Chavez v.

Public Estates Authority and Amari Coastal Bay

Development Corporation
KEY TAKE-AWAY:
This case covers multiple topics, but in relation to the
immediate topic to be discussed (Citizen Standing), the case
provides 2 requisites for one to raise an issue as a CITIZEN: (1) it
is for the enforcement of a right and (2) it is espoused by a Filipino
citizen.
It also provided that TAXPAYERS SUIT can also be filed if the
issue raised is a matter of Transcendental Importance - issues
of paramount public interest and which immediately affect the
social, economic, and moral well-being of the people
DATE/ GR #/ SCRA: July 9, 2002; GR 133250
PETITIONERS: Francisco Chavez
REPONDENTS: Public Estates Authority (PEA), Amari Coastal bay
Development Corporation (Amari)
PONENTE: Carpio, J.
FACTS:
Petition:
Original petition for Mandamus with prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order
Petition seeks to enjoin PEA from signing a new agreement
with Amari involving such reclamation
Compel PEA to disclose all facts on its then-ongoing
renegotiations with Amari to reclaim portions of Manila Bay
Factual Antecedents:
Nov 20, 1973: Commissioner of Public Highways contracted the
Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines
(CDCP) to (1) reclaim certain foreshore and offshore areas of
Manila Bay and (2) construct Phases I and II of the ManilaCavite Coastal Road
o CDCP agreed, provided that they will keep 50% of the
total reclaimed land
Feb 5, 1977: PMarcos issued PDs 1084 and 1085, creating PEA
and giving it jurisdiction over the reclaimed Manila Bay lands
Dec 29, 1981: Marcos issued a memorandum directing PEA to
amend its contract to CDCP, such that all future works in the
Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP)
will be owned by PEA. Thereafter, PEA and CDCP executed a
Memorandum of Agreement which provided the following:

CBCP will undertake all of the agreed upon reclamation

and construction work in the MCCRRP and will be paid
according progress of its work
o All of the required financing will be provided by PEA
o CDCP transfers to PEA all of its rights to, titles to,
interest in, and participation in all of the reclaimed
lands which have not yet been sold or disposed of by
CDCP as of Dec 30, 1981.
o Such areas consist of approximately 99,473 m2 in the
Financial Center area and 3,382,888 m2 of reclaimed
area
Jan 19, 1988: PAquino issued Special Patent No. 3517, which
granted and transferred to PEA the parcels of land reclaimed
under the MCCRRP (1,915,894 m2)
Apr 9, 1988: Paranaque Register of Deeds issued Transfer
Certificates of Title # 7309, 7311, 7312 in the name of PEA
o Covered the Freedom Islands (3 reclaimed islands with
a total area of 1,578,441 m2) in the southern portion of
the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road
Apr 25, 1995: PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA)
with Amari to (1) develop the Freedom Islands and (2) reclaim
250 more hectares of submerged areas surrounding the
islands, in accordance with the MCCRRP Master Development
Plan
Apr 28, 1995: PEA Board of Directors confirmed the JVA
(Resolution 1245)
June 8, 1995: PRamos approved the JVA through Executive
Secretary Torres
Nov 26, 1998: Senate President Maceda delivered a privilege
speech denouncing the JVA as a scam, which led to a joint
investigation by 2 senate committees. They reported the ff:
o Reclaimed lands PEA wants to transfer to Amari under
the JVA are lands of public domain which the govt has
not classified as alienable PEA cannot alienate these
o Thus, the Cert. of Titles covering the Freedom Isl. are
void
o JVA itself is illegal
Dec 5, 1997: PRamos issued Presidential Administrative Order
365, creating a legal taskforce to study the JVAs legality, which
eventually concluded that the JVA was legal
Apr 4-5, 1998: Inquirer and Today reported that there were ongoing renegotiations between PEA and Amari
o

Apr 27, 1998: Petitioner (as a taxpayer) filed for a petition for
an issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and TRO
Dec 28, 1998: Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion
o Requiring PEA to submit the terms of the renegotiated
PEA-Amari contract
o Issuance of TRO (SC denied this on June 22, 1999)
o Set the case for hearing on oral argument
Mar 30, 1999: PEA and Amari signed the Amended JVA
May 28, 1999: PEstrada approved the Amended JVA
o Given this development, petitioner seeks to have the
Amended JVA declared null and void on constitutional
and statutory grounds

agricultural, forest/timber, mineral lands, and national

parks."
Regalian Doctrine:
o The State owns all lands and waters of the public
domain
o All lands that were not acquired from the Government,
either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public
domain.
Commonwealth Act 141 (Public Land Act)
o Sec. 6: Empowers the president to classify lands of the
public domain from inalienable to alienable, as
recommended by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce
o Sec. 60: Prior to disposal or leasing, the land must first
be determined as not necessary for public service
o congressional authority must be given before lands that
the government previously transferred to government
units or entities can be sold to private parties
Civil Code of 1950s definition of properties of public dominion
1. intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers,
torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State,
banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar
character
2. belong to the State, without being for public use, and
are intended for some public service or for the
development of the national wealth
o Property of public dominion, when no longer intended
for public use or for public service, shall form part of the
patrimonial property of the State

