You are on page 1of 43

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, G.R. No. 164527 On March 1, 1988, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Memorandum Order No.

Petitioner, 161[2] approving and directing the implementation of the Comprehensive and Integrated Metropolitan
Present: Manila Waste Management Plan (the Plan). The Metro Manila Commission, in coordination with various
government agencies, was tasked as the lead agency to implement the Plan as formulated by the
PUNO, CJ, Presidential Task Force on Waste Management created by Memorandum Circular No. 39. A day after,
QUISUMBING, on March 2, 1988, MO 161-A[3] was issued, containing the guidelines which prescribed the functions
YNARES-SANTIAGO, and responsibilities of fifteen (15) various government departments and offices tasked to implement
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, the Plan, namely: Department of Public Works and Highway (DPWH), Department of Health (DOH),
- versus - CARPIO, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Transportation and
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, Communication, Department of Budget and Management, National Economic and Development
CORONA, Authority (NEDA), Philippine Constabulary Integrated National Police, Philippine Information Agency
CARPIO MORALES, and the Local Government Unit (referring to the City of Manila), Department of Social Welfare and
AZCUNA, Development, Presidential Commission for Urban Poor, National Housing Authority (NHA), Department
TINGA, of Labor and Employment, Department of Education, Culture and Sports (now Department of
CHICO-NAZARIO, Education), and Presidential Management Staff.
NATIONAL HOUSING VELASCO, Specifically, respondent NHA was ordered to conduct feasibility studies and develop low-cost housing
AUTHORITY, R-II BUILDERS, NACHURA, and projects at the dumpsite and absorb scavengers in NHA resettlement/low-cost housing projects.[4] On
INC., R-II HOLDINGS, INC., REYES, JJ. the other hand, the DENR was tasked to review and evaluate proposed projects under the Plan with
HARBOUR CENTRE PORT regard to their environmental impact, conduct regular monitoring of activities of the Plan to ensure
TERMINAL, INC., and Promulgated: compliance with environmental standards and assist DOH in the conduct of the study on hospital
MR. REGHIS ROMERO II, waste management.[5]
Respondents. August 15, 2007
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x At the time MO 161-A was issued by President Aquino, Smokey Mountain was a wasteland in Balut,
Tondo, Manila, where numerous Filipinos resided in subhuman conditions, collecting items that may
DECISION have some monetary value from the garbage. The Smokey Mountain dumpsite is bounded on the
VELASCO, JR., J.: north by the Estero Marala, on the south by the property of the National Government, on the east by
the property of B and I Realty Co., and on the west by Radial Road 10 (R-10).

In this Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ Pursuant to MO 161-A, NHA prepared the feasibility studies of the Smokey Mountain low-cost housing
of Preliminary Injunction under Rule 65, petitioner, in his capacity as taxpayer, seeks: project which resulted in the formulation of the Smokey Mountain Development Plan and Reclamation
of the Area Across R-10 or the Smokey Mountain Development and Reclamation Project (SMDRP; the
to declare NULL AND VOID the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated March 9, 1993 Project). The Project aimed to convert the Smokey Mountain dumpsite into a habitable housing
between the National Housing Authority and R-II Builders, Inc. and the Smokey project, inclusive of the reclamation of the area across R-10, adjacent to theSmokey Mountain as the
Mountain Development and Reclamation Project embodied therein; the subsequent enabling component of the project.[6] Once finalized, the Plan was submitted to President Aquino for
amendments to the said JVA; and all other agreements signed and executed in her approval.
relation thereto including, but not limited to the Smokey Mountain Asset Pool
Agreement dated 26 September 1994 and the separate agreements for Phase I and On July 9, 1990, the Build-Operate-and-Transfer (BOT) Law (Republic Act No. [RA] 6957) was
Phase II of the Projectas well as all other transactions which emanated therefrom, enacted.[7] Its declared policy under Section 1 is [t]o recognize the indispensable role of the private
for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL and INVALID; sector as the main engine for national growth and development and provide the most appropriate
favorable incentives to mobilize private resources for the purpose. Sec. 3 authorized and empowered
to enjoin respondentsparticularly respondent NHAfrom further implementing and/or [a]ll government infrastructure agencies, including government-owned and controlled corporations
enforcing the said project and other agreements related thereto, and from further and local government units x x x to enter into contract with any duly pre-qualified private contractor
deriving and/or enjoying any rights, privileges and interest therefrom x x x; and for the financing, construction, operation and maintenance of any financially viable infrastructure
facilities through the build-operate-transfer or build and transfer scheme.
to compel respondents to disclose all documents and information relating to the
projectincluding, but not limited to, any subsequent agreements with respect to the RA 6957 defined build-and-transfer scheme as [a] contractual arrangement whereby the contractor
different phases of the project, the revisions over the original plan, the additional undertakes the construction, including financing, of a given infrastructure facility, and its turnover
works incurred thereon, the current financial condition of respondent R-II Builders, after the completion to the government agency or local government unit concerned which shall pay
Inc., and the transactions made respecting the project.[1] the contractor its total investment expended on the project, plus reasonable rate of return
thereon. The last paragraph of Sec. 6 of the BOT Law provides that the repayment scheme in the case
of land reclamation or the building of industrial estates may consist of [t]he grant of a portion or
The Facts percentage of the reclaimed land or industrial estate built, subject to the constitutional requirements
with respect to the ownership of lands.

On February 10, 1992, Joint Resolution No. 03[8] was passed by both houses of subsequently became a member of the EXECOM. Notably, in a September 2, 1994 Letter,[12] PEA
Congress. Sec. 1 of this resolution provided, among other things, that: General Manager Amado Lagdameo approved the plans for the reclamation project prepared by the
Section 1. There is hereby approved the following national infrastructure projects for
implementation under the provisions of Republic Act No. 6957 and its implementing In conformity with Sec. 5 of MO 415, an inter-agency technical committee (TECHCOM) was created
rules and regulations: composed of the technical representatives of the EXECOM [t]o assist the NHA in the evaluation of the
project proposals, assist in the resolution of all issues and problems in the project to ensure that all
xxxx aspects of the development from squatter relocation, waste management, reclamation, environmental
protection, land and house construction meet governing regulation of the region and to facilitate the
(d) Port infrastructure like piers, wharves, quays, storage handling, ferry service completion of the project.[13]
and related facilities;
Subsequently, the TECHCOM put out the Public Notice and Notice to Pre-Qualify and Bid for the right
xxxx to become NHAs joint venture partner in the implementation of the SMDRP. The notices were
published in newspapers of general circulation on January 23 and 26 and February 1, 14, 16, and 23,
(k) Land reclamation, dredging and other related development facilities; 1992, respectively. Out of the thirteen (13) contractors who responded, only five (5) contractors fully
complied with the required pre-qualification documents. Based on the evaluation of the pre-
(l) Industrial estates, regional industrial centers and export processing zones qualification documents, the EXECOM declared the New San Jose Builders, Inc. and R-II Builders, Inc.
including steel mills, iron-making and petrochemical complexes and related (RBI) as the top two contractors.[14]
infrastructure and utilities;
Thereafter, the TECHCOM evaluated the bids (which include the Pre-feasibility Study and Financing
xxxx Plan) of the top two (2) contractors in this manner:

(p) Environmental and solid waste management-related facilities such as collection (1) The DBP, as financial advisor to the Project, evaluated their Financial Proposals;
equipment, composting plants, incinerators, landfill and tidal barriers, among
others; and (2) The DPWH, PPA, PEA and NHA evaluated the Technical Proposals for the Housing Construction and
(q) Development of new townsites and communities and related facilities.
(3) The DENR evaluated Technical Proposals on Waste Management and Disposal by conducting the
Environmental Impact Analysis; and

This resolution complied with and conformed to Sec. 4 of the BOT Law requiring the approval of all (4) The NHA and the City of Manila evaluated the socio-economic benefits presented by the proposals.
national infrastructure projects by the Congress.
On June 30, 1992, Fidel V. Ramos assumed the Office of the President (OP) of the Philippines.
On January 17, 1992, President Aquino proclaimed MO 415[9] approving and directing the
implementation of the SMDRP. Secs. 3 and 4 of the Memorandum Order stated: On August 31, 1992, the TECHCOM submitted its recommendation to the EXECOM to approve the R-II
Builders, Inc. (RBI) proposal which garnered the highest score of 88.475%.
Section 3. The National Housing Authority is hereby directed to implement the
Smokey Mountain Development Plan and Reclamation of the Area Across R-
10 through a private sector joint venture scheme at the least cost to the Subsequently, the EXECOM made a Project briefing to President Ramos. As a result,
government. President Ramos issued Proclamation No. 39[15] on September 9, 1992, which reads:

