BAC Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration of MAPECON

Request For Proposals

General Information

   Dec 28, 2007
   Dec 30, 2007

Contact information

   Jennifer D Lumawag
Chief, Procurement Operation Division
Elliptical Road, Diliman,
Quezon City, Metro Manila 1101
   63-2-9284501 Ext.228
   Click here

Goods, Works and Services

Pest-control services  

Original Text



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

(On the Motion for Reconsideration)

This Resolution pertains to the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAPECON, INC. assailing the findings of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) that the company is not eligible in that bidding as advertised by PCA.

On December 11, 2007 at 10:00 A.M. following the published schedule for the opening of bids, the BAC upon examination of the contents of the first envelop tendered by MAPECON, who is the sole bidder, the BAC found that it did not have the FPA license as required in the Instruction to Bidders. Hence the Committee declared MAPECON as non-eligible to submit a bid proposal. Forthwith, MAPECON filed this Motion for Reconsideration.

The central issues to be resolve now are (a) whether or not the BAC should drop the requirement of FPA license and registration in the eligibility requirements, and (b) whether or not MAPECON can be considered eligible without FPA license

On the first issue, this Committee maintains the need for FPA license and registration since the services called for in the published invitation of PCA pertains to the supply of agricultural pest control service and necessary chemicals for the treatment of coconut trees in farms infested by Brontispa (coconut leaf beetle). By law, such license is a legal requirement by force of Section 9 (Registration and Licensing) of P.D. 1144, which created the Fertilizer and Pesticides Authority.

"(N)o pesticides, fertilizers, manufacture, formulated, stored, distributed, sold or offered for sale, transported, delivered for transportation or used unless it has been duly registered with the FPA or covered by a numbered provisional permit issued by FPA for use in accordance with the conditions as stipulated in the permit x x x

No person shall engage in the business of exporting, importing, manufacturing, formulating, distributing, supplying, repacking, storing, commercially applying, selling, marketing, of any pesticides, fertilizer and other agricultural chemicals except under a license issued by the FPA."

The licensing authority of FPA was further confirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 161594 entitled "Fertilizer and Pest Authority vs. Manila Pest Control Company, et al., February 8, 2007, which ruled that:

"We hold that the FPA has jurisdiction only over agricultural pesticides, not over urban pest control products. 'Pesticides' in P.D. No. 1144 refers only to those used in farming and other agricultural activities, as distinguished from pesticides used in household, business establishments and other offices in urban areas."

x x x x x

"Further, P.D. No. 1144 uses the term 'pesticides' always in conjunction with 'fertilizers' or with the phrase 'fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals/chemical inputs' or the phrase 'other agricultural chemicals x x x.

"Significantly, the above-quoted provisions of P.D. No. 1144 sets the parameters of the powers and duties of the FPA. First, the FPA is designated as an attached agency of the Department of Agriculture. Urban pest control or pesticide use in households, offices, hotels and other commercial establishments has nothing to do with agriculture. Second, it spells out the purposes for which the FPA was created, viz" ' for the purpose of assuring the agricultural sector of adequate supplies of fertilizer and pesticide at reasonable prices, rationalizing the manufacture and marketing of fertilizer, protecting the public from the risks inherent in the use of pesticides, and educating the agricultural sector in the use of these inputs.' All these purposes limit the agricultural jurisdiction of the FPA to agricultural pesticides."

On the second issue, the FPA Rules and Regulations, however, admits an exception. Section 2, Article III of the BPI Rules and Regulations provides such exemption and the condition thereof:

"License for Commercial applicators. - All commercial applicators of pesticides shall apply for a license, on a form to be supplied by the Authority and shall obtain a commercial applicator's license and be assigned a license number by the Authority before such person shall perform services as a commercial applicator. Each commercial applicator shall obtain a license for each place of business maintained in the Philippines.
x x x x .

"x x x x A person holding license as pest control operator or plant pest and disease control operator issued by the Bureau of Plant Industry before the promulgation of PD 1144 may be exempted from the above requirements and be permitted to engage in the trade after having duly presented an application to this effect with the Authority." (Emphasis supplied).

In the light of the above rule, Committee takes note of the fact that prior to the promulgation of P.D. 1144 on May 30, 1977, the Acting Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources upon the recommendation of the Chairman of the Board of Examiners granted BPI Permit No. 13 dated February 22, 1965 to the herein Movant Mr. Gonzalo O. Catan, Jr., and now the Executive Vice President of MAPECON, authorizing him to engage commercially as Plant Pest and Disease Control Operator including "dusting, spraying, fumigation and disinfections, etc. of agricultural plants in the field as well as in bodegas, buildings, warehouses and other places x x x". This BPI license was revived pursuant to a Letter Agreement dated May 16, 2003, between the Director of BPI Atty. Blo Umpar Adiong Al Haj and MAPECON executive Vice President Gonzalo O. Catan, Jr.

Thus considering the above circumstances the Committee is inclined to reconsider its earlier findings and to entertain the probability of MAPECON's exemption from the required FPA license subject to the conditions prescribed in the said FPA rules.

The Committee need not discuss the other arguments and documents submitted by the Movant as these do not relate directly to the issues at hand. Suffice to say that the Committee appreciates the role, accomplishment and contributions of MAPECON as a business entity in the field of urban pest control recognized through Department of Health Circular No. 155 issued in 1975, including its support to implement government policies on urban pest control through that multi-sector Resolution to Implement Nationwide the Modern Indigenous Proven Solutions to the Problem of Pest and Wastes adopted in 2001,recognizing the role and contribution of MAPECON in the control of dengue-transmitting mosquitoes and other disease-transmitting pests, and its support for the celebration of the Urban Pest Control Week through Proclamation No. 990.

Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, and considering that MAPECON is the sole prospective bidder responding to the Invitation to Bid, the Committee deems it proper to provisionally reconsider and allow the dropping of the FPA license as an eligibility requirement, and in lieu thereof, MAPECON may submit the appropriate exemption order From FPA upon application with that agency.

Issued this December 17, 2007, in Diliman, Quezon City.


BAC Chairman

Member Member

Member Member Approved budget: PHP 15,000,000.00 Delivery period: 7 Day/s Original notice:
Please note that this notice is for your information only.
We try our best to have the most accurate and up-to-date information available on our web site, but we cannot guarantee that all of the information provided is error-free.
If you have any updates, corrections, or complaints related to this notice, please contact the responsible purchaser directly.