Statute Involved:
PD 1084
o Created PEA and tasked it with land reclamation and
development for the purpose of leasing and selling any
and all kinds of lands

PD 1085
o Transferred to PEA the lands reclaimed in the foreshore
and offshore areas of Manila Bay under the MCCRRP
1987 Constitution
o Sec. 28, Art II: Subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements
a policy of full public disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest.
o Sec. 7, Art III: The right of the people to information on
matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records, and to documents, and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
Position of Petitioners:
well as to government research data used as basis for
The Govt stands to lose billions in PEAs sale of the reclaimed
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen,
lands
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
PEA should disclose to the public the terms of the
o Sec. 2, Art XII: prohibits the alienation of natural
renegotiation, invoking Sec. 28, Art. II and Sec. 7, Art. III of the
resources other than agricultural lands of the public
1987 Constitution (right of the people to information on
domain
matters of public concern)
rationale: Government reclaimed, foreshore and
Sale to Amari of lands of public domain violates Sec. 3, Art. XII
marshy public lands for non-agricultural purposes retain
of the Constitution (sale of alienable lands of public domain to
their inherent potential as future areas for public
private corporations is prohibited)
service
Loss of billions of pesos in State properties of public dominion
o Sec. 3, Art XII: prohibits private corporations from
must be enjoined
acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public
Position of Respondents:
domain; classifies these alienable lands into 4

Petitioner has no standing to institute mandamus

proceedings without a showing that PEA refused to
perform an affirmative duty imposed by the
Constitution
Petitioner failed to show that he will suffer any concrete
injury as a result of the signing or implementation of the
Amended JVA; therefore, there is no actual controversy
requiring the exercise of judicial review
5. W/N the constitutional right to information includes official
information on on-going negotiations prior to a final
agreement.
Respondents:
The right to information does not include inter and
intra-agency recommendations / communications that
are at the exploratory stage
There must be a consummated contract before
petitioner can invoke the right. Revealing govt officials
deliberations at the pre-decision stage will hinder the
expression of their real sentiments and would thus lead
to a degradation in the quality of decision-making
6. W/N the Amended JVA violated the 1987 Constitution
Respondents:
PD No. 1085 and EO No. 525 constitute the legislative
authority allowing PEA to sell its reclaimed lands.
PD 1084 (PEA Charter) expressly tasks PEA to sell any
and all kinds of lands
7. W/N the Court is the proper forum for raising the issue of
whether the Amended JVA is grossly disadvantageous to the
government

ISSUES:
1. W/N the principal reliefs prayed for are moot and academic due
to the subsequent events
Respondents:
Petition is now moot and academic since Amari
furnished Petitioner with a copy of the signed Amended
JVA on June 21, 1999; therefore, petitioners prayer for a
public disclosure of the renegotiations have been
satisfied
Petitioners prayer to enjoin the signing is now moot,
since the Amended JVA has already been signed and
approved by PEstrada
Petitioner:
Respondents cannot avoid the constitutional issue by
merely fast-tracking the signing and approval of the
Amended JVA before the court can act on the issue
2. W/N the petition should be dismissed for not abiding by the
hierarchy of courts
Respondents:
Petitioner ignored the judicial hierarchy by seeking relief
directly from the Supreme Court and not the lower ones
3. W/N the petition should be dismissed for non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies
Petitioner also violated the rule that Mandamus may
only be issued if there is no other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
This case is different from Tanada v. Tuvera, wherein the
Court granted the petition for mandamus even if the
HELD/ RATIO:
petitioners did not initially demand from the President
1. Principal reliefs are NOT MOOT & ACADEMIC
the publication of the Presidential Decrees.
Supervening events, intentional or not, cannot prevent
o In that case, the Executive had an affirmative
the Court from rendering a decision if there is a grave
statutory duty under the civil code and
violation of the Constitution
Commonwealth Act 638 to publish the PDs, so
o Signing and approval of the Amended JVA cannot
initial demand was not necessary
o But in this case, PEA claims to have no
divest the Court of its jurisdiction
o PEA and Amari have yet to implement the
affirmative statutory duty to disclose publicly
information about the renegotiation of the JVA,
Amended JVA
so petitioner should have exhausted the
o Prayer to enjoin the signing on constitutional
administrative remedies before going to court
grounds necessarily includes preventing its
4. W/N the petitioner has the locus standi to file this suit
implementation
Respondent:

