Chavez v Public Estate Authority

GR No. 133250, July 9, 2002

Facts:
On November 20, 1973, the government through the Commissioner of Public Highways signed
a contract with the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) to
reclaim certain foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay. The contract also included the
construction of Phases I and II of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road. CDCP obligated itself to
carry out all the works in consideration of fifty percent of the total reclaimed land.
On April 25, 1995 the PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with AMARI to
develop the Freedom Islands. This JVA was entered into through negotiation without public
bidding.
The Senate Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises, and the
Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, conducted a joint
investigation. Among the conclusion are: that 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, the certificates of the title
covering the Freedom Islands are thus void, and the JVA itself is illegal.
On December 5, 1997, President Ramos created a Legal Task Force to conduct a study on the
legality of the JVA. The Task Force upheld the legality of the JVA, contrary to the conclusions of
the Senate Committees.
On April 27, 1998, Petitioner as taxpayer filed the instant petition for mandamus with prayer for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and TRO. 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. Furthermore,
petitioner assails the sale to AMARI of lands of the public domains as blatant violation of Sec 3,
Art XII of the Constitution prohibiting the sale of alienable lands of the public domain to private
corporations. Petitioner assert that he seeks to enjoin the loss of billion of pesos in properties of
the State that are of public dominion.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner has legal standing to bring the suit.

Ratio Decidendi:
The petitioner has standing to bring the taxpayer’s suit because the petition seeks to compel
PEA to comply with its constitutional duties. This duties are particularly in answer of the right of
citizens to information on matters of public concern, and of a constitutional provision intended to
insure the equitable distribution of alienable lands of the public domain among Filipino citizens.
Furthermore, the court considered that the petition raised matters of transcendental importance
tot eh public. The mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal
interest when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right. Also, 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 raise are of paramount public interest and
if they immediately affect the social, economic and moral well being of the people.
The amended JVA does not make the issue moot and academic since this compels the court to
insure the government itself does not violate a provision of the Constitution intended to
safeguard the national patrimony. The content of the amended JVA seeks to transfer title and
ownership of reclaimed lands to a single corporation. The court does not hesitate to resolve the
legal or constitutional issues raised to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, bar
and the public.
The instant case raises constitutional issues of transcendental importance to the public. Court
can resolve this case without determining any factual issue related to the case. The instant case
is a petition for mandamus which falls under the original jurisdiction of the Court. Furthermore,
PEA was under a positive legal duty to disclose to the public the terms and conditions for the
sale of its lands. The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply when the
issue involved is purely legal or constitutional question.
The right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final
agreement as required by the constitution.
The Supreme Court granted the petition. PEA and Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation
are permanently enjoined from implementing the amended JVA which is hereby declared null
and void ab initio.