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