Section 4. The land area covered by the Smokey Mountain dumpsite is hereby WHEREAS, the National Housing Authority has presented a viable conceptual plan to
conveyed to the National Housing Authority as well as the area to be reclaimed convert the Smokey Mountain dumpsite into a habitable housing project, inclusive of
across R-10.(Emphasis supplied.) the reclamation of the area across Road Radial 10 (R-10) adjacent to the Smokey
Mountain as the enabling component of the project;

In addition, the Public Estates Authority (PEA) was directed to assist in the evaluation of proposals xxxx
regarding the technical feasibility of reclamation, while the DENR was directed to (1) facilitate titling These parcels of land of public domain are hereby placed under the
of Smokey Mountain and of the area to be reclaimed and (2) assist in the technical evaluation of administration and disposition of the National Housing Authority to
proposals regarding environmental impact statements.[10] develop, subdivide and dispose to qualified beneficiaries, as well as its
development for mix land use (commercial/industrial) to provide
In the same MO 415, President Aquino created an Executive Committee (EXECOM) to oversee the employment opportunities to on-site families and additional areas for port-
implementation of the Plan, chaired by the National Capital Region-Cabinet Officer for Regional related activities.
Development (NCR-CORD) with the heads of the NHA, City of Manila, DPWH, PEA, Philippine Ports
Authority (PPA), DENR, and Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) as members.[11] The NEDA

In order to facilitate the early development of the area for disposition, the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, through the Lands and 2.04 The [RBI] shall construct 3,500 medium rise low cost permanent housing units
Management Bureau, is hereby directed to approve the boundary and subdivision on the leveled Smokey Mountain complete with basic utilities and amenities, in
survey and to issue a special patent and title in the name of the National Housing accordance with the plans and specifications set forth in the Final Report approved
Authority, subject to final survey and private rights, if any there be. (Emphasis by the [NHA]. Completed units ready for mortgage take out shall be turned over by
supplied.) the [RBI] to NHA on agreed schedule.

2.05 The [RBI] shall reclaim forty (40) hectares of Manila Bay area directly across
On October 7, 1992, President Ramos authorized NHA to enter into a Joint Venture Agreement with [R-10] as contained in Proclamation No. 39 as the enabling component of the
RBI [s]ubject to final review and approval of the Joint Venture Agreement by the Office of the project and payment to the [RBI] as its asset share.
2.06 The [RBI] shall likewise furnish all labor materials and equipment necessary to
On March 19, 1993, the NHA and RBI entered into a Joint Venture Agreement[17] (JVA) for the complete all herein development works to be undertaken on a phase to phase basis
development of the Smokey Mountain dumpsite and the reclamation of the area across R-10 based on in accordance with the work program stipulated therein.
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 757[18] which mandated NHA [t]o undertake the physical and socio-
economic upgrading and development of lands of the public domain identified for housing, MO 161-A
which required NHA to conduct the feasibility studies and develop a low-cost housing project at the The profit sharing shall be based on the approved pre-feasibility report submitted to the EXECOM, viz:
Smokey Mountain, and MO 415 as amended by MO 415-A which approved the Conceptual Plan for
Smokey Mountain and creation of the EXECOM and TECHCOM. Under the JVA, the Project involves the For the developer (RBI):
clearing of Smokey Mountain for eventual development into a low cost medium rise housing complex 1. To own the forty (40) hectares of reclaimed land.
and industrial/commercial site with the reclamation of the area directly across [R-10] to act as the
enabling component of the Project.[19] The JVA covered a lot in Tondo,Manila with an area of two 2. To own the commercial area at the Smokey Mountain area composed of 1.3
hundred twelve thousand two hundred thirty-four (212,234) square meters and another lot to be hectares, and
reclaimed also in Tondo with an area of four hundred thousand (400,000) square meters.
3. To own all the constructed units of medium rise low cost permanent housing units
The Scope of Work of RBI under Article II of the JVA is as follows: beyond the 3,500 units share of the [NHA].

a) To fully finance all aspects of development of Smokey Mountain and reclamation
of no more than 40 hectares of Manila Bay area across Radial Road 10. For the NHA:
1. To own the temporary housing consisting of 3,500 units.
b) To immediately commence on the preparation of feasibility report and detailed
engineering with emphasis to the expedient acquisition of the Environmental 2. To own the cleared and fenced incinerator site consisting of 5 hectares situated at
Clearance Certificate (ECC) from the DENR. the Smokey Mountain area.

c) The construction activities will only commence after the acquisition of the ECC, 3. To own the 3,500 units of permanent housing to be constructed by [RBI] at
and the Smokey Mountain area to be awarded to qualified on site residents.

d) Final details of the contract, including construction, duration and delivery 4. To own the Industrial Area site consisting of 3.2 hectares, and
timetables, shall be based on the approved feasibility report and detailed
engineering. 5. To own the open spaces, roads and facilities within the Smokey Mountain area.

Other obligations of RBI are as follows: In the event of extraordinary increase in labor, materials, fuel and non-recoverability of total project
expenses,[20] the OP, upon recommendation of the NHA, may approve a corresponding adjustment in
2.02 The [RBI] shall develop the PROJECT based on the Final Report and Detailed the enabling component.
Engineering as approved by the Office of the President. All costs and expenses for
hiring technical personnel, date gathering, permits, licenses, appraisals, clearances, The functions and responsibilities of RBI and NHA are as follows:
testing and similar undertaking shall be for the account of the [RBI].
For RBI:
2.03 The [RBI] shall undertake the construction of 3,500 temporary housing units
complete with basic amenities such as plumbing, electrical and sewerage facilities 4.01 Immediately commence on the preparation of the FINAL REPORT with
within the temporary housing project as staging area to temporarily house the emphasis to the expedient acquisition, with the assistance of the [NHA] of
squatter families from the Smokey Mountain while development is being Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Environmental Management
undertaken. These temporary housing units shall be turned over to the [NHA] for Bureau (EMB) of the [DENR]. Construction shall only commence after the acquisition

of the ECC. The Environment Compliance Certificate (ECC) shall form part of the 4.11 Handle the processing and documentation of all sales transactions related to its
FINAL REPORT. assets shares from the venture such as the 3,500 units of permanent housing and
the allotted industrial area of 3.2 hectares.
The FINAL REPORT shall provide the necessary subdivision and housing plans,
detailed engineering and architectural drawings, technical specifications and other 4.12 All advances outside of project costs made by the [RBI] to the [NHA] shall be
related and required documents relative to the Smokey Mountain area. deducted from the proceeds due to the [NHA].

With respect to the 40-hectare reclamation area, the [RBI] shall have the discretion 4.13 The [NHA] shall be responsible for the acquisition of the Mother Title for
to develop the same in a manner that it deems necessary to recover the [RBIs] the Smokey Mountain and Reclamation Area within 90 days upon submission of
investment, subject to environmental and zoning rules. Survey returns to the Land Management Sector. The land titles to the 40-hectare
reclaimed land, the 1.3 hectare commercial area at the Smokey Mountain area and
4.02 Finance the total project cost for land development, housing construction and the constructed units of medium-rise permanent housing units beyond the 3,500
reclamation of the PROJECT. units share of the [NHA] shall be issued in the name of the [RBI] upon completion
of the project. However, the [RBI] shall have the authority to pre-sell its share as
4.03 Warrant that all developments shall be in compliance with the requirements of indicated in this agreement.

4.04 Provide all administrative resources for the submission of project
accomplishment reports to the [NHA] for proper evaluation and supervision on the The final details of the JVA, which will include the construction duration, costs, extent of reclamation,
actual implementation. and delivery timetables, shall be based on the FINAL REPORT which will be contained in a
Supplemental Agreement to be executed later by the parties.
4.05 Negotiate and secure, with the assistance of the [NHA] the grant of rights of
way to the PROJECT, from the owners of the adjacent lots for access road, water, The JVA may be modified or revised by written agreement between the NHA and RBI specifying the
electrical power connections and drainage facilities. clauses to be revised or modified and the corresponding amendments.