o It is the duty of the Court to enjoin or annul the

effects of the implementation of an
unconstitutional contract
Even in cases where supervening events have made the
case moot, the Court may still resolve a legal or
constitutional issue in order to formulate controlling
principles to guide the bench, bar, and the public
The Amended JVA is not an ordinary commercial
contract since it seeks to transfer the title and
ownership of 367.5 ha of reclaimed land and
submerged areas of Manila Bay to a single private
corporation
This petition is a case of first impression as all previous
decisions of the Court involving Sec. 3, Art. XII of the
1987 Constitution and its prior counterparts covered
agricultural lands
Neither AMARI nor PEA can claim judicial confirmation of
their titles because the lands covered by the Amended
JVA are newly reclaimed or still to be reclaimed.
o Judicial confirmation of imperfect title requires
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
occupation of agricultural lands of the public
domain for at least 30 years since June 12, 1945
or earlier.
o Also, the deadline for filing applications for
judicial confirmation of imperfect title expired on
Dec 31, 1987
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.
2. Petitioner did NOT violate the hierarchy of Courts
Principle of Hierarchy of Courts generally applies to
cases involving factual issues the SC is not a trier of
facts and will therefore not entertain cases involving
such issues
In this case, the issues raised are constitutional and of
transcendental importance to the public
The issues here can also be resolved without
determining any factual issue related to the case
The petition is also one for Mandamus, which falls under
the original jurisdiction of the Court (Sec. 5, Art. VIII of
the 1987 Constitution)

3. 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
o Principal issue here revolves around the
constitutional ban on alienating lands of public
domain to private corporations, so the Principle
does not apply
Contrary to its claims, PEA does have a positive legal
duty to disclose to the public the terms and conditions
for the sale of its lands, even without demand from any
party
o Sec. 79 of the Government Auditing Code
requires a public bidding prior to any sale of
government lands to private parties
o The JVA and the Amended JVA was a result of a
negotiated contract, not of a public bidding, so
PEA failed to make this public disclosure
o Petitioner had the right to seek direct judicial
intervention
4. The Petitioner has standing to bring this taxpayers suit
since he seeks to compel PEA to comply with its
constitutional duties
The 2 basic requisites to sustain the petitioners legal
standing (Albano v. Reyes) have been satisfied by
Chavez:
i. Espoused by a Filipino citizen
ii. Enforcement of a public right
Right of the people to information on
matters of public concern: Compelling
PEA to disclose publicly information on
the sale of govt lands worth billions of
pesos, as mandated by the Constitution
and statutory law
Right to the equitable diffusion of natural
resources: Preventing PEA from disposing
alienable lands of public domain in
violation of the Constitution
Matters of Transcendental Importance are being raised
by the petition
o It is the right of every citizen to file taxpayers
suits on matters of Transcendental
Importance issues of paramount public
interest and which immediately affect the

social, economic, and moral well-being of the

people (Chavez v. PCGG)
o When the proceeding involves the assertion of a
public right, the mere fact that he is a citizen
satisfies the requirement of personal interest
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 (Tanada v. Tuvera)
o The requirement of personal interest is satisfied
by the mere fact that petitioner is a citizen and,
therefore, part of the general 'public' which
possesses the right (Legaspi v. Civil Service
Comm)
o Public interest is involved when the subject
contract plays an important role in the economic
development of the country and involves a
significant financial consideration (Albano v.
Reyes)
o The disclosure provision in the Constitution
would constitute sufficient authority for
upholding the petitioner's standing (Albano v.
Reyes)
5. The constitutional right to information INCLUDES official
information on on-going negotiations before a final contract
(Sec. 7, Art III, 1987 Consti) provided that such information
constitutes definite propositions by the government
Exceptions to the rule: (1) privileged information, (2)
military and diplomatic secrets, (3) matters affecting
national security and public order, and (4) information
given limited access through a statute by Congress
Sec. 28, Art II, 1987 Consti reinforces the peoples right
to information on matters of public concern
These twin provisions are also essential to hold public
officials accountable at all times
An informed citizenry is essential to the existence and
proper functioning of any democracy (Valmonte v.
Belmonte, Jr.)
o free political discussion must be maintained such
that the government may perceive and be
responsive to the people's will
o this open dialogue can be effective only to the
extent that the citizenry is informed and thus
able to formulate its will intelligently

