Actualícese con La Prensa Web

Actualícese con La Prensa Web

Translated text for the story:
Panama, Sunday 9 of March of 2008

CONTROVERSY BY CONTRACT OF YOU.
Ceville favors position of Administrative Court

The Attorney General thought that the Court of Public Hirings acted under the law.
Juan Luis Batiste
jlbatista@prensa.com

The decision of the Administrative Court of Public Hirings to adjudge to a contract to the Sagem company, opposing a resolution of the Electoral Court (YOU) that gave the same business him to L-1 Identity Solutions Panama S.A., adjusted to the law.

That is the opinion of the solicitor of the Administration, Óscar Ceville, within a invalidity process that goes ahead in the Room Third of the Court and that is impelled by the legal equipment of YOU.

The magistrates of had requested YOU to the Court to declare null by illegal a resolution of the Court of Hirings of the 8 of November of 2008 that revoked a decision of YOU of the 6 of September of the same year, through which the contract by 3,7 million dollars for a new system of citizen identification was adjudged, to L-1.

Ceville says that the Court of Hirings yes has competition to know resources opposition that present/display against public organizations.

YOU, who did not know the acted thing by the Court of Public Hirings alleging that Sagem falseó information, it argues that the competition to adjudge licitations "is only and exclusively of the head of the licitante organization or the civil employee who this one delegates".

But to deny this faculty to the Administrative Court, according to Ceville, would be in opposition to the principles of transparency and which had process that governs the public hiring in Law 22 of 27 of June of 2006.

Ceville bases its position on which article 49 of the law of public hirings raises that "the people who consider themselves offended with the decision they will be able to resort by the governmental route". And that was what Sagem did.

The contralor Carlos Vallarino authenticated the contract with L-1 after which the magistrates invoked the Law 32 of 1984 which he allows that a contract is authenticated by insistence. However, Vallarino said that any responsibility that is derived from that act will fall to the magistrates.

The Room Third of the Court takes the opinion from Ceville like reference to pronounce itself.