Case Digest (G.R. No. 133250)
Facts:
Francisco I. Chavez v. Public Estates Authority and Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation, G.R. No. 133250, July 09, 2002, Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Frank I. Chavez (taxpayer and former Solicitor General). Respondents are the Public Estates Authority (PEA) and Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation (AMARI).The dispute arises from reclamation works and subsequent contractual arrangements for portions of Manila Bay. In 1973 the government (through the Commissioner of Public Highways) contracted with the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) to reclaim foreshore and offshore areas and build the Manila–Cavite Coastal Road; CDCP was to receive 50% of reclaimed land. In 1977 President Marcos issued PD No. 1084 creating PEA (empowered to reclaim and to develop, lease and sell lands) and PD No. 1085 transferring reclaimed lands under the Manila–Cavite project to PEA. A 1981 memorandum and a subsequent Memorandum of Agreement between PEA and CDCP modified financing and ceded CDCP’s development rights in specified reclaimed areas to PEA. In 1988 President Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517 and the Register of Deeds issued TCTs in PEA’s name for the partially reclaimed Freedom Islands (about 157.84 ha).
In April 1995 PEA and AMARI executed a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA), negotiated without public bidding, to develop the Freedom Islands and to reclaim an additional 250 hectares; the PEA Board confirmed the JVA and the President approved it. Senate investigations (triggered by a 1996 privilege speech) produced Committee Report No. 560 (1997) concluding the lands were public domain and the JVA illegal; a Presidential Legal Task Force later sustained the JVA’s legality. Media reports in April 1998 disclosed on‑going renegotiations between PEA and AMARI. A separate petition (G.R. No. 132994) to nullify the JVA was dismissed for disregard of judicial hierarchy.
On April 27, 1998 petitioner Chavez filed an original Petition for Mandamus (with prayer for preliminary injunction and TRO) asking the Court to compel PEA to disclose terms of any renegotiation and to enjoin PEA from signing any new agreement with AMARI; the petition invoked Article II, Sec. 28 and Art. III, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution (right to information), and alleged unconstitutional alienation of public-domain lands in violation of Art. XII. After motions and filings, the Court gave due course and required memoranda (Resolution, March 23, 1999). PEA and AMARI signed an Ame...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are the principal reliefs in the petition moot and academic because PEA and AMARI had already signed and furnished the Amended JVA?
- Does the petition merit dismissal for failure to observe the hierarchy of courts?
- Does the petition merit dismissal for non‑exhaustion of administrative remedies?
- Does petitioner have locus standi to bring this taxpayers’ suit?
- Does the constitutional right to information include official information on on‑going negotiations prior to consummation of a contract?
- Do stipulations in the Amended JVA transferring reclaimed and to‑be‑reclaimed lands to AMARI violate Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution?
- Is the Supreme Court the proper forum to dec...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)