case study chavez

Content type

User Generated

Type

Study Guide

Uploaded By

Nffvtazragrkcreg96

Pages

Rating

Chavez v PEA and AMARI G.R. No. 133250. July 9, 2002.

07/06/2010

0 Comments

Facts: 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, lease and sell any and all kinds of lands." 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" under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation

Project (MCCRRP).

On January 19, 1988, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517, granting

and transferring to PEA "the parcels of land so reclaimed under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and

Reclamation Project (MCCRRP) containing a total area of one million nine hundred fifteen thousand

eight hundred ninety four (1,915,894) square meters." Subsequently, on April 9, 1988, the Register of

Deeds of the Municipality of Parañaque issued Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 7309, 7311, and

7312, in the name of PEA, covering the three reclaimed islands known as the "Freedom Islands"

located at the southern portion of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road, Parañaque City.

PEA and AMARI entered into the JVA through negotiation without public bidding. On April 28,

1995, the Board of Directors of PEA, in its Resolution No. 1245, confirmed the JVA. On June 8, 1995,

then President Fidel V. Ramos, through then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, approved the JVA.

The Senate Committees reported the results of their investigation in Senate Committee Report No.

560 dated September 16, 1997. Among the conclusions of their report are: (1) the reclaimed lands PEA

seeks to transfer to AMARI under the JVA are lands of the public domain which the government has

not classified as alienable lands and therefore PEA cannot alienate these lands; (2) the certificates of

title covering the Freedom Islands are thus void, and (3) the JVA itself is illegal.

On December 5, 1997, then President Fidel V. Ramos issued Presidential Administrative Order No.

365 creating a Legal Task Force to conduct a study on the legality of the JVA in view of Senate

Committee Report No. 560. The members of the Legal Task Force were the Secretary of Justice, the

Chief Presidential Legal Counsel, and the Government Corporate Counsel. The Legal Task Force

upheld the legality of the JVA, contrary to the conclusions reached by the Senate Committees.

On April 27, 1998, petitioner Frank I. Chavez ("Petitioner" for brevity) as a taxpayer, filed the

instant Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and

Temporary Restraining Order. Petitioner contends the government stands to lose billions of pesos in the

sale by PEA of the reclaimed lands to AMARI. Petitioner prays that PEA publicly disclose the terms of

any renegotiation of the JVA, invoking Section 28, Article II, and Section 7, Article III, of the 1987

Constitution on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern.

Due to the approval of the Amended JVA by the Office of the President, petitioner now prays that

on "constitutional and statutory grounds the renegotiated contract be declared null and void."

Issue: The issues raised by petitioner, PEA and AMARI are as follows:

1. Whether the reliefs prayed for are moot and academic because of subsequent events;

2. Whether the petition should be dismissed for failing to observe the principle of governing the

heirarchy of courts;

3. Whether the petition should be dismissed for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies;

4. Whether petitioner has locus standi;

5. Whether the constitutional right to information includes information on on-going neogtiations

BEFORE a final agreement;

6. Whether the stipulations in the amended joint venture agreement for the transfer to AMARI of

certain lands, reclaimed and still to be reclaimed violate the 1987 Constitution; and

7. Whether the Court has jurisdiction over the issue whether the amended JVA is grossly

disadvantageous to the government

Held: 1. We rule that the signing and of the Amended JVA by PEA and AMARI and its approval by

the President cannot operate to moot the petition and divest the Court of its jurisdiction.

PEA and AMARI have still to implement the Amended JVA. The prayer to enjoin the signing of the

Amended JVA on constitutional grounds necessarily includes preventing its implementation if in the

meantime PEA and AMARI have signed one in violation of the Constitution. Petitioner's principal

basis in assailing the renegotiation of the JVA is its violation of the Section 3, Article XII of the

Constitution, which prohibits the government from alienating lands of the public domain to private

corporations. The Amended JVA is not an ordinary commercial contract but one which seeks to

transfer title and ownership to 367.5 hectares of reclaimed lands and submerged areas of Manila Bay to

a single private corporation.

Also, the instant petition is a case of first impression being a wholly government owned corporation

performing public as well as proprietary functions. All previous decisions of the Court involving

Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, or its counterpart provision in the 1973 Constitution,

covered agricultural lands sold to private corporations which acquired the lands from private parties.

Lastly, there is a need to resolve immediately the constitutional issue raised in this petition because

of the possible transfer at any time by PEA to AMARI of title and ownership to portions of the

reclaimed lands. Under the Amended JVA, PEA is obligated to transfer to AMARI the latter's seventy

percent proportionate share in the reclaimed areas as the reclamation progresses, The Amended JVA

even allows AMARI to mortgage at any time the entire reclaimed area to raise financing for the

reclamation project.

2. The instant case, however, raises constitutional issues of transcendental importance to the public.

The Court can resolve this case without determining any factual issue related to the case. Also, the

instant case is a petition for mandamus which falls under the original jurisdiction of the Court under

Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution. We resolve to exercise primary jurisdiction over the instant

case.

3. PEA was under a positive legal duty to disclose to the public the terms and conditions for the sale

of its lands. The law obligated PEA make this public disclosure even without demand from petitioner

or from anyone. PEA failed to make this public disclosure because the original JVA, like the Amended

JVA, was the result of a negotiated contract, not of a public bidding. Considering that PEA had an

affirmative statutory duty to make the public disclosure, and was even in breach of this legal duty,

petitioner had the right to seek direct judicial intervention.

The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply when the issue involved is a

purely legal or constitutional question. The principal issue in the instant case is the capacity of AMARI

to acquire lands held by PEA in view of the constitutional ban prohibiting the alienation of lands of the

public domain to private corporations. We rule that the principle of exhaustion of administrative

remedies does not apply in the instant case.

The petitioner has standing to bring this taxpayer's suit because the petition seeks to compel PEA to

comply with its constitutional duties. There are two constitutional issues involved here. First is the right

of citizens to information on matters of public concern. Second is the application of a constitutional

provision intended to insure the equitable distribution of alienable lands of the public domain among

Filipino Citizens.

The thrust of the second issue is to prevent PEA from alienating hundreds of hectares of alienable lands

of the public domain in violation of the Constitution, compelling PEA to comply with a constitutional

duty to the nation.

4. Ordinary taxpayers have a right to initiate and prosecute actions questioning the validity of acts or

orders of government agencies or instrumentalities, if the issues raised are of 'paramount public

interest,' and if they 'immediately affect the social, economic and moral well being of the people.'

We rule that 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, the petitioner has the requisite locus standi.

End of Preview - Want to read all 5 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Chavez v PEA and AMARI G.R. No. 133250. July 9, 2002. 07/06/2010 0 Comments Facts: 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, lease and sell any and all kinds of lands." 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" under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP). On January 19, 1988, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517, granting and transferring to PEA "the parcels of land so reclaimed under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP) containing a total area of one million nine hundred fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety four (1,915,894) square meters." Subsequently, on April 9, 1988, the Register of Deeds of the Municipality of Parañaque issued Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 7309, 7311, and 7312, in the name of PEA, covering the three reclaimed islands known as the "Freedom Islands" located at the southern portion of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road, Parañaque City. PEA and AMARI entered into the JVA through negotiation without public bidding. On April 28, 1995, the Board of Directors of PEA, in its Resolution No. 1245, confirmed the JVA. On June 8, 1995, then President Fidel ...
Purchase document to see full attachment