Case Digest (G.R. No. 133250)
Facts:
Francisco I. Chavez v. Public Estates Authority and Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation, G.R. No. 133250, May 06, 2003, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Francisco I. Chavez filed a petition (seeking mandamus with a prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order) to compel Public Estates Authority (PEA) to disclose documents and to enjoin the execution/implementation of a renegotiated Amended Joint Venture Agreement (the Amended JVA) between PEA and private respondent Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation (Amari). The Amended JVA covered the development of the so‑called Freedom Islands (about 157.84 hectares already reclaimed and titled in PEA) and the reclamation of additional submerged areas (about 592.15 hectares) in the Manila Bay project area; under the Amended JVA Amari would receive a 70% share of net usable area (up to 367.5 hectares) as its development share, with various payment/alternative‑payment mechanisms in the contract.
On July 9, 2002 the Court (Carpio, J. ponente) issued a Decision holding, inter alia, that (a) the 157.84 hectares comprising the Freedom Islands titled in PEA are alienable lands of the public domain that PEA may lease but not sell or transfer to private corporations, (b) the 592.15 hectares of submerged Manila Bay are inalienable natural resources until reclaimed and properly classified, and (c) the Amended JVA insofar as it seeks to transfer ownership of reclaimed and still‑submerged areas to Amari is void ab initio for contravening Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution; the Decision also observed that absent public bidding was not central to the Court’s constitutional ratio but was mentioned for guidance.
After promulgation, respondents filed various post‑decision motions: Amari filed (a) a Motion to Inhibit and for Re‑Deliberation, (b) motions for reconsideration and supplements, and (c) a Motion to Set Case for Hearing on Oral Argument; PEA and the Office of the Solicitor General likewise filed motions for reconsideration. Petitioner filed consolidated oppositions. The Court resolved these moti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Must Justice Antonio T. Carpio inhibit from participating in this case for alleged bias and prejudgment based on prior writings?
- Should the case be set for oral argument despite comprehensive pleadings?
- Should the Decision of July 9, 2002 be applied prospectively rather than retroactively?
- Are the motions for reconsideration of the July 9, 2002 Decision meritorious—specifically, should the Court reverse its holding that the Amended JVA is void under Sections 2 ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)