Francisco Chavez vs.

Public Estates Authority and Amari Coastal Bay Development

Corporation
Right to Access Information
Sec. 7 Art. III
FACTS
1. On November 20, 1973, the government, through the Commissioner of Public Highways,
signed a contract with the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines
("CDCP" for brevity) to reclaim certain foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay. The contract
also included the construction of Phases I and II of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road. CDCP
obligated itself to carry out all the works in consideration of fifty percent of the total reclaimed
land.
2. On February 4, 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No.
1084 creating PEA. PD No. 1084 tasked PEA "to reclaim land, including foreshore and
submerged areas," and "to develop, improve, acquire, x x x lease and sell any and all kinds of
lands."1 On the same date, then President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1085
transferring to PEA the "lands reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore of the Manila Bay"2
under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP).
3. On December 29, 1981 President Marcos issued a memo directing PEA to amend its contract
stating that all future works in MCCRRP shall be funded and owned by PEA. Accordingly, PEA
and CDCP executed a MOA that all reclamation construction and works in MCCRRP shall be
undertaken by CDCP to be financed by PEA, that CDCP shall further give up all its rights and
thereby agrees to cede and transfer it in favor of PEA.
4. On January 19, 1988 then president Corazon Aquino granted the transfer to PEA the parcels
of land reclaimed under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project with a total
area of 1,915,894 square meters, covering the area of freedom island with a total land area of
1,578,441 square meters
5. On 1995, PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with AMARI a private corporation to
complete the development of the Freedom Island in accordance with Master Development Plan
which required reclamation of additional 250hectares of submerged areas.
6. On November 29, 1996 then Senate President Maceda in his privileged speech presented the
conclusion of the senate report in their investigation that the reclaimed lands PEA seeks to
transfer to AMARI under the JVA are lands of the public domain no classified as alienable; the
certificate of title covering freedom islands are thus void and the JVA itself is illegal.
PETITIONER
Frank Chavez in his capacity as a taxpayer filed the Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for the
issuance of a writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.
a. He assails the sale to AMARI of lands of the public domain as a blatant violation of
section 3 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting the sale of alienable lands of
public domain to private corporations;
DEFENDANT
a. Public Estates Authority sought the transfer to the Amari Coastal Bay and Development
Corporation, of the ownership of a portion of the Freedom Island and furthermore sought
to have 290.156 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay to Amari. Claiming that

under the provisions of PD No. 1084 they are cloaked with authority to reclaim land,
including foreshore and submerged areas, to develop, improve, acquire, administer, lease
and sell any and all kinds of lands, and to hold lands of the public domain.
b. PEA asserts, citing Chavez v. PCGG,31 that in cases of on-going negotiations the right to
information is limited to "definite propositions of the government." PEA maintains the
right does not include access to "intra-agency or inter-agency recommendations or
communications during the stage when common assertions are still in the process of
being formulated or are in the 'exploratory stage'
c. Also, AMARI contends that petitioner cannot invoke the right at the pre-decisional stage
or before the closing of the transaction that there must first be a consummated contract
before petitioner can invoke the right. Requiring government officials to reveal their
deliberations at the pre-decisional stage will degrade the quality of decision-making in
government agencies. Government officials will hesitate to express their real sentiments
during deliberations if there is immediate public dissemination of their discussions,
putting them under all kinds of pressure before they decide.
ISSUE
a. Whether or not the transfer of land to AMARI is void.
b. Whether or not the constitutional right to information includes official information on ongoing negotiations before a final contract.
HELD
a. No. To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be transferred to
Amari as private lands will sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on private
corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. The
Supreme Court affirmed that the 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the
Freedom Islands, now covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable
lands of the public domain. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay
remain inalienable natural resources of the public domain. The transfer (as embodied in a
joint venture agreement) to AMARI, a private corporation, ownership of 77.34 hectares of
the Freedom Islands, is void for being contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable
land of the public domain. Furthermore, since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to
Amari ownership of 290.156 hectares of still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such
transfer is void for being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which
prohibits the alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the public
domain.
b. Information, on on-going evaluation or review of bids or proposals being undertaken
by the bidding or review committee is not immediately accessible under the right to
information. While the evaluation or review is still on-going, there are no "official acts,
transactions, or decisions" on the bids or proposals. However, once the committee makes
its official recommendation, there arises a "definite proposition" on the part of the
government. From this moment, the public's right to information attaches, and any
citizen can access all the non-proprietary information leading to such definite proposition
Contrary to AMARI's contention, the commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission understood that the right to information "contemplates inclusion of
negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction." Certainly, a
consummated contract is not a requirement for the exercise of the right to information.
Otherwise, the people can never exercise the right if no contract is consummated, and if
one is consummated, it may be too late for the public to expose its defects.1wphi1.nt

