How Can Contractors Prevent Collusion in Public Auctions?
Introduction
Government procurement depends on genuine competition. When contractors use gifts, promises, threats, or similar schemes to keep competitors away from a public auction, the government may receive a reduced price, lose the benefit of competitive bidding, or award a contract under distorted conditions.
Philippine law treats these acts as criminal conduct. Machinations in public auctions may also render the resulting agreement void and expose the participants to civil, administrative, procurement, and criminal consequences.
What Are Machinations in Public Auctions?
Article 185 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes two related forms of conduct:
- soliciting a gift or promise in exchange for refraining from participating in a public auction; and
- attempting to make bidders stay away from an auction through threats, gifts, promises, or any other artifice, with the intent of reducing the auction price.
The law imposes prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine ranging from 10% to 50% of the value of the thing auctioned. These penalties apply to the person who solicits the gift or promise as well as to the person who attempts to keep bidders away from the auction.
The governing provision is Article 185 of Act No. 3815, or the Revised Penal Code.
What Must Be Proven?
For liability under Article 185, the prosecution must establish the legally material circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. These generally include the following:
| Required circumstance | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Public auction | The conduct must relate to an auction conducted for a public purpose or by a public entity. |
| Gift, promise, threat, or other artifice | The accused must have used or solicited a prohibited inducement or scheme. |
| Connection with participation | The inducement or scheme must be directed at causing a person to refrain from bidding or causing bidders to stay away. |
| Intent to reduce the price | The conduct must be intended to lessen the competitive price of the property or subject of the auction. |
The statute does not require that the auction price actually be reduced before liability may arise. The express wording covers an attempt to cause bidders to stay away, provided the required intent is present.
How Does This Differ from Bid Collusion?
Article 185 addresses specific schemes involving gifts, promises, threats, or similar devices intended to reduce the price in a public auction. Government procurement statutes separately penalize broader forms of collusive bidding.
Under Section 65 of the Government Procurement Reform Act, private individuals may be criminally liable for agreeing to submit different bids as if they were genuine bids, submitting bids through entities in which they have an interest to create a false appearance of competition, agreeing that one bidder will refrain from bidding or withdraw a bid, or employing schemes that restrain rivalry and suppress competition.
These offenses carry imprisonment of not less than six years and one day but not more than fifteen years, together with disqualification from transacting business with the government. The same provision also covers public officers who conspire with private individuals.
For procurement activities governed by the current procurement statute, the applicable rules must be checked under the New Government Procurement Act and its implementing regulations. The statute requires disclosure of specified relationships and beneficial ownership information, and it provides for sanctions involving corrupt, fraudulent, collusive, and coercive practices.
When Can the Revised Penal Code Apply?
Article 185 directly applies to machinations in public auctions. Procurement-related conduct may also fall under other criminal statutes, depending on the acts alleged and proved.
For example, a private contractor may face liability under procurement laws for suppressing competition, while a public officer may separately face prosecution under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act if the evidence establishes the statutory elements of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, together with undue injury to the government or an unwarranted benefit to a private party.
Multiple offenses may arise from one procurement transaction, but the prosecution must allege and prove the elements of each offense. In People of the Philippines v. Yap, et al., G.R. No. 255087, 2023, the Supreme Court emphasized that an accused cannot be convicted for acts or omissions that were not specifically alleged in the Information. The constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation remains controlling.
Examples of Prohibited Conduct
The following situations may indicate machinations or collusive conduct:
- A contractor offers money to a potential bidder in exchange for not attending or participating in the auction.
- A bidder threatens a competitor with economic or physical harm if the competitor submits a bid.
- Several contractors agree that only one of them will submit a meaningful bid while the others submit intentionally uncompetitive bids.
- A contractor uses related corporations to submit multiple bids and create the appearance of competition.
- Bidders agree beforehand that one participant will withdraw or refrain from bidding so that another can obtain the award.
A low number of bidders, standing alone, does not automatically establish collusion. In Jaspe, et al. v. Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office, et al., G.R. No. 251940, 2021, the Supreme Court recognized that collusion must be shown through evidence of a secret understanding and may be inferred from the participants’ collective acts or omissions before, during, and after the bidding. Administrative charges require clear and convincing evidence.