4.06 Provide temporary field office and transportation vehicles (2 units), one (1) If the Project is revoked or terminated by the Government through no fault of RBI or by mutual
complete set of computer and one (1) unit electric typewriter for the [NHAs] field agreement, the Government shall compensate RBI for its actual expenses incurred in the Project plus
personnel to be charged to the PROJECT. a reasonable rate of return not exceeding that stated in the feasibility study and in the contract as of
the date of such revocation, cancellation, or termination on a schedule to be agreed upon by both
For the NHA:
As a preliminary step in the project implementation, consultations and dialogues were conducted with
4.07 The [NHA] shall be responsible for the removal and relocation of all squatters the settlers of the Smokey Mountain Dumpsite Area. At the same time, DENR started processing the
within Smokey Mountain to the Temporary Housing Complex or to other areas application for the Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) of the SMDRP. As a result however of
prepared as relocation areas with the assistance of the [RBI]. The [RBI] shall be the consultative dialogues, public hearings, the report on the on-site field conditions, the
responsible in releasing the funds allocated and committed for relocation as detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) published on April 29 and May 12, 1993 as required by the
in the FINAL REPORT. Environmental Management Bureau of DENR, the evaluation of the DENR, and the recommendations
from other government agencies, it was discovered that design changes and additional work have to
4.08 Assist the [RBI] and shall endorse granting of exemption fees in the acquisition be undertaken to successfully implement the Project.[21]
of all necessary permits, licenses, appraisals, clearances and accreditations for the
PROJECT subject to existing laws, rules and regulations. Thus, on February 21, 1994, the parties entered into another agreement denominated as the
Amended and Restated Joint Venture Agreement[22] (ARJVA) which delineated the different phases of
4.09 The [NHA] shall inspect, evaluate and monitor all works at the Project. Phase I of the Project involves the construction of temporary housing units for the current
the Smokey Mountain and Reclamation Area while the land development and residents of the SmokeyMountain dumpsite, the clearing and leveling-off of the dumpsite, and the
construction of housing units are in progress to determine whether the development construction of medium-rise low-cost housing units at the cleared and leveled dumpsite.[23] Phase II of
and construction works are undertaken in accordance with the FINAL REPORT. If in the Project involves the construction of an incineration area for the on-site disposal of the garbage at
its judgment, the PROJECT is not pursued in accordance with the FINAL REPORT, the dumpsite.[24] The enabling component or consideration for Phase I of the Project was increased
the [NHA] shall require the [RBI] to undertake necessary remedial works. All from 40 hectares of reclaimed lands across R-10 to 79 hectares.[25] The revision also provided for the
expenses, charges and penalties incurred for such remedial, if any, shall be for the enabling component for Phase II of 119 hectares of reclaimed lands contiguous to the 79 hectares of
account of the [RBI]. reclaimed lands for Phase I.[26] Furthermore, the amended contract delineated the scope of works and
the terms and conditions of Phases I and II, thus:
4.10 The [NHA] shall assist the [RBI] in the complete electrification of the
PROJECT. x x x The PROJECT shall consist of Phase I and Phase II.

Phase I shall involve the following:

2.I. TEMPORARY HOUSING b. the reclamation and development of 119-hectare area contiguous to that to be the Presidents directive.4 meter meter Manila Bay area directly across Radial Road 10 (R-10) to serve as payment floor area with loft floor height.02 above. the OP directed that certain terms and conditions of the ARJVA be further clarified or amended preparatory to its approval. the Chairperson of the SMDRP EXECOM submitted will conform to the emission standards of the DENR the ARJVA for approval by the OP. MITIGATING MEASURES plan for said reclaimed area shall be submitted for approval by the Public Estates Authority and the Philippine Ports Authority. Concrete/Steel Frame Structure Sheet usable reclaimed under Phase I to serve as the enabling component of Phase II. the construction of 2. a reduction from 3.500 units under the JVA.693. the construction and operation of an incinerator plant that will conform to the emission standards of the DENR 1. required to be made on the ARJVA.I.1 For reclamation work Use of clean dredgefill material below the finally. c. roofing sheets future 12 SM floor area. and shall read as follows: . 80 units/ be integrated with the Philippine Port Authoritys North Harbor plan for the building. MEDIUM RISE MASS HOUSING 4. The DEVELOPER shall reclaim seventy nine (79) hectares of the meter concrete structures. Other substantial amendments are the following: 2. floor building. The additions and changes in the Original Project Component are as follows: Phase II shall involve the following: ORIGINAL CHANGES/REVISIONS a. the Radial Road 10 to serve as the enabling component of Phase I stipulated cost for Phase I was pegged at six billion six hundred ninety-three million three hundred eighty-seven thousand three hundred sixty-four pesos (PhP Phase II shall involve the following: 6. Paragraph 2. RBI shall construct 2.05.364). height. ga. painted and improved into commercial area with port facilities. bare type. that the final reclamation and port 3. Estates Authority. the parties reached an agreement on the clarifications and amendments reclaimed under Phase I to serve as the enabling component of Phase II. for longer depth of embedment. the construction and operation of an incinerator plant that In his February 10.05 shall be added to Article V of the ARJVA.387. There was a substantial change in the design of submitted to President Ramos for approval. 31 G. a. that subject to par.520 units of medium rise housing and the development of the These material and substantial modifications served as justifications for the increase in the industrial/commercial site within theSmokey Mountain area share of RBI from 40 hectares to 79 hectares of reclaimed land.992 units of temporary housing for the affected short depth of residents while clearing and development of Smokey Mountain [are] being embedment undertaken c.0 b. the life of 3 years. the NHA and RBI executed an Amendment To the Amended and Restated Joint under the JVA. use exact size and configuration of which shall be approved by the SMDRP as permanent structures for factory and warehouses mixed 17 sm & 12 Committee[30] sm floor area. b. Manila Bay area and provided further. the reclamation and development of a 79 hectare area directly across Under the JVA.[27] However.[28] 3.0 meter only meters of silt after sub-soil investigation. Pursuant to b.500 units On August 11.992 temporary housing units. actual reclamation work may MLLW and SM material mixed commence upon approval of the final reclamation plan by the Public with dredgefill above MLLW. respectively: provided 3. a.05 of Article II of the ARJVA is hereby amended to read as follows: Box type precast Shelter Conventional and precast component 20 square 2. 1994. A new paragraph to be numbered 5. Silt removal approximately Need to remove more than 3. that the port plan shall architectural faade. provided. 32 square floor area with 2. Concrete Sheet Piles a. Under the ARJVA. to wit: the permanent housing units such that a loft shall be incorporated in each unit so as to increase the living space from 20 to 32 square meters. 160 units/ (sleeping quarter) to the DEVELOPER as its asset share for Phase I and to develop such land 3. 100% use of Smokey xxxx Mountain material as dredgefill Use of Steel Sheet Piles needed 9. gauge 26 G. 1994 Memorandum.520 medium-rise low-cost permanent Venture Agreement (AARJVA)[29] clarifying certain terms and condition of the ARJVA. After review of said agreement. it was required to construct 3.6 m. which was housing units instead of 3. the specific costs of the Project were not stipulated but under the ARJVA. the reclamation and development of 119-hectare area contiguous to that to be Wood/Plywood. the clearing of Smokey Mountain and the subsequent construction of 1.

