The Philippine government should follow what China did.

China has asked the World Bank to present proof against the four Chinese firms that it has blacklisted for alleged irregularities in rigging the bid for a Philippine road project.

A Chinese diplomat was quoted in a news report as saying: ?There should be proof. We want proof.?

This is what the Philippine government should also be saying in the case of three Filipino contractors who were blacklisted together with the four Chinese construction companies.

It would be unfair for the Philippine government to just accept hook, line and sinker the Bank?s findings without looking at the proof, if any, as well as the process it followed in coming out with its findings.

The Senate, which is investigating the findings, should also look closely at the proof used by Bank. A look at the so-called ?debarment proceeding? should also be enlightening to the senators.

China is insisting that the Chinese companies get a fair treatment. Shouldn?t Philippine agencies from both the executive and the legislature also take a firm position that the accused Philippine contractors should get just hearing of their side?

The problem of the three Philippine contractors?E.C. de Luna Construction Corp., Cavite Ideal International Construction and Development Corp., and CM Pancho Construction?is that the public has already condemned them as guilty even without asking whether the World Bank has any evidence to support this conclusion.

Just because the pronouncement was made by the Bank, most people have accepted the announcement as gospel truth.

Of course the public also found it easy to believe the accusation because of the notoriety of the Department of Public Works and Highways at the top of the list of the ?centers of corruption.? Contractors for government highways and bridge project share this notoriety.

The case of E.C. de Luna Construction Corp. is curious at the very least and the Senate probe to be chaired by the irrepressible Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago should enlighten the public why it was even included in the blacklisted companies.

De Luna?s lawyer, Nasser Marohomsalic, points out that ?E.C. de Luna has not bagged any WB project in the past and up to now despite its status as ?AAA? contractor and being one of the biggest contractors in roads and bridges under Philippine standards.?

Marohomsalic says E.C. de Luna has indeed ?participated in the bidding for various World Bank-funded projects? but ?it ended up being disqualified or defeated except in only one project, which it won but was deprived of the award.?

He says that a close look at the findings against his client would show that it is ?baseless, conjectural, selective and inconclusive? while stressing that there was lack of due process in the proceedings and the decision itself.

In a recent news report, US Ambassador to the Philippines Kristie Kenney, when asked to comment on the blacklisting of the three Filipino contractors for alleged ?collusion? in the bidding for a World Bank-funded project, said the report was ?complicated.?

But the report is more than just ?complicated.? If you listen to some legal experts, the World Bank?s debarment proceeding itself is flawed and questionable.

Senators participating in the investigation of the WB debarment of the three Filipino contractors would find the article ?Contractors Beware: The Pitfalls of a World Bank Debarment Proceedings? which appeared in an international publication very enlightening.

The article was written by John Oberdorfer, Harold Kim and Vince Martinez. Oberdorfer is a senior litigation partner at Patton Boggs LLP in Washington DC. Kim and Martinez are senior litigation associates also at Patton Boggs. They all have considerable experience in the Bank?s debarment proceedings.

In the article, the authors warn that while a contract for a WB-funded project can greatly benefit a company?s business and standing, it also has dangers, one of which is debarment.

World Bank debarment, they explain, is a step through which the Bank delists contractors that it concludes have not conformed to its contracting standards.

The authors add: ?Since the World Bank publishes the names of parties it has debarred on its Web site and through press releases, the consequences of debarment can be devastating both in terms of lost business and reputational damage. To date, 72 companies or persons have been debarred, according to the World Bank?s Web site.?

The article describes the process that the Bank follows in a debarment proceedings as ?Byzantine and often differs from the Bank?s written guidelines.?

It says that the World Bank normally initiates a debarment proceeding ?after receiving a tip from an outside source such as a disappointed bidder or a disgruntled employee.?

In the case of the three blacklisted Filipino contractors, the ?tip? apparently came from a losing bidder.

The authors say there are many flaws in the debarment process, all of which come from the fact that the Bank ?does not follow administrative procedures that ensure fundamental fairness to an accused firm.?

The article says that in the debarment proceeding, ?an accused contractor must prove it is ?not guilty.?? It explains that in the WB process, the sanctions committee serves as both judge and prosecutor. It says that ?an accused contractor must persuade the very entity?a committee at the Bank?s most senior level?that brought the charges that its charges should be dismissed.?

The article says that the WB debarment proceedings also has ?vague standard of proof.? The WB may debar a contractor based on ?reasonably sufficient? evidence and not the ?clear and convincing evidence? which is the prevailing American standard for proving fraud.

Another flaw in the WB debarment is that the accused has ?no right of cross examination.? The article said: The right to cross-examine an accuser during the investigative phase of debarment proceedings is illusory for two reasons. First, under World Bank procedures, an accuser may decline to be questioned, or even identified. Second, an accused contractor cannot develop its case until the matter is set for adjudication before the Sanctions Committee.?

Senators should be aware of these flaws in the debarment proceedings and they should take the conclusions made in the report blacklisting the Filipino contractors with a grain of salt.