What Evidence May Establish Collusion?
Evidence may include communications between bidders, payment records, coordinated bid prices, identical errors in bidding documents, common representatives, unexplained bid withdrawals, relationships among participating entities, or conduct showing that the bidders did not act independently.
Records showing that a contractor offered or delivered a gift, made a promise, issued a threat, or instructed another bidder to stay away may be particularly significant in a prosecution under Article 185.
However, suspicious circumstances must be distinguished from proof beyond reasonable doubt. In criminal cases, the prosecution must establish every element of the offense with moral certainty. Mere conjecture, a single winning bidder, or an unusually favorable price does not by itself prove a criminal agreement.
What Are the Consequences of an Illegal Procurement Arrangement?
An illegal arrangement may produce several consequences:
- Criminal liability: Article 185 may impose imprisonment and a fine based on the value of the auctioned property.
- Procurement sanctions: Collusive or fraudulent bidders may be disqualified, blacklisted, or permanently barred from transacting with the government, depending on the governing procurement law and applicable rules.
- Contract invalidity: A contract with an illegal cause or object may be void from the beginning.
- Forfeiture: Where the parties are in pari delicto, the subject matter and proceeds of the illegal arrangement may be subject to forfeiture in favor of the government.
- Administrative liability: Public officials and members of procurement committees may face dismissal or other sanctions if their participation in the scheme is established.
In Ouano v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 40203, 1990, the Supreme Court held that a contract involving machinations in public auctions is void ab initio because its cause or object is illegal. The Court further recognized the consequences of the parties’ participation in an unlawful transaction, including the application of the principle of in pari delicto and possible forfeiture under the Civil Code and the Revised Penal Code.
How Can Contractors Avoid Liability?
Contractors should adopt procurement controls that preserve independent decision-making and create a reliable record of compliance.
- Keep bidding decisions independent. Do not agree with another bidder on prices, participation, bid withdrawal, or the identity of the expected winner.
- Prohibit improper payments. Gifts, commissions, promises, or other benefits connected with bidding should be prohibited unless clearly authorized by law and unrelated to influencing the procurement process.
- Review corporate relationships. Related entities should not be used to create a false appearance of competition. Required beneficial ownership and relationship disclosures must be accurate and complete.
- Preserve communications and records. Maintain bid computations, approvals, correspondence, meeting records, and declarations showing that the bid was prepared independently.
- Report improper approaches. A contractor approached with a bribe, threat, or request for coordinated bidding should document the incident and promptly report it through the appropriate procurement, law-enforcement, or oversight channel.
What Should Procuring Entities Watch For?
Procuring entities should examine whether competing bids show signs of coordination. Relevant warning signs may include common typographical errors, identical formatting, similar pricing patterns, common contact details, unusual bid withdrawals, repeated participation by related entities, and unexplained refusal by qualified suppliers to participate.
These indicators should prompt a documented inquiry, but they should not replace the required evidentiary assessment. A procuring entity must distinguish a genuine irregularity from a criminal offense and should observe the applicable notice, hearing, evaluation, and reporting requirements.
Government procurement issuances have also identified collusion, bid suppression, malicious submission of multiple bids, agreements to refrain from bidding, and schemes suppressing competition as conduct warranting procurement sanctions. The applicable issuance depends on the procurement law and rules governing the particular transaction.
Final Observations
Machinations in public auctions are not limited to completed agreements or successful price reductions. Under Article 185 of the Revised Penal Code, soliciting a gift or promise to induce nonparticipation, or attempting through threats, gifts, promises, or another artifice to keep bidders away with the intent to reduce the price, may constitute a criminal offense.
Contractors should therefore treat all bidding contacts, offers, communications, and corporate arrangements as potential compliance issues. Procuring entities should preserve documentary evidence, investigate credible indicators, and refer suspected conduct under the correct criminal, procurement, civil, or administrative provision.
The most effective safeguard is a demonstrably independent bid supported by accurate disclosures, complete records, and a strict prohibition against payments, threats, coordinated withdrawals, and arrangements that suppress competition.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