3598 conveying in favor of NHA an additional 390. opined that a rebidding. the Legislature passed the Clean Air Act. 1997 that the payment for the necessary works that cannot be covered by the 79-hectare enabling component additional works were necessary for the completion and viability of the Project. Thus. 465 dated August 31. RAMOS. President Ramos issued Proclamation No.[41] . Teofisto T. 39 (s. to Philippine President. through DOJ Opinion Nos. Based on C1 12 A of the Implementing Rules return thereon. now known as the Home Guaranty Corporation. 1993 and November 12.. the Smokey Mountain became necessary. provided that said completed portions of Phase I are in The EXECOM requested an opinion from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to determine accordance with the approved FINAL REPORT. 1994. pursuant to Proclamation No. 1998 when the project was suspended. the AUTHORITY shall compensate the DEVELOPER for the value of the completed portions Such necessary works comprised more than 25% of the original contract price and as a of. 415 Agreement to incoming President Joseph E. The devaluation of the peso and the increase in interest In its September 7. 1994. approved the ARJVA as amended by the AARJVA. NOW. The DOJ. Sometime later in 1996. the approval of the Supplemental Agreement was unacted upon for five months. a result. as of the date of such original contract price. 33 reconstituting the The land reclamation was completed in August 1996.[37] SMDRP EXECOM and further directed it to review the Supplemental Agreement and submit its recommendation on the completion of the SMDRP. and actual expenditures on the PROJECT plus a reasonable rate of result. 1994. as previously Outgoing President Ramos decided to endorse the consideration of the Supplemental authorized under Proclamation No. the recommendation and so. conveying in favor of NHA a 401. and provide new sources of funds for the project and provide for a new enabling component to cover Agency Technical Committee found and recommended to the EXECOM on December 17. on February 19. RBI. and HIGC. 1998. Afterwards. in which case. delay in the approval of the Supplemental Agreement. the off-site disposal of the garbage at NHA for payment for the advances for direct and indirect costs subject to NHA validation. revocation. not exceeding that stated in the Cost Estimates of Items of and Regulations of PD 1594. or termination. advances for direct and indirect cost which amount can no longer be covered by the 79-hectare enabling component under the ARJVA. Jr. the Inter. 39. the DENR issued Special Patent No. the EXECOM issued a resolution directing NHA to enter into a supplemental agreement covering said necessary works. President of the Republic of the On March 20. the total aggregate cost of which being more than twenty-five (25%) of the escalated AUTHORITY and stated in this Agreement. the NHA.[38] by the AUTHORITY through no fault of the DEVELOPER. by virtue of the powers vested in me by the law. 39. 1994 letter to the EXECOM.[40] On June 23. 1998 Supplemental Agreement to make it more feasible and to identify During the actual construction and implementation of Phase I of the SMDRP. do hereby authorize the increase of the area of foreshore or submerged lands of Manila Bay to be reclaimed. Guingona.[36] In November 1998. As On September 1. whether a bidding was required for the change orders and/or necessary works.[35] The Act made the establishment of an incinerator illegal and effectively barred the implementation of the planned Repeated demands were made by RBI in its own capacity and on behalf of the asset pool on incinerator project under Phase II. The EXECOM approved under the ARJVA. by the SMDRP Executive Committee. RBI. 1993.000 square meter area. 1998. Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC). on a schedule to be agreed upon by the parties. a supplemental agreement is required for all change orders and extra Work previously approved by the SMDRP Executive Committee and the work orders. 1998. and the Philippine National Bank (PNB)[33] executed As of August 1. Estrada became the 13th (s. the financial crises and unreliable real estate situation made it difficult to sell the remaining reclaimed lots. the utilities and the road networks were constructed to cover only the 79-hectare original 3591 conveying in favor of NHA an area of 211. Moreover. cancelled or terminated works. the consequent absence of an enabling 39. 1998 for approval. Seven Hundred Ninety Thousand (790. the DENR issued Special Patent No. more or less.000) square meters.[32] to wit: Thus. On August 1. 119 and 155 dated August 26. and as recommended aforementioned necessary works and submitted it to the President on March 24. 1994. The reconstituted EXECOM conducted a review of the project and recommended the amendment of the March 20. the OP through then Executive Secretary cost led to the substantial increase in the cost of reclamation. The 220-hectare extension of the 79-hectare area was Dumpsite. component to cover the cost of the necessary works for the project. the NHA and RBI entered into a Supplemental Agreement covering the Philippines. On June 30. pursuant to the aforequoted provisions of the implementing rules (referring to PD 1594) would not be necessary where the change orders inseparable from the original scope of the project. Estrada.485-square meter area. a portion of the necessary works and change orders which resulted in [RBI] and the Asset Pool incurring Guaranty Contract was entered into by NHA. from Four Hundred Thousand (400. However. and the resulting inability to replenish the Asset Pool funds partially used for the completion of the necessary works.000) square meters. more or less. 1992). I. THEREFORE.975 square meters covering the Smokey Mountain enabling component granted under the ARJVA. President Estrada issued Memorandum Order No. a negotiation with the incumbent contractor may be allowed. cancellation. NHA instructed RBI to implement the change orders or necessary 5. 1992) and Memorandum Order No. RBI had already accomplished a the Smokey Mountain Asset Pool Formation Trust Agreement (Asset Pool Agreement). FIDEL V. no longer technically feasible. 1994[31] increasing the proposed area for reclamation across R-10 from 40 hectares to 79 hectares.[34] Thereafter. the NHA granted RBIs request to suspend work on the SMDRP due to the On September 8.[39] On September 26. In the event this Agreement is revoked. pursuant likewise to Proclamation No. 1998. the DENR issued Special Patent 3592 pursuant to Proclamation No. the Asset Pool incurred direct and indirect costs.05.

the following agreements executed by and c) The inclusion in the total development cost of other additional. documents necessary and sufficient to effect the In the July 20. then President Estrada was considered resigned. submit the works covered by the P480 Million and the ASA to public bidding. the parties shall parties. 5. a. the EXECOM was authorized to proceed and d.[43] subject to in the following manner: validation by the NHA.134. 2002 Cabinet Meeting.13. the Amended Supplemental Agreement (ASA) was signed by the conveyance of real properties. 2000 OP Memorandum. Amended Supplemental Agreement (ASA) dated 19 November 2001. subject to reimbursement from the proceeds of the expanded enabling property in accordance with the procedure herein component. Amended and Restated Joint Venture Agreement (ARJVA) d) Revision in the sharing agreement between the parties. 1.1 P250 Million in cash from the escrow account in accordance with Section 2 herewith. issued within a reasonable period. 2003. conveyed to RBI. RBI demanded the payment of just compensation for in cash. the estimated total project cost of the SMDRP has reached P8.2 of the ASA.3. 99-16-01 and 99-16-02[42] which approved the On August 27. to wit: whereby both parties agreed to terminate the JVA and other subsequent agreements. 2000 Resolution No. Arroyo took her oath as the 14th President of thePhilippines. 1998 from PhP 2. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS mixed commercial-industrial area.1 In compliance with the Cabinet directive dated 30 July 2002 to based on surveys) to the SMDRP Asset Pool.65 a. 2002. Supplemental Agreement dated 24 March 1998 complete the SMDRP subject to certain guidelines and directives. 4323 approved the conveyance of the 17-hectare Vitas property in favor of the existing or a newly created Asset Pool of the project to be developed into a 5. the xxxx NHA November 9. In its September 2.2 Conveyance of a 3 hectare portion of the Vitas conveyance of the NHAs Vitas Property and an additional 150-hectare reclamation area and to Industrial area immediately after joint authorize the release by NHA of PhP 480 million as advance to the project to make the Permanent determination of the appraised value of the said Housing habitable. and on February 28. HUDCC was directed to submit the works covered by transfer of title over the properties to be the PhP 480 million [advance to the Project] and the ASA to public bidding. On August 28. 2001. may be paid with RBI and all the agreements related thereto.941. hereby agrees to initially compensate the Developer for the President Gloria M. Amendment and Restated Joint Venture Agreement dated 11 August 1994 In the March 23.40 to PhP 2. but not limited to the . NHA issued Resolution No. bonds or through the conveyance of properties or any all accomplishments and costs incurred in developing the SMDRP plus a reasonable rate of return combination thereof.053.78 billion in direct cost and P3. Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 19 March 1993 b.984. a. 2002 letter to the HUDCC Chairman.1 Subject to the validation of the DEVELOPERs claims.2 Any unpaid balance of the DEVELOPERS claims determined after the government to bid out the remaining works under the ASA thereby unilaterally terminating the Project validation process referred to in Section 4 hereof. dated 21 February 1994 c.[44] set forth in the last paragraph of Section 5. 2001. the parties negotiated the terms of the termination of the JVA and other substantial amount representing the unpaid balance has been subsequent agreements. thus: a) Approval of 150 hectares additional reclamation in order to make the reclamation feasible as part of the enabling component.[45] On August 28. 2000 Memorandum. the NHA and RBI executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) modification of the Supplemental Agreement. validated pursuant hereto including. which documents shall be the HUDCC informed RBI of the decision of the Cabinet. For purposes of all payments to be made through On November 19. The manner. abovementioned costs as follows: As of February 28. terms and conditions of thereon pursuant to Section 5.87 billion in indirect cost. e.969. TERMINATION b) The conveyance of the 15-hectare NHA Vitas property (actually 17 hectares 1.953.05 of the ARJVA and Section 6. subject to certain conditions. The EXECOM passed Resolution Nos. 4436 to pay for the various necessary works/change orders to SMDRP. necessary and between the NHA and the DEVELOPER are hereby terminated. 2002.[46] payment of the balance shall be specified and agreed upon later within a period of three months from the time a Consequently. RBI lamented the decision of the 5. indispensable infrastructure works and the revision of the original cost stated in the to wit: SupplementalAgreement dated March 20. Direct payment to DEVELOPER of the amounts herein listed billion comprising of P4. After the parties in the case at bar had complied with the March 23. 2001. the NHA On January 20. On the same day. 2001. to effect the corresponding enabling component consisting of the a. the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council secure from the NHA Board of Directors all (HUDCC) submitted the agreement to the OP for approval.

