Chavez v. Public Estates Authority Abbreviations: 1. PEA Public Estates Authority 2.

. AMARI Amari Coastal Bay and Development Corporation 3. CDCP Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines 4. MCCRRP Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project 5. JVA Joint Venture Agreement 6. TRO Temporary Restraining Order Facts Nov 20, 1973 govt signed a contract with CDCP to reclaim certain forshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay and construction of Phases I and II of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road. Feb 4, 1977 President Marcos issued PD No. 1084 creating PEA (tasked to reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged areas, and to develop, improve, acquire, lease and sell any and all kinds of lands. PD No. 1085 transferred to PEA the lands reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore of Manila Bay under the MCCRRP Dec 29, 1981 Marcos issued memorandum directing PEA to amend its contract with CDCP so that all future works in MCCRRP shall be funded and owned by PEA, and PEA and CDCP made an agreement (see terms and conditions on pages 171-172) January 19, 1988 President Cory Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517, transferring to PEA the parcels of land reclaimed under the MCCRRP April 9, 1988 Transfer Certificates were issued to PEA for the Freedom Islands located at the southern portion of the MCCR. April 25, 1995 PEA entered into a JVA with AMARI (private corporation) to develop the Freedom Islands JVA also required reclamation of an addtl 250 hectares of submerged areas surrounding the islands No public bidding occurred when PEA and AMARI entered into the JVA negotiations April 28, 1995 Resolution No. 1245 of the board of directors of PEA confirmed the JVA June 8, 1995 President Ramos approved the JVA Nov 29, 1996 Sen. Pres. Maceda denounced the JVA as the grandmother of all scams Investigation began, and these conclusions were presented on Sept 16, 1997: o Reclaimed lands PEA seeks to transfer to AMARI are lands of public domain w/c the govt has not classified as aleanable lands and therefore PEA cannot alienate these lands o Certificates of title covering the Freedom Islands are void o JVA is illegal Dec 5, 1997 President Ramos issued Presidential Administrative Order No. 365 creating a legal task force (composed of the Secretary of Justice, Chief Presidential Legal Counsel & Govt Corporate Counsel) to conduct a study on the legality of the JVA Legal Task Force said JVA was legal April 4-5, 1998 Inquirer and Today published reports about the ongoing renegotiations between PEA and AMARI April 13, 1998 Antonio Zulueta filed a Petition for Prohibition with Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction seeking to nullify the JVA Court dismissed petition for unwarranted disregard of judicial hierarchy April 27, 1998 Frank Chavez (taxpayer) filed an instant petition for Mandamus with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and TRO for the ff reasons: Govt may lose billions of pesos in the sale of reclaimed lands Prays that PEA publicly disclose the terms of any renegotiation of the JVA based on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern (Sec 28, art II & sec 7, art III of 87 Consti) Sale to AMARI of lands of public domain is a violation of Sec 3, Art XII of 87 Consti (prohibits sale of alienable lands of public domain to private corps) Seeks to enjoin the loss of billions of pesos in properties of the state that are of public dominion Dec 28, 1998 Chavez filed Omnibus Motion: To require PEA to submit terms of the renegotiated PEA-AMARI contract For issuance of a TRO Set the case for hearing on oral argument March 30, 1999 PEA and AMARI signed the Amended JVA May 28, 1999 President Estrada approved the Amended JVA May 26, 1999 Chavez filed Reiterative Motion for Issuance of TRO but was denied by the Court on June 22, 1999 Petitioner prays that the renegotiated contract be declared null and void

