Case Summary (G.R. No. 133250)
Original Reclamation Contract
1973 contract between government (Commissioner of Public Highways) and CDCP provided CDCP would reclaim Manila Bay foreshore/offshore areas and build coastal road in exchange for 50 percent of reclaimed land.
Creation and Charter of PEA
PD 1084 (1977) creates PEA to reclaim, develop, lease, dispose of lands; PD 1085 (1977) transfers reclaimed areas under the Manila-Cavite project from DPWH to PEA; CDCP cedes its rights in reclaimed lands to PEA under 1981 memorandum agreement.
Title and Patent to Freedom Islands
1988 Special Patent No. 3517 grants approximately 1.9 million m² of reclaimed land (Freedom Islands) to PEA; corresponding Torrens titles issued in PEA’s name in April 1988, covering 157.841 ha.
1995 Joint Venture Agreement
PEA and AMARI enter JVA without public bidding to develop Freedom Islands and to reclaim additional 250 ha; 60–40 sharing; presidential approval secured in 1995.
Senate Investigation and Legal Task Force
1996 privilege speech by Senate President prompts joint Senate probe; Report No. 560 (1997) finds lands are public domain, titles void, JVA illegal; Presidential Administrative Order 365 (1997) convenes Legal Task Force which concludes JVA legal.
Petition for Review and Amended JVA
1998 petition filed by Chavez; PEA and AMARI negotiate amended JVA signed March 1999 and approved by President Estrada in May 1999; petitioner amends prayers to void renegotiated agreement.
Issues Presented
I. Mootness of disclosure and injunction prayers
II. Hierarchy of courts principle
III. Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies
IV. Petitioner’s locus standi
V. Scope of constitutional right to information
VI. Constitutional validity of land-transfer stipulations in Amended JVA
VII. Proper forum for challenging grossly disadvantageous agreements
Justiciability and Mootness
Court holds that signing and approval of Amended JVA do not moot petition because implementation remains and constitutional issues persist; supervening events cannot bar relief against unconstitutional contracts.
Original Jurisdiction and Hierarchy of Courts
As a petition for mandamus raising pure questions of law and constitutional importance, the Supreme Court may directly entertain the case under Article VIII, § 5.
Administrative Remedies
PEA’s failure to disclose required information on public bidding obligation negates need for demand; exhaustion doctrine inapplicable where only legal/constitutional questions are involved.
Taxpayer Standing
Petitioner has standing to enforce public rights—to information and to equitable diffusion of public lands—given the transcendent public importance and his status as citizen and taxpayer.
Right to Information Scope
Under Art. III § 7 and Art. II § 28, public may access official records and documents pertaining to “definite propositions” in ongoing negotiations; right encompasses documents revealing governmental transaction terms once a definite proposal exists.
Regalian Doctrine and Public Lands
All foreshore and submerged lands are State-owned public domain; reclamation does not alter public-domain status absent official classification as alienable and declaration of non-need for public service.
Classification and Disposition under CA 141
CA 141 (Public Land Act) requires: (1) presidential classification of public-domain lands as “alienable or disposable,” (2) declaration they are open to disposition, (3) determination they are not needed for public service, and (4) public bidding for lease or sale; reclaimed lands are classified as “alienable and disposable” but sales only by lease to private corporations and sale only to individuals.
PEA’s Legislative Authority to Sell
PEA charter (PD 1084) authorizes PEA to sell lands—including patrimonial and public-domain lands—subject to constitutional limitations; legislative authority satisfies requirement under Revised Administrative Code that real‐property conveyance be law-authorized.
Public Bidding Requirement
Government Auditing Code and CA 141 mandate public auction for disposal of valuable assets; negotiated sale permitted only if auction fails and CO
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 133250)
Procedural Context
- Original petition for mandamus with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order
- Filed by Frank I. Chavez as taxpayer to compel Public Estates Authority (PEA) to disclose terms of renegotiations with Amari and to enjoin signature of new agreement
- PEA and Amari later signed an amended Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) on March 30, 1999 and obtained presidential approval on May 28, 1999
- Petition raises constitutional issues under Sections 2 and 3, Article XII; Sections 7, Article III and 28, Article II of the 1987 Constitution
Historical and Statutory Background
- 1973 contract: Government (Commissioner of Public Highways) and CDCP to reclaim Manila Bay foreshore/offshore and build coastal road in exchange for 50% of reclaimed land
- February 4, 1977, PD 1084 creates PEA with power to reclaim, develop, lease, sell lands of public domain
- February 4, 1977, PD 1085 transfers MCCRRP-reclaimed lands to PEA, subject to CDCP’s contractual rights
- 1981 Memorandum of Agreement: CDCP cedes development rights and reclaimed lands to PEA; PEA funds all future works
- January 19, 1988, Special Patent No. 3517 grants PEA title to 1,915,894 sqm of reclaimed land; April 9, 1988, Transfer Certificates of Title issued for 1,578,441 sqm known as “Freedom Islands”
Joint Venture Agreements with Amari
- April 25, 1995, PEA and Amari enter JVA to develop Freedom Islands and reclaim an additional 250 ha; no public bidding
- April 28, 1995, PEA Board Resolution No. 1245 confirms JVA; June 8, 1995, President Ramos approves
- Senate investigations (1996–1997) conclude reclaimed lands are public domain, titles void, JVA illegal
- December 1997, President Ramos creates Legal Task Force which upholds JVA legality
- Early 1998 reports of PEA–Amari renegotiations; April 27, 1998, Chavez files petition for mandamus
Issues Presented
- Whether principal reliefs are moot and academic after signing and approval of Amended JVA
- Whether petition should be dismissed for ignoring the judicial hierarchy
- Whether mandamus is barred by non-exhaustion of administrative remedies
- Whether petitioner has locus standi as taxpayer-citizen
- Whether constitutional right to information covers on-going negotiations
- Whether Amended JVA stipulations violate Sections 2 and 3, Article XII on alienation of