548 in 2002 and a net loss of PhP 15. THERE WAS NEVER ANY PUBLIC BIDDING AWARDING OWNERSHIP OF Nos. 2004. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE SUBJECT RECLAIMED LANDS ARE ALIENABLE AND between the Asset Pool and HCPTI whereby the asset pool subscribed to 607 million common shares NO LONGER NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE.510 beneficiary. namely: TCT 4. Due to HCPTIs failure to obtain a license to handle foreign containerized cargo from PPA. and Mr. of the properties to be conveyed by getting the average of the appraisals to be made by two (2) mutually acceptable 2.Corresponding certificates of titles were issued to HCPTI.The asset pool paid the subscription AUTHORIZING THE SALE THEREOF. The grounds presented in the instant petition are: The Courts Ruling I Before we delve into the substantive issues raised in this petition. Reghis Romero II. Inc. RESPONDENT HARBOUR. RESPONDENT R-II BUILDERS and 1. On August 5. (RHI). The Project ALIENABLE PUBLIC HAD BEEN PERFORMED. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE SUBJECT RECLAIMED FORESHORE AND independent appraisers. HCPTI. 251355. it suffered a 5. from its income or II from any other sources. 251356. IS VESTED EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE PEA.621. benefited from the Project.5% per annum and a mandatory redemption feature. THE RECLAIMED FORESHORE AND SUBMERGED PARCELS OF LAND ARE NHA and DEVELOPER hereby agree to determine the valuation INALIENABLE PUBLIC LANDS WHICH ARE BEYOND THE COMMERCE OF MAN. filed the instant petition which impleaded as respondents the NHA. Inc. THE SUBJECT LAND TO RESPONDENT R-II BUILDERS. either partially SUBMERGED LAND AREAS BECAUSE: or totally through conveyance of properties. RESPONDENT R-II BUILDERS CANNOT ACQUIRE THE RECLAIMED FORESHORE AND 5. ASSUMING THAT ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID TRANSFER OF net income loss of PhP 132. former Solicitor General Francisco I. RESPONDENT NHA AND R-II BUILDERS WERE NEVER GRANTED ANY POWER AND AUTHORITY TO RECLAIM LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AS THIS POWER Respondents argue that petitioner Chavez has no legal standing to file the petition. IV RESPONDENTS MUST BE COMPELLED TO DISCLOSE ALL INFORMATION RELATED TO The Issues THE SMOKEY MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT AND RECLAMATION PROJECT. programming of quarterly cash payments to be sourced by the NHA from its budget for debt servicing. R-II Holdings.143 million preferred shares of HCPTI. SUBMERGED PARCELS OF LAND WERE ALREADY DECLARED ALIENABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. 251357. respondent Harbour Centre Port Terminal. The HCPTI preferred shares had a premium and penalty STILL CANNOT ACQUIRE THE SAME BECAUSE THERE WAS NEVER ANY LAW interest of 7. It claimed that 2. we will first deal with several NEITHER RESPONDENT NHA NOR RESPONDENT R-II BUILDERS MAY VALIDLY procedural matters raised by respondents.3 In any case the unpaid balance is agreed to be paid. the parties shall agree on which properties shall be subject to conveyance. Chavez. BY THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION TO ACQUIRE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Only a person who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or entitled to 2. imminent danger of sustaining some direct and personal injury as a result of the execution and . RESPONDENT R-II BUILDERS. A Subscription Agreement was executed 3. RBI. (HCPTI) entered into an agreement with DECLARATION THAT THE SAID LANDS WERE NO LONGER NEEDED FOR the asset pool for the development and operations of a port in the Smokey Mountain Area which is a PUBLIC USE. RECLAIM FORESHORE AND SUBMERGED LAND BECAUSE: Whether petitioner has the requisite locus standi to file this case 1. RESPONDENT R-II BUILDERS STILL COULD NOT ACQUIRE THE SAME BECAUSE THERE WAS NEVER ANY Meanwhile. major component of SMDRP to provide a source of livelihood and employment for Smokey Mountain residents and spur economic growth. Governing Board of the Asset Pool later conveyed by way of dacion en pago a number of HCPTI BEING PRIVATE CORPORATION IS NONETHELESS EXPRESSLYPROHIBITED shares to RBI in lieu of cash payment for the latters work in SMDRP.[47]Respondents claim that petitioner is not a THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO RECLAIM FORESHORE AND SUBMERGED proper party-in-interest as he was unable to show that he has sustained or is in immediate or LAND. EVEN ASSUMING THAT RESPONDENTS NHA AND R-II BUILDERS WERE GIVEN the avails of the suit can file a complaint or petition. THEY WERE NEVER GIVEN THE AUTHORITY BY THE DENR TO DO SO. and 251358. The 1.540. CORPORATIONS R-II BUILDERS AND R-II HOLDINGS IS DISQUALIFIED FROM families belonging to the poorest of the poor had been transferred to their permanent homes and BEING A TRANSFEREE OF PUBLIC LAND. by conveying to HCPTI a 10-hectare land which it acquired from the NHA being a portion of the reclaimed land of the SMDRP. III raising constitutional issues. BEING A PRIVATE CORPORATION WHOSE MAJORITY The NHA reported that thirty-four (34) temporary housing structures and twenty-one (21) permanent STOCKS ARE OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY RESPONDENT ROMEROS housing structures had been turned over by respondent RBI.063 in 2003.

