#40 JULY 9,2002 AUTHOR: DAVID

[GR 133250] CHAVEZ vs. PUBLIC ESTATES NOTES: (if applicable)

AUTHORITY and AMARI COASTAL BAY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
TOPIC: CITIZEN STANDING/LOCUS STANDI
PONENTE: CARPIO
FACTS: (chronological order)
1. On January 19, 1988, then President Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517, granting
and transferring to the Public Estates Authority (PEA) the parcels of land so reclaimed
under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP) containing a
total area of 1,915,894 sq.ms. Subsequently, on April 9, 1988, the RD of Para aque
issued the corresponding TCTs in the name of PEA, covering the three reclaimed
islands known as the Freedom Islands with a total land area of 157.841 hectares.

2. PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with AMARI, a private
corporation, to develop the Freedom Islands. The JVA also required the reclamation of
an additional 250 hectares of submerged areas surrounding these islands to complete
the configuration in the Master Development Plan of the Southern Reclamation
Project-MCCRRP. This was entered into without public bidding. This was approved by
the Board of Directors of PEA, and by then President Ramos, through then Executive
Secretary Torres.

3.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 conclusions of the investigation are: (1) 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; (2) the certificates of title covering the Freedom Islands are thus
void, and (3) the JVA itself is illegal.

4. President Ramos then issued Presidential Administrative Order No. 365 creating a
Legal Task Force to conduct a study on the legality of the JVA. The Legal Task Force
upheld the legality of the JVA, contrary to the conclusions reached by the Senate
Committees.

5. On April 27, 1998, petitioner Frank I. CHAVEZ as a taxpayer, filed the instant Petition
for Mandamus with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order. CHAVEZ contends that:
(1) the government stands to lose billions of pesos in the sale by PEA of the reclaimed
lands to AMARI;
(2) PEA should 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;
(3) 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; and
(4) he seeks to enjoin the loss of billions of pesos in properties of the State that are of
public dominion.

6. PEA and AMARI then signed the Amended JVA which was subsequently approved by
President Estrada. CHAVEZ now prays on constitutional and statutory grounds the
renegotiated contract be declared null and void.

ISSUE(S): W/N CHAVEZ has locus standi to brig suit..

HELD: YES. CHAVEZ has standing to bring this taxpayers suit because the petition seeks to compel PEA to
comply with its constitutional duties.
RATIO:
There are two constitutional issues involved here. First is the right of citizens to
information on matters of public concern. Second is the application of a constitutional
provision intended to insure the equitable distribution of alienable lands of the public
domain among Filipino citizens. The thrust of the first issue is to compel PEA to disclose
publicly information on the sale of government lands worth billions of pesos, information
which the Constitution and statutory law mandate PEA to disclose. The thrust of the
second issue is to prevent PEA from alienating hundreds of hectares of alienable lands of
the public domain in violation of the Constitution, compelling PEA to comply with a
constitutional duty to the nation.

Moreover, the petition raises matters of transcendental importance to the public. In

Chavez v. PCGG, the Court upheld the right of a citizen to bring a taxpayers suit on
matters of transcendental importance to the public.

Besides the matter of recovering the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses is an issue of
transcendental importance to the public. CHAVEZ asserts that 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 raised are of paramount public
interest, and if they immediately affect the social, economic and moral well being of the
people.

Moreover, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest,
when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, such as in this case. In
Taada v. Tuvera, the Court asserted that 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; and because it is sufficient that petitioner is a citizen and
as such is interested in the execution of the laws, he need not show that he has any legal
or special interest in the result of the action.

Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission declared that when a mandamus proceeding involves
the assertion of a public right, 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.

The instant petition is anchored on the right of the people to information and access to
official records, documents and papers a right guaranteed under Section 7, Article III of
the 1987 Constitution. CHAVEZ, a former solicitor general, is a Filipino citizen. Because of
the satisfaction of the two basic requisites laid down by decisional law to sustain
petitioner's legal standing, i.e. (1) the enforcement of a public right (2) espoused by a
Filipino citizen, we rule that the petition at bar should be allowed.
LAW/ DOCTRINE: 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 raised are of paramount public interest, and if they
immediately affect the social, economic and moral well being of the people.

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):