Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 133250. July 9, 2002.
_______________
* EN BANC.
153
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
154
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
155
156
any citizen can demand from PEA this information at any time
during the bidding process. Information, however, on on-going
evaluation or review of bids or proposals being undertaken by the
bidding or review committee is not immediately accessible under
the right to information. While the evaluation or review is still
ongoing, there are no official acts, transactions, or decisions on
the bids or proposals. However, once the committee makes its
official recommendation, there arises a definite proposition on
the part of the government. From this moment, the publics right
to information attaches, and any citizen can access all the non-
proprietary information leading to such definite proposition.
Same; The commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission understood that the right to information contemplates
inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of the
transactionrequiring a consummated contract will keep the
public in the dark until the contract, which may be grossly
disadvantageous to the government or even illegal, becomes a fait
accompli.Contrary to AMARIs contention, the commissioners of
the 1986 Constitutional Commission understood that the right to
information contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the
consummation of the transaction. Certainly, a consummated
contract is not a requirement for the exercise of the right to
information. Otherwise, the people can never exercise the right if
no contract is consummated, and if
157
one is consummated, it may be too late for the public to expose its
defects. Requiring a consummated contract will keep the public in
the dark until the contract, which may be grossly
disadvantageous to the government or even illegal, becomes a fait
accompli. This negates the State policy of full transparency on
matters of public concern, a situation which the framers of the
Constitution could not have intended. Such a requirement will
prevent the citizenry from participating in the public discussion of
any proposed contract, effectively truncating a basic right
enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We can allow neither an
emasculation of a constitutional right, nor a retreat by the State
of its avowed policy of full disclosure of all its transactions
involving public interest.
Same; The right to information covers three categories of
information which are matters of public concern, namely, (1)
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
158
159
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
160
161
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
162
163
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
164
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
165
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
166
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
167
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
168
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
169
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The mere fact that alienable
lands of the public domain are transferred to PEA and issued land
patents or certificates of title in PEAs name does not automatically
make such lands privateto allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of
the public domain to be transferred to PEA as private lands will
sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on private
corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the
public domain.PEAs charter expressly states that PEA shall
hold lands of the public domain as well as any and all kinds of
lands. PEA can hold both lands of the public domain and private
lands. Thus, the mere fact that alienable lands of the public
domain like the Freedom Islands are transferred to PEA and
issued land patents or certificates of title in PEAs name does not
automatically make such lands private. To allow vast areas of
reclaimed lands of the public domain to be transferred to PEA as
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
170
CARPIO, J.:
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
The Facts
_______________
172
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
_______________
173
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
174
9 10
Legal Counsel, and the Government Corporate Counsel.
The Legal Task Force upheld the legality of the JVA,
contrary to 11 the conclusions reached by the Senate
Committees.
On April 4 and 5, 1998, the Philippine Daily Inquirer
and Today published reports that there were on-going
renegotiations between PEA and AMARI under an order
issued by then President Fidel V. Ramos. According to
these reports, PEA Director Nestor Kalaw, PEA Chairman
Arsenio Yulo and retired Navy Officer Sergio Cruz
composed the negotiating panel of PEA.
On April 13, 1998, Antonio M. Zulueta filed before the
Court a Petition for Prohibition with Application for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction docketed as G.R. No. 132994
seeking to nullify the JVA. The Court dismissed the
petition for unwarranted disregard of judicial hierarchy,
without prejudice
12
to the refiling of the case before the
proper court.
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. Petitioner assails the sale to
AMARI of lands of the public domain as a blatant violation
of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
prohibiting the sale of alienable lands of the public domain
to private corporations. Finally, petitioner asserts that he
seeks to enjoin the loss of billions of pesos in properties of
the State that are of public dominion.
_______________
9 Renato Cayetano.
10 Virgilio C. Abejo.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
175
13
After several motions for extension of time, PEA and
AMARI filed their Comments on October 19, 1998 and
June 25, 1998, respectively. Meanwhile, on December 28,
1998, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion: (a) to require
PEA to submit the terms of the renegotiated PEA-AMARI
contract; (b) for issuance of a temporary restraining order;
and (c) to set the case for hearing on oral argument.
Petitioner filed a Reiterative Motion for Issuance of a TRO
dated May 26, 1999, which the Court denied in a
Resolution dated June 22, 1999.
In a Resolution dated March 23, 1999, the Court gave
due course to the petition and required the parties to file
their respective memoranda.
On March 30, 1999, PEA and AMARI signed the
Amended Joint Venture Agreement (Amended JVA, for
brevity). On May 28, 1999, the Office of the President
under the administration of then President Joseph E.
Estrada approved the Amended JVA.
Due to the approval of the Amended JVA by the Office of
the President, petitioner now prays that on constitutional
and statutory grounds 14
the renegotiated contract be
declared null and void.