clearly and specifically set A juxtaposition of the facts in the two cases constrains the Court to rule in the negative. hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level (inferior) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court. Moreover. Indeed. Moreover. These concerns in the instant action government contracts can justify a taxpayers suit especially when no public funds were utilized in compel us to turn a blind eye to the judicial structure meant to provide an orderly dispensation of contravention of the Constitution or a law. For one. 1995. 3592. Subsequently. We explicated in Chavez v. 560 was issued finding that agencies. In the instant NHA case.[54] In Hence. A becoming regard for that judicial Now we will tackle the issues that prop up the instant petition. thus: in their pleadings[55] and those derived from the documents appended to said submissions. RBI and other which allegedly affect the right of Filipinos to the distribution of natural resources in the country and respondents are considered to have signed the agreements in good faith as the Project was the right to information of a citizenmatters which have been considered to be of extraordinary terminated even before the Chavez petition was filed. Almost one year later on August 5. there was no law or presidential proclamation classifying the lands to be reclaimed as In the light of existing jurisprudence. we already gave due course to the instant petition in our January 18. PEA[50] as conclusive authority on locus standi in the case at bar since the issues raised in Respondents next challenge the projected review by this Court of the alleged factual issues this petition are averred to be in breach of the fair diffusion of the countrys natural resources and the intertwined in the issues propounded by petitioner. coupled with Special Patents Nos. alienable and disposal lands of public domain. a national concurrent with other lower courts like the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of government agency in consultation with PEA and with the approval of two Philippine Presidents. the JVA and subsequent amendments were already substantially exceptional compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise implemented. the Chavez petition was filed. of appeals. This is established policy. (3) In PEA. we find paucity of merit in respondents postulation. 1992 as the JVA partner of the NHA in unduly burdened with repetitions. The instant petition challenges the constitutionality and legality of the SMDRP involving several (5) In PEA. serious constitutional challenges are made on the different aspects of the Project the subject lands are inalienable lands of public domain. . 2005 Resolution. and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. prohibition. the pleadings especially those of respondents readily reveal that public funds have been indirectly utilized in the Project by means of Smokey Mountain We find the position of respondents bereft of merit. Appeals. though cognizable by other courts.[52] 2003. the Chavez petition was filed before the amended JVA was executed by PEA and AMARI. AMARI was considered to be in bad faith as it signed the amended JVA after the Chavez hectares of government land and hundreds of millions of funds of several government petition was filed with the Court and after Senate Committee Report No. with the Court of Appeals. 3591. Project Participation Certificates (SMPPCs) bought by some government agencies. may (4) In PEA. is a proper party to the instant petition before the court. and to prevent further case are substantially different from the facts and circumstances in the case at bar. or mandamus. Cuaresma.Respondents RBI and RHI question the filing of the petition as this Court should not be JVA after RBI was declared the winning bidder on August 31. Vasquez that such resort to us may be allowed in certain situations. there is no necessity to show that petitioner has experienced or is in actual Core factual matters undisputed danger of suffering direct and personal injury as the requisite injury is assumed. They listed a copious number of questions constitutional right of a citizen to information which have been declared to be matters of seemingly factual in nature which would make this Court a trier of facts. In this RBI case. directly be filed with us if the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where In this NHA case. The reclamation project in the instant NHA case was undertaken by the NHA. thus: over-crowding of the Courts docket. 39 of then President Ramos. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue undisputed. In the instant petition. in Santiago v. petitioner. It is a policy that is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Courts time and attention which are better The Court finds that PEA is not a binding precedent to the instant petition because the facts in said devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction. classified the reclaimed lands as alienable and disposable. out in the petition. the NHA and RBI executed a trier of facts. PCGG[49] that in cases where issues of transcendental public importance are presented. Judicial hierarchy was made clear in the case ofPeople v. justice and consider the instant petition as a justified deviation from an established precept. MO 415 of former President Aquino and Proclamation No. We find our ruling in Chavez v. 2004. Whether petitioners direct recourse to this Court was proper Secondly. Since petitioner has cited our decision in PEA as basis for his postulations in a number of and those against the latter. and While direct recourse to this Court is generally frowned upon and discouraged. of [this Courts] primary jurisdiction. we have however ruled 3598. the core facts which are the subject matter of the numerous issues raised in this petition are There is after all a hierarchy of courts.[51] x x x (1) The reclamation project in PEA was undertaken through a JVA entered into between PEA and The OSG claims that the jurisdiction over petitions for prohibition and mandamus is AMARI. AMARI and PEA executed a JVA to develop the Freedom Islands and reclaim submerged to this Court and that the lower courts are more equipped for factual issues since this Court is not a areas without public bidding on April 25. they assert that not all significance and grave consequence to the public in general. wherein this Court ruled that petitions for certiorari. as a taxpayer. we first resolve the queryis PEA applicable to the case at bar? Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor.[48] Moreover. A direct invocation of the issues.[53] transcendental public importance. the parties were required to make clear and concise statements of established facts upon which our decision will be based. invocation of jurisdiction over constitutional questions it had the SMDRP after compliance with the requisite public bidding.enforcement of the assailed contracts or agreements. previously resolved and settled. the Project was terminated through a MOA signed on August 27. we agree with petitioner that there is no necessity for us to make any factual findings since Respondents are one in asserting that petitioner circumvents the principle of hierarchy of courts in his the facts needed to decide the instant petition are well established from the admissions of the parties petition. said issuance. Respondent NHA argues that the instant petition is misfiled because it does not introduce special and important reasons or exceptional and compelling circumstances to warrant direct recourse (2) In PEA.

39 (s. The principle of stare decisis[59] has no application to the different factual setting of the instant PEA upon approval of the President. we find that the project met all the three (3) and ensure their maximum utilization in promoting public welfare and requirements. there must be a formal declaration segregating reclaimed lands 1.[61] does not mention that PEA has the exclusive and sole power and authority to reclaim lands of public domain. 1992) which approved the SMDRP under Sec. and relies on PEA where this Court held: and develop submerged areas for port related purposes. x x x. Let us apply the legal parameters of Sec. and submerged land because they were not given any power and authority to reclaim lands of the generally. 1. EO 525 to the reclamation phase of SMDRP. petition can already be rejected. Moreover. under EO No. viz: grounds raised in this petition. on the premise of the applicability of said decision to (2) favorable recommendation of PEA. PEA under EO 525 was designated as the agency primarily responsible for integrating. coordination.Nevertheless. We will now dwell on the substantive issues raised by petitioner. not all reclamation projects fall under PEAs authority of supervision. Smokey Mountain Area and the Reclamation Area for a housing project and related commercial/industrial development. (Emphasis supplied. agreement with respondent RBI.) case. PD 1084. 3-A and PD No. by PEA First Issue: Whether respondents NHA and RBI have been granted b.[60] Presidents approved the same. petitioner clarifies that the reclamation was not done by Development Plan and Reclamation of the Area across R-10 through a private sector joint venture PEA or through a contract executed by PEA with another person or entity but by the NHA through an scheme at the least cost to government under Section 3. The same section also states that [A]ll responsible for integrating. as earlier discussed. and shall be undertaken by the PEA or through a proper contract executed entity or may even be undertaken by the National Government itself. mostly. enclose or raise any of the lands vested in it. For his part. After a perusal of the The aforequoted provision points to three (3) requisites for a legal and valid reclamation project. then President Ramos issued Proclamation No. 1084. Therefore. he concludes that the reclamation is null and void. a government entity NOT tasked to dispose of public land through a proper contract executed by it with any person or entity. PEA being only an agency and a by it with any person or entity. Section 1 of Executive Order No. EO 525 even reveals the Asserting that existing laws did not empower the NHA and RBI to reclaim lands of public domain. we find that most of these issues are moored on our PEA Decision which. and Section 1. The NHA-RBI JVA and subsequent amendments constitute a BOT contract governed by the BOT Law. Provided. . such authority is NOT reclamation projects shall be approved by the President upon recommendation of exclusive and such power to reclaim may be granted or delegated to another government agency or the PEA. The Public Estates Authority (PEA) shall be primarily responsible for integrating.[57] that. namely: Presidents Aquino and Ramos. Petitioner contends that neither respondent NHA nor respondent RBI may validly reclaim foreshore directing. 1992) which expressly reserved the Petitioners contention has no merit. is the primary authority for the reclamation of all reclaim land. reclamation projects of any national government agency or entity Thus the PEA Decision[58] cannot be considered an authority or precedent to the instant authorized under its charter shall be undertaken in consultation with the case. the lands to be reclaimed or already reclaimed were transferred to PEA. and the case at bar. All reclamation projects shall be approved by the entity tasked to dispose of public lands under Executive Order No. directing. and coordinating all reclamation projects. There was ample approval by the President of the Philippines. and coordinating all reclamation projects for and on behalf of (7) In PEA. and shall be undertaken by the PEA or reclaimed lands were transferred to NHA. The very charter of PEA. we will proceed to resolve said issues. by the National Government agency or entity authorized under its charter to reclaim lands subject this power is vested exclusively in PEA as claimed by petitioner to consultation with PEA Without doubt. petitioner claims. and public domain as this power was delegated by law to PEA. excavate. integration. 1 and directed NHA x x x to implement the Smokey Mountain In the Smokey Mountain Project. 525 provides that PEA shall be primarily responsible for integrating. (EO) 525. as a matter of fact. and coordinating all reclamation projects for Thus. in relation to PD No. the (1) approval by the President. President Aquino sanctioned the reclamation of both the SMDRP housing and commercial-industrial sites through MO 415 (s. PEA became the primary implementing agency of the National Government to reclaim foreshore and submerged lands of the public domain. Primarily means mainly. (3) undertaken by any of the following: a. EO 525 reads: (6) The PEA-AMARI JVA was executed as a result of direct negotiation between the parties and not in accordance with the BOT Law. thus: interests. a government the National Government. PPA has the power to reclaim. has no application to the instant petition. EO No.[56] In the NHA case. principally. directing. One example is EO 405 which authorized the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) to reclaim foreshore and submerged lands of public domain. Since large portions of these reclaimed lands would obviously be needed for public service. directing and coordinating reclamation projects. the President upon recommendation of the PEA. and therefore said alienable lands were converted to patrimonial lands upon their transfer to NHA. Under its charter. PD 857. the exceptionreclamation projects by a national government agency or entity authorized by its charter to Public Estates Authority (PEA). part of the National Government. two Philippine no longer needed for public service from those still needed for public service. 525. by any person or entity pursuant to a contract it executed with PEA the power and authority to reclaim lands of the public domain as c. Thus. After a 525 recognized PEA as the government entity to undertake the reclamation of lands scrutiny of the facts culled from the records. For this reason alone. Thus. while PEA under PD 1084 has the power to reclaim land and under EO 525 is primarily and on behalf of the National Government.

