An aerial view of the place where the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) wants to build the LRT-MRT common station captured via UNTV Drone.
QUEZON CITY, Philippines — It was July 30, 2014 when the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the construction of the common station.
This project should have been started long ago if it wasn’t for the request of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to transfer the station’s location.
But LRTA said, if the lifting of the TRO will take long, they may decide to proceed with the first plan to construct the common station in front of SM Annex.
“If this will not prosper, we just proceed as planned, anyway the new proposal came late,” said LRTA Administrator Honorito Chaneco.
The Supreme Court has extended the restraining order it issued against the relocation of the common station.
DOTC and LRTA’s petition to lift the TRO was denied
The TRO enjoined the LRTA and DOTC from proceeding with the transfer of the common station in front of SM City North EDSA to a new site in front of the Trinoma mall.
Based on the decision, the court cannot turn a blind eye to the serious implications of a change in the location of the common station.
It must undergo the legal process if the DOTC wants to start the construction of the common station to its new location for the sake of the riding public.
The SC also deferred action on SM Prime Holdings Inc’s petition for injunction in Pasay Regional Trial Court.
In June 2014, SM Prime sued DOTC and LRTA for violating the agreement to build the common station but the lower court junked the plea of SM Prime.
According to DOTC, the common station was relocated after a study showed government can save Php 800 million to Php 1 billion if the station is built close to Trinoma.
“Each of us must look on our contracts and see if its technically feasible or economically feasible and legally allowed in the contract,” Chaneco explained.
Moreover, the DOTC earlier said the agreement with SM Prime expired in 2011 but SM Prime Holdings claimed there was no expiry date provided in the documents.
(MON JOCSON/UNTV News)