Issues: 1. Main Issue (connected to our topic in class) WON the petitioner has locus standi to bring this suit PEAs arguments: o Petitioner has no standing to institute mandamus proceedings to enforce constitutional right to information w/o showing that PEA refused to perform a duty imposed by the consti o Petitioner has not shown that he will suffer any concrete injury because of the signing or implementation of Amended JVA Courts response: o Petitioner has standing to bring this taxpayers suit because the petition seeks to compel PEA to comply w/ its constitutional duties o 2 constitutional issues involved: right of citizens to information on matters of public concern & application of a constitutional provision intended to insure the equitable distribution of alienable lands of public domain among Filipino citizens o Petition raises matters of transcendental importance to the public Chavez v. PCGG ordinary taxpayers have a right to initiate and prosecute actions questioning the validity of acts or orders of govt agencies or instrumentalities, if the issues raised are of paramount public interest Tanada v. Tuvera when the issue concerns a public right and the object of mandamus is to obtain the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real parties in interest o Since the instant petition, brought by a citizen, involves the enforcement of constitutional rights to information and to the equitable diffusion of natural resources matters of transcendental public importance, petitioner has the requisite locus standi 2. WON the principal reliefs prayed for in the petition are moot and academic because of subsequent events PEAs arguments: o Petition is moot and academic because AMARI gave petitioner on June 21, 1999 a copy of the Amended JVA containing the terms and conditions agreed on in renegotiations PEA has satisfied petitioners prayer for public disclosure of renegotiations o Petitioners prayer to enjoin signing of Amended JVA is moot because PEA and AMARI already signed the Amended JVA and the president approved the Amended JVA (Petitioner says presidential approval does not resolve the constitutional issue or not allow judicial review) Courts response: o Signing of Amended JVA and approval by president cannot make the petition moot and deny the Court of its jurisdiction o Prayer to enjoin includes preventing its implementation if JVA is unconstitutional but was already signed, and it is the duty of the Court to annul the effects of such unconstitutional contracts o Previous events, whether intended or accidental, cannot prevent the court from rendering a decision if there is a grave violation of the Consti, which in this case is a violation of Sec 3, article XII 3. WON the petition merits dismissal for failing to observe the principle governing the hierarchy of courts PEAs arguments: o Petitioner ignored judicial hierarchy by seeking relief directly to court because Court is not a trier of facts, so Court cannot entertain cases involving factual issues Courts response: o Court can resolve case without determining any factual issue related to case because this case raises constitutional issues of transcendental importance to the public o Petition for mandamus falls under original jurisdiction of Court under Sec 5, Art VIII of Constitution WON petition merits dismissal for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies PEAs arguments: o Petitioner did not ask PEA for needed information before seeking judicial intervention o Violates rule that mandamus may issue only if there is no other plain & adequate way to remedy o PEA claims it has no affirmative statutory duty to disclose publicly information about its renegotiation of JVA Courts response: o Under sec 79 of Government Auditing Code, the disposition of govt lands to private parties requires public bidding o PEA was obligated by law to make public disclosure even without demand from petitioner or anyone o The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply when the issue involved is a purely legal or constitutional question

4.

5.

WON the constitutional right to information includes official info on on-going negotiations before a final agreement PEAs arguments: o In cases of on-going negotiations, the right to information is limited to definite propositions of the government and does not include access to communications during the exploratory stage or during the predecisional stage or before closing the transaction. o A consummated contract is required before invoking the right to information Courts response: o Before consummation of contract, PEA must on its own disclose to the public matters relating to the disposition of its property including size, location, technical description and nature of property being disposed, minimum price, who can bid, etc because Govt Auditing Code requires public bidding o Information on on-going evaluation or review of bids on proposals are not public information until the bidding or review committee makes its official recommendation and a definite proposition arises on the part of the govt (this is when public has right to information) o Consummated contract is not a requirement for exercise of right to info because once a contract is consummated, it may be too late for the public to expose its defects (defeats purpose of right to info) WON stipulations in the Amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of lands, reclaimed or to be reclaimed, violate the constitution Court says: o Freedom Islands, which are owned by PEA, are alienable lands of public domain. PEA may only lease these lands to private corporations but may not sell or transfer ownership to them. PEA may only sell the lands to Philippine citizens o Inalienable natural resources like the submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable until classified as disposable lands and declared no longer needed for public service. Govt can only make such classification and declaration only after PEA has reclaimed submerged areas and only then can these lands qualify as agri lands of the public domain, w/c are the only nat. resources the govt can alienate. o Transfer of the Freedom Islands to AMARI, a private corp., is void for being contrary to Sec 3, article XII of 87 Consti w/c prohibits private corps. From acquiring any kind of alienable land of public domain o Transfer of submerged areas of Manila Bay to AMARI is void for being contrary to sec 2, art. XII of 87 Consti, w/c prohibits alienation of nat. resources other than agri lands of public domain. Even if PEA reclaims these submerged areas and govt classifies them as alienable or disposable, the transfer of these to AMARI will still be void in view of sec 3, art XII of 87 consti. WON the court is the proper forum to raise the issue of WON the Amended JVA is grossly disadvantageous to the govt o No necessity to rule on this issue because Amended JVA is null and void ab initio o Court is not a trier of facts, and this issue involves determination of factual matters

6.

7.

Ruling: Petition is granted. PEA and AMARI are permanently enjoined from implementing the Amended JVA which is declared null and void ab initio.