the Philippine Ports for the sustained growth of the housing industry. does not transferred to.485 square meters of reclaimed 1.[65] It was also explicated that when the statute does not specify Moreover. expertise. Private participation in housing projects may also take the form of land part of the recommendations of the EXECOM created under MO 415. purposes and objectives: allocated. and its submission of the SMDRP and the agreements on the Project to the President for Authority (TFDA). (Emphasis supplied. 2 provides: Constitution. recommendation on the SMDRP emanating solely from PEA. the Department of terms of capital expenditures. chaired by the NCR-CORD. a.975 square meters of Smokey Mountain. x x x(Emphasis explicitly mention reclamation in any of the listed powers of the agency. The requisite favorable endorsement of the reclamation phase was impliedly granted by PEA. and PD 3-A. The assignment was made in Sec. business or development projects for the conferred by necessary or fair implication in the enabling act. MO 415. the Central Institute for the Training and Relocation of Urban Squatters phase was not done by PEA or any person or entity under contract with PEA. Special Patent No.) Authority. NHAs power to reclaim derived from PD 757 provisions: land. While the authority of NHA to reclaim lands is challenged by petitioner. Sec. 2 of MO 415 which provides: b) To undertake housing. Villanueva. The Authority shall have the following powers based on its charter and other pertinent statutes. Sec. The People's Homesite 3. and choses in action. are hereby dissolved. President Aquino saw to it that there was coordination of the project with PEA by designating its xxxx general manager as member of the EXECOM tasked to supervise the project implementation. records. 3592 covering 401. Sec. logically. Electoral Commission. a national government agency whose authority to reclaim (PRECHUR). integrated and healthy living the Court clarified and stressed that when a general grant of power is conferred or duty enjoined. the Public Estates Authority.[67] viz: As a result of Proclamations Nos.[66] less. powers. and successfully PD 570 dated October 30. which defined its objectives. community in theTondo Foreshoreland and its resettlement site.[64] In Angara v. every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also . has the power to reclaim. assets. Basic in administrative law is the doctrine that a government agency or office has express and implied Section 2. more or functions. RA 6957. While there was no specific reclamation. The Authority shall have the following purposes and objectives: 2.000 square meters. and implement an urban land reform and housing program enunciated in Sec. we rule that the NHA has an supplied. Section 2. establishment of harmonious. While PD 757. Objectives and Purposes. Sapang Palay Development Committee. Section 3. task forces and ad-hoc committees. financing and other facilities Public Works and Highways. we find that the approbation of the Project and the land reclamation as an essential component by the EXECOM of which PEA is a b. the first requirement of presidential imprimatur on the SMDRP has been satisfied. and assumed by the Authority. 465 (s. 9 of Article XIII of the 1987 functions. However. vested in. and delegated to a government agency or office by express provisions of law. the charter of NHA. are more than enough authority to do so under existing laws. An Executive Committee is hereby created to oversee the implementation of the Plan. comprehensive. Section 5.Their powers and functions. conferred by necessary implication. resettlement or other activities as would enhance the provision of housing to every Filipino.000 square meters of reclaimed land were issued by the DENR. Misamis 7279[62] and RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718. Progress and Objectives. On the other hand. of the foreshore and submerged lands of Manila Bay adjoining R-10 as an enabling component of the SMDRP. implied powers are those that can be inferred or are implicit in the wordings of the law[63] or a) To undertake all manner of activity.) Land reclamation is an integral part of the development of resources for some of the housing The favorable recommendation by PEA of the JVA and subsequent amendments were incorporated as requirements of the NHA. The third element was also presentthe reclamation was undertaken either by PEA or any person or and Housing Corporation (PHHC). Special Patent No. the Presidential Assistant on Housing entity under contract with PEA or by the National Government agency or entity authorized under its Resettlement Agency (PAHRA). (Emphasis supplied. Inter-Agency Task Force to lands under consultation with PEA is derived from its charterPD 727 and other pertinent lawsRA Undertake the Relocation of Families in Barrio Nabacaan. 3 of PD 757 implies that reclamation may be resorted to in order to attain the goals of NHA: Thus. rights. the City of Manila. with the heads of the following agencies as c) To harness and promote private participation in housing ventures in members: The National Housing Authority. 3591 covering 211.Express powers are those powers granted. 3598 covering another 390. the Tondo Foreshore Development Authority charter to reclaim lands subject to consultation with PEA. we find that the NHA had balance of appropriations. as successor of the Tondo Foreshore Development member.) implied power to reclaim land as this is vital or incidental to effectively. and Special Patent No. It cannot be disputed that the reclamation (TFDA). 1994) which authorized the the particular method to be followed or used by a government agency in the exercise of the power increase of the Reclamation Area from 40 hectares of foreshore and submerged land of vested in it by law. land. the Presidential Committee for Housing and Urban Resettlement reclamation was implemented by the NHA. It speaks of the reclamation of 400. President Ramos issued Proclamation No. 5 of PD 757 serves as proof that the NHA. said agency has the authority to adopt any reasonable method to carry out its the Manila Bay to 79 hectares. RA 7279. Dissolution of Existing Housing Agencies. 39 and 465. the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Development Bank of the Philippines. development. 1974 created the TFDA. the (CITRUS). The power to reclaim on the part of the NHA is implicit from PD 757. thus: approval amply met the second requirement of EO 525. Oriental and all other existing government housing and resettlement agencies.

