Chavez v.

Public Estate Authority and Amari Coastal Bay Development

G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002, Carpio, J.

Facts:
In 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued PD No. 1084 creating PEA which was tasked "to reclaim land, including
foreshore and submerged areas," and "to develop, improve, acquire, x x x lease and sell any and all kinds of lands." On the same
date, then President Marcos issued PD 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).

In 1988, the Register of Deeds of the Municipality of Paraaque 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, Paraaque City.

1995, PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement ("JVA" for brevity) with AMARI, a private corporation, to develop the Freedom
Islands. PEA and AMARI entered into the JVA through negotiation without public bidding. President Fidel V. Ramos, through then
Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, approved the JVA.

In 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.

In 1999, PEA and AMARI signed the Amended Joint Venture Agreement ("Amended JVA). On May 28, 1999, the Office of the
President under the administration of then President Joseph E. Estrada approved the Amended JVA.

The Issues

1. Whether the constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final
agreement;
2. 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; No. Amended JVA violates glaringly Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution

The Court's Ruling

1. Yes. Section 7, Article III and Section 28, Article II of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in
the operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to exercise effectively other
constitutional rights. These twin provisions are essential to the exercise of freedom of expression. The Court first distinguish
between information the law on public bidding requires PEA to disclose publicly, and information the constitutional right to
information requires PEA to release to the public.

Information the law on public bidding

Before the consummation of the contract, PEA must, on its own and without demand from anyone, disclose to the public matters
relating to the disposition of its property. These include the size, location, technical description and nature of the property being
disposed of, the terms and conditions of the disposition, the parties qualified to bid, the minimum price and similar information. PEA
must prepare all these data and disclose them to the public at the start of the disposition process, long before the consummation of
the contract, because the Government Auditing Code requires public bidding. If PEA fails to make this disclosure, any citizen
can demand from PEA this information at any time during the bidding process.

Public's right to information

Once the committee makes its official recommendation, there arises a "definite proposition" on the part of the government.
From this moment, the public's right to information attaches, and any citizen can access all the non-proprietary information
leading to such definite proposition. 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 one is consummated, it may be too late for the public to expose its defects. The right covers three
categories of information which are "matters of public concern," namely: (1) official records; (2) documents and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions and decisions; and (3) government research data used in formulating policies.The information that
petitioner may access on the renegotiation of the JVA includes evaluation reports, recommendations, legal and expert
opinions, minutes of meetings, terms of reference and other documents attached to such reports or minutes, all relating to
the JVA. However, the right to information does not compel PEA to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like relating to the
renegotiation of the JVA.

2. Yes.

The Regalian Doctrine

The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is rooted in the Regalian doctrine which holds that the State
owns all lands and waters of the public domain. The Regalian doctrine is the foundation of the time-honored principle of land
ownership that "all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain."
The Court held the following:

1. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private corporation, ownership of 77.34 hectares110 of the
Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for being contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits
private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.

2. Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to AMARI ownership of 290.156 hectares111 of still submerged areas of
Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the
alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the public domain.