DIFFERENTIATED:
Information the law on public bidding requires PEA to be
publicly disclosed
o Government Auditing Code requires public
bidding
o At the start of the disposition process, PEA must,
even without demand from anyone, disclose to
the public matters relating to the disposition of
its property (size, location, nature, etc.)
o However, info on bids that are undergoing
review / evaluation is not immediately accessible
under the right to information, since there arent
any official acts, transactions, or decisions at this
point
o Once the committee makes its official
recommendation, a definite proposition
arises on the part of the government, and the
right of any citizen to information attaches the
coverage of which may include all nonproprietary info leading to such definite
proposition
o The coverage may not necessarily include intra
or inter-agency recommendations /
communications during the exploratory stage
(when common assertions are still being
formulated), in addition to the other protected
information
Information the constitutional right requires PEA to
release to the public (Matters of Public Concern):
i. Official records
ii. Documents and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, and decisions
iii. Government research data used in formulating
policies
Contrary to Respondents claim, the drafters of the
1987 Constitution understood that the right of
information contemplates inclusion of negotiations
leading to the consummation of the transaction
o A consummated contract is NOT a requisite for
the exercise of the right to information
o If it was the case, then it would make the public
exposure of anomalous or defective contracts all
but too late, allowed such to become a fait
accompli (done deal)

However, the right to information does NOT compel PEA

to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries, etc. related to
the renegotiation of the JVA
o The right only affords access to records,
documents, and papers, such that any interested
party may copy it at his own expense
The right is also subject to reasonable regulations to
protect the integrity of the public records and to
minimize disruption to government operations
6. The Amended JVA glaring violates Sec. 2 and 3, Art XII of the
1987 Constitution, as such it is null and void ab initio
The lands comprising the Freedom Islands are
alienable lands of the public domain, which PEA
may lease but NOT sell or transfer to private
corporations
o As such, the transfer of these lands to Amari are
VOID for being contrary to Sec. 3, Art XII of the
1987 Constitution (private corp. cannot acquire
any kind of alienable land of the public domain)
o Under the 1987 Constitution, private
corporations are only allowed to hold alienable
lands of the public domain ONLY through LEASE
or else private citizens who have acquired the
maximum area of alienable lands may just set
up corporations to acquire even more
o PAquinos PD 1085 is equivalent to an official
proclamation classifying the Freedom Islands as
alienable or disposable lands of the public
domain.
o Jurisprudence holding that the granting of the
patent or issuance of the certificate of title of an
alienable land of the public domain
automatically makes such land private cannot
apply to government units and entities like PEA
such transfers must be made to qualified private
parties or to government entities that are not
tasked with the disposal of public lands
o Since it is neither timber, mineral, nor natural
park lands, the Freedom Islands necessarily falls
under the classification of agricultural lands
The submerged areas of Manila Bay remain
unalienable natural resources of the public domain and
outside the commerce of man, until otherwise classified
as alienable land open to disposition and no longer

needed for public service (which can only be done after

these areas have been reclaimed)
o As such, the transfer of these lands to Amari are
VOID for being contrary to Sec. 2, Art XII of the
1987 Constitution (alienation of natural
resources other than agricultural lands of the
public domain is prohibited)
DENR is vested with the power to authorize the
reclamation of submerged areas & to classify lands of
the public domain into alienable or disposable lands,
subject to the Presidents approval (Rev. Admin. Code of
1987)
o PEA is vested with the power to undertake such
reclamation (directly or through contractors) and
develop, sell, or lease the reclaimed alienable
lands of the public domain
o The mere physical act of reclamation by PEA
does not makes the reclaimed lands alienable or
disposable, neither does the mere authority to
sell public lands
o Similarly, the mere transfer by the Natl Govt of
lands of the public domain to PEA does not make
such lands alienable or disposable, especially
since no express authority to sell its reclaimed
lands have been given to PEA by PD 1085 or EO
525 these only transfer ownership and
administration of the lands to PEA.
However, PEA may sell its patrimonial
properties to private corporations, in
accordance with its Charter and without
constitutional limitations (since these are
not alienable lands of the public domain)
PEA may also sell its alienable or
disposable lands of the public domain to
private individuals since there are no
longer any legal prohibitions against such
In either case, public bidding must still be
conducted
7. No need to tackle this issue since the Amended JVA is null and
void ab initio. Besides, the SC is not a trier of facts, which is
needed to resolve this issue

FINAL RULING: Petition GRANTED. The Amended JVA is null and void
ab initio and PEA & Amari are permanently enjoined from
implementing it