Requiring a consummated contract will keep the public in the dark until the contract,
which may be grossly disadvantageous to the government or even illegal, becomes a fait
accompli. This negates the State policy of full transparency on matters of public concern,
a situation which the framers of the Constitution could not have intended. Such a
requirement will prevent the citizenry from participating in the public discussion of
any proposed contract, effectively truncating a basic right enshrined in the Bill of
Rights. We can allow neither an emasculation of a constitutional right, nor a retreat by
the State of its avowed "policy of full disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest."
The right covers three categories of information which are "matters of public concern," namely:
(1) official records; (2) documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions and
decisions; and (3) government research data used in formulating policies. The first category
refers to any document that is part of the public records in the custody of government agencies
or officials. The second category refers to documents and papers recording, evidencing,
establishing, confirming, supporting, justifying or explaining official acts, transactions or
decisions of government agencies or officials. The third category refers to research data,
whether raw, collated or processed, owned by the government and used in formulating
government policies.
The information that petitioner may access on the renegotiation of the JVA includes evaluation
reports, recommendations, legal and expert opinions, minutes of meetings, terms of reference
and other documents attached to such reports or minutes, all relating to the JVA. However, the
right to information does not compel PEA to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like
relating to the renegotiation of the JVA. 34 The right only affords access to records, documents
and papers, which means the opportunity to inspect and copy them. One who exercises the
right must copy the records, documents and papers at his expense. The exercise of the right is
also subject to reasonable regulations to protect the integrity of the public records and to
minimize disruption to government operations, like rules specifying when and how to conduct
the inspection and copying.35
The right to information, however, does not extend to matters recognized as privileged
information under the separation of powers. 36 The right does not also apply to information on
military and diplomatic secrets, information affecting national security, and information on
investigations of crimes by law enforcement agencies before the prosecution of the accused,
which courts have long recognized as confidential. 37 The right may also be subject to other
limitations that Congress may impose by law.
There is no claim by PEA that the information demanded by petitioner is privileged information
rooted in the separation of powers. The information does not cover Presidential conversations,
correspondences, or discussions during closed-door Cabinet meetings which, like internal
deliberations of the Supreme Court and other collegiate courts, or executive sessions of either
house of Congress,38 are recognized as confidential. This kind of information cannot be pried
open by a co-equal branch of government. A frank exchange of exploratory ideas and
assessments, free from the glare of publicity and pressure by interested parties, is essential to
protect the independence of decision-making of those tasked to exercise Presidential,
Legislative and Judicial power.39This is not the situation in the instant case.
We rule, therefore, that the constitutional right to information includes official information
on on-going negotiations before a final contract. The information, however, must constitute
definite propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions like
privileged information, military and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national
security and public order. Congress has also prescribed other limitations on the right to
information in several legislations.

Considering that the Amended JVA is null and void ab initio, there is no necessity to rule on this
last issue. Besides, the Court is not a trier of facts, and this last issue involves a determination
of factual matters.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Public Estates Authority and Amari Coastal Bay
Development Corporation are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from implementing the Amended
Joint Venture Agreement which is hereby declared NULL and VOID ab initio.
SO ORDERED.