1 was not designed by FF Cruz or Filsystems.

FF Cruz Jr. claims that the design for the LRT 1 extension which Filsystem copyrighted in April 24, 2006 was the one presented by LRTA to the Cabinet in 2006 and which LRTA claimed at its own.

Robles says this is false. No design was presented in that Cabinet meeting since the project has not been bid out yet and as mentioned the design was part of the terms of reference for the bidding.

He says what was presented to the Cabinet was the concept based on the existing LRT Line 1 and the presentation focused on the location of the proposed stations. He stresses that what was presented was not a design and certainly not a design coming from FF Cruz Jr.

Lastly, the FF Cruz/Filsystems consortium makes an issue of the unsolicited proposal it submitted in 2004.

It should be pointed out, however, that the proposal was submitted by FF Cruz/Filsystems to the Transportation Department and not the LRTA.

The BOT law requires that the concerned agency must inform the proponent of an unsolicited proposal within 30 days of the submission if the unsolicited bid is complete or incomplete within 30 days and must declare the proposal accepted or rejected within 60 days.

The consortium is barking up the wrong tree in raising the issue against LRTA. It should have raised a complaint in 2004 and raised it to the DoTC where it submitted its proposal.

In various statements FF Cruz/Filsystems says it is planning to go to court. Perhaps the court is the best venue for the complaints it is now airing in media. Going to court, however, is difficult. The consortium would have to present documentary evidence and the accused would have the right to refute whatever it presents.