The Issues
15 16
The issues raised by petitioner, PEA and AMARI are as
follows:
_______________
13 AMARI filed three motions for extension of time to file comment (Rollo, pp.
32, 38, 48), while PEA filed nine motions for extension of time (Rollo, pp. 127, 139).
14 Petitioners Memorandum dated July 6, 1999, p. 42.
15 Represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, with Solicitor General
Ricardo P. Galvez, Assistant Solicitor General Azucena R. Balanon-Corpuz, and
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
176
the cases moot, the Court did not hesitate to resolve the
legal or constitutional issues raised to formulate controlling
17
principles to guide the bench, bar, and the public.
_______________
178
_______________
Director of Lands v. IAC and Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., 146 SCRA 509
(1986); Republic v. IAC and Roman Catholic Bishop of Lucena, 168 SCRA
165 (1988); Natividad v. CA, 202 SCRA 493 (1991); Villaflor v. CA and
Nasipit Lumber Co., 280 SCRA 297 (1997). In Ayog v. Cusi, 118 SCRA 492
(1982), the Court did not apply the constitutional ban in the 1973
Constitution because the applicant corporation, Bian Development Co.,
Inc., had fully complied with all its obligations and even paid the full
purchase price before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, although the
sales patent was issued after the 1973 Constitution took effect.
20 PD No. 1073.
179
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
_______________
180
PEA distinguishes
23
the instant case from Taada v.
Tuvera where the Court granted the petition for
mandamus even if the petitioners there did not initially
demand from the Office of the President the publication of
the presidential decrees. PEA points out that in Taada,
the Executive Department had an affirmative
24
statutory
duty under Article 2 of the 25Civil Code and Section 1 of
Commonwealth Act No. 638 to publish the presidential
decrees. There was, therefore, no need for the petitioners in
Taada to make an initial demand from the Office of the
President. In the instant case, PEA claims it has no
affirmative statutory duty to disclose publicly information
about its renegotiation of the JVA. Thus, PEA asserts that
the Court must apply the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies to the instant case in view of the
failure of petitioner here to demand initially from PEA the
needed information.
The original JVA sought to dispose to AMARI public
lands held by PEA, a government corporation. Under 26
Section 79 of the Government Auditing Code, the
disposition of government lands to
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
181
_______________
182
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
_______________
183
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
_______________
185
_______________
186
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
_______________
187
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
_______________
34 Ibid.
35 Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, 150 SCRA 530 (1987).
36 Almonte v. Vasquez, 244 SCRA 286 (1995).
37 See Note 22.
38 Chavez v. PCGG, see note 22; Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato, 203 SCRA
515 (1991).
189
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 41/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
_______________
190
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 43/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
191
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 44/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
this means possession from before 1700; but, at all events, the principle is
admitted. As prescription, even against the Crown lands, was recognized by the
laws of Spain, we see no sufficient reason for hesitating to admit that it was
recognized in the Philippines in regard to lands over which Spain had only a paper
sovereignty. See also Republic v. Lee, 197 SCRA 13 (1991).
44 Article 1 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866.
192
property, to wit:
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
_______________
194
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 47/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
_______________
46 Act No. 926, enacted on October 7, 1903, was also titled the Public
Land Act. This Act, however, did not cover reclaimed lands. Nevertheless,
Section 23 of this Act provided as follows; x x x In no case may lands
leased under the provisions of this chapter be taken so as to gain control of
adjacent land, water, stream, shore line, way, roadstead, or other valuable
right which in the opinion of the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands
would be prejudicial to the interests of the public.
195
Sec. 55. Any tract of land of the public domain which, being
neither timber nor mineral land, shall be classified as suitable for
residential purposes or for commercial, industrial, or other
productive purposes other than agricultural purposes, and shall be
open to disposition or concession, shall be disposed of under the
provisions of this chapter, and not otherwise.
Sec. 56. The lands disposable under this title shall be classified
as follows:
Sec. 58. The lands comprised in classes (a), (b), and (c) of
section fifty-six shall be disposed of to private parties by lease only
and not otherwise, as soon as the Governor-General, upon
recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, shall declare that the same are not necessary for the
public service and are open to disposition under this chapter. The
lands included in class (d) may be disposed of by sale or lease
under the provisions of this Act. (Emphasis supplied)
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 48/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
_______________
196
_______________
197
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 50/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
_______________
198
50
agricultural lands. However, government reclaimed and
marshy lands, although subject to classification as
disposable public agricultural lands, could only be leased
and not sold to private parties because of Act No. 2874.
The prohibition on private parties from acquiring
ownership of government reclaimed and marshy lands of
the public domain was only a statutory prohibition and the
legislature could therefore remove such prohibition. The
1935 Constitution did not prohibit individuals and
corporations from acquiring government reclaimed and
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 51/52
8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e220c65d304cea9ad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 52/52