sites. supplied. safe to conclude that the NHAs power to reclaim lands is a power that is implied from the exercise of its explicit powers under Sec. it is readily apparent that the TFDA has the explicit power to develop public lands covering the Tondo foreshore land and any other additional and alternative resettlement PD 757 identifies NHAs mandate to [d]evelop and undertake housing development and/or sites under letter b. Powers and functions of the Authority.The National Housing c.With two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act. and reclaim land. regulate and supervise the establishment and operation of supplied. 2.) xxxx The powers and functions are contained in Sec. Resettlement. (Emphasis d) To determine. all or any of the different phases of development of the Tondo NHA to perform such other activities necessary to effect the policies and objectives of PD 757. own. make use of public lands under letter (c) of Sec. with option to purchase. xxxx c) To construct. resettlement sites.) development and construction of the SMDRP housing facilities.) housing. 3 of PD 570. with respect to lands belonging to the National Government. 12 and 29 of RA dwellers and squatters of Tondo. Since the powers of TFDA were assumed by the NHA. It can resettlement sites. the reclamation of said areas is necessary in order to convert them into a comprehensive and integrated resettlement housing project for the slum The power of the NHA to undertake reclamation of land can be inferred from Secs. 6 in order to effectively accomplish its policies and objectives under f) To acquire and own property. (s) Perform such other acts not inconsistent with this Decree. foreshore land cover foreshore and submerged areas. in coordination with the National Housing Authority. conservation (l) Acquire property rights and interests and encumber or otherwise dispose the and utilization of public lands covering the Tondo Foreshore land and its same as it may deem appropriate. NHAs implied power to reclaim land is enhanced by RA 7279. 3. to wit: (e) Develop and undertake housing development and/or resettlement projects through joint ventures or other arrangements with public and private a) To develop and implement comprehensive and integrated urban renewal entities. the reclamation of land is an indispensable component for the otherwise dispose of the same as it may deem appropriate (Emphasis supplied. 6. Sec. services and commercial and industrial complexes and any other enterprises to be constructed or established within the Tondo Foreshore and its The NHAs authority to reclaim land can be inferred from the aforequoted provisions. operate and maintain infrastructure facilities. usufruct or Commission: such other variations as the local government units or the National Housing Authority may deem most expedient in carrying out the purposes of this Act. shall coordinate with each other to formulate and make available various Sec. acquire. programs for the Tondo Foreshore and Dagat-dagatan lagoon and/or any other xxxx additional/alternative resettlement site and to formulate and enforce general and specific policies for its development which shall ensure reasonable degree of (k) Enter into contracts whenever necessary under such terms and conditions as it compliance with environmental standards. lease. b) To prescribe guidelines and standards for the reservation. Sec. by itself or through joint ventures with other public or joint ventures with private entities under letter (e). Section 12. conservation the Tondo Foreshore residents in particular and the nation in general (Emphasis and utilization of public lands identified for housing and resettlement. b) To undertake and promote the physical and socio-economic amelioration of (c) Prescribe guidelines and standards for the reservation. 6 which includes reclaimed land as site for its comprehensive and integrated housing projects under letter (a) which can be undertaken through e) To undertake and develop. 6 of PD 757 delineates the functions and powers of the NHA which embrace the authority to Authority. Taken together with letter (s) which authorizes private entities. as may be necessary to effect the policies and objectives herein declared. 3 of its charter. and encumber or Sec. then the NHA 7279. which provide: has the power to reclaim lands in the Tondo foreshore area which covers the 79-hectare land subject of Proclamations Nos. Thus. xxxx xxxx Section 29. property-rights and interests. thus: the local government units with respect to other lands within their respective localities. From the foregoing provisions. housing complex. Since the additional and/or alternative sites adjacent to Tondo resettlement projects through joint ventures or other arrangements with public and private entities. the local government units. These schemes shall not be limited to those involving transfer of established national human settlements plan prepared by the Human Settlements ownership in fee simple but shall include lease. 39 and 465 and Special Patents Nos. sites and services. may deem proper and reasonable.The Authority shall have the following alternative schemes for the disposition of lands to the beneficiaries of the powers and functions to be exercised by the Board in accordance with its Program. it is Foreshore land and its resettlement sites. 3592 and 3598. (a) Develop and implement the comprehensive and integrated housing program provided for in Section hereof. shall . Disposition of Lands for Socialized Housing.

amend. over all reclamation projects in the country. avowed goal of developing low-cost housing units at the Smokey Mountain dumpsites. waterways. filling or other means or to acquire reclaimed lands. Despite the issuance of EO 525. dumpsites of Metro Manila. and coordinating reclamation projects for and on behalf of the National Government although other national government agencies can be designated by the President to reclaim lands in WHEREAS. the said Plan requires the coordinated and synchronized efforts of the The power of the National Government through the President over reclamation of areas. Government or any person authorized by it under the proper contract. 1992 Joint Resolution No. government agency. Under EO 543. Section 3. agencies. Moreover. RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718the BOT Lawserves as an exception to PD 1084 and EO 525. and playgrounds. 2 of EO 543 strengthened the power of control and supervision of the President over 10. 1972.) Section 1. effective and efficient implementation. underwater. we conclude that the Presidents delegation to NHA. WHEREAS. All executive issuances inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby Based on the provisions of the BOT Law and Implementing Rules and Regulations.) unequivocal that all government infrastructure agencies like the NHA can undertake infrastructure or development projects using the contractual arrangements prescribed by the law. Memorandum Order No. under PD 3-A. PEA was renamed the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) and was granted the authority to approve reclamation projects. 2006. was made clear in EO 543[69] which took effect on June 24. (Emphasis supplied. as the President retained his power under PD 3-A to designate another agency to reclaim lands. or offices. From the foregoing considerations. parks. including foreshore and submerged areas by 3. The PEAs power to reclaim is not however exclusive as can be gleaned from its charter. Subsequently. roads. among others. 161-A mandated the National Housing Authority to conduct feasibility studies and develop low-cost housing projects at the On February 14. the National Housing Authority has presented a viable Conceptual Plan to coordination with the PEA. we rule that the authority PD 757. City of Manila and other government agencies and instrumentalities to ensure underwater whether foreshore or inland. that is. shall provide revested it to the National Government. the government encourages private sector initiative in the 525. The local which previously delegated the right to reclaim lands to municipalities and chartered cities and government unit.[68] Under PD 3-A. in coordination with the National Housing Authority. WHEREAS. directing. President Marcos issued PD 1084 creating the PEA. (Emphasis supplied. 1979. 3 of the 8th Congress. which was granted. The interpretation made by no less than the President of the Philippines as Chief of the Executive Branch. must necessarily command respect and much weight and credit. The power of the President to approve reclamation projects is hereby delegated to the Philippine Reclamation Authority [formerly PEA]. on February 4. Lands belonging to the National Government include foreshore and submerged lands which can be reclaimed to undertake housing development and resettlement projects. manpower. we find that the NHA has ample implied authority to undertake From the foregoing issuances. is legal and valid. and land reclamation is one of the projects that can be resorted to in the BOT project implementation under the February Sec. shall be limited to the National as esteros. a power previously reposed in the President under EO WHEREAS. implement therelocation and resettlement of persons living in danger areas such the reclamation of areas. It repealed. It granted PEA primary responsibility for integrating. the National Government through the President still retained the power and control of the reclamation area across R-10 as enabling component of the Project. by the President under PD 3-A reinforced by EO 525 is more than sufficient statutory basis for the reclamation of lands under the SMDRP. to reclaim lands under the SMDRP. Section 2. it is unequivocal that reclamation of land in subject to the condition that reclamation contracts to be executed with any person the Smokey Mountain area is an essential and vital power of the NHA to effectively implement its or entity go through public bidding. PD 3-A remained valid and convert the Smokey Mountain dumpsite into a habitable housing project inclusive subsisting. firmly anchored on PD 3-A buttressed by EO 525 notwithstanding the absence of any specific grant of power under its charter. the power to reclaim land. amend or nullify PRAs action. reclamation of lands as s/he can modify. Even without an implied power to reclaim lands under NHAs charter. expertise. It provided that [t]he provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding. a national government agency. EO 525 was issued. Second Issue: Whether respondents NHA and RBI were given the PD 3-A is a law issued by then President Ferdinand E. garbage dumps. 4. Thus. or nullify the action of PEA (now PRA). the Executive affected families. 1972. EO 543 reads: implementation of its projects. Nothing in the Order shall be construed as diminishing the of which the NHA is a part. railroad tracks. the Executive Branch through the President can implement reclamation of lands through any of its departments. 1977. through its governing board. riverbanks.) Branch is the only implementing arm in the government with the equipment. and capability by the very nature of its assigned powers and functions to undertake reclamation projects. lands . subject to compliance with existing laws and rules and Proceeding from these whereas clauses. it is repealed or amended accordingly. (Emphasis supplied. whether foreshore or inland. shorelines. national government can only mean the relocation or resettlement sites with basic services and facilities and access to Executive Branch headed by the President. Thus. in effect. Presidents authority to modify. MO 415 explains the undertaking of the NHA in SMDRP: dredging. Marcos under his martial law powers power and authority by DENR to reclaim foreshore and submerged on September 23. a national reclamation projects. RA 1899 and in other public places as sidewalks. granted to NHA. It cannot refer to Congress as it was dissolved and employment and livelihood opportunities sufficient to meet the basic needs of the abolished at the time of the issuance of PD 3-A on September 23.

VII of the Constitution provides that the President shall have control of all executive 21-hectare dumpsite and the 40-hectare commercial/industrial area. The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 grants authority to the President to reserve lands of public domain for settlement for any specific purpose. The reserved land shall Notwithstanding the need for DENR permission. and Proclamation No. she may act directly or In short. they were not authorized to do so by the DENR. In PEA. any department head can of the public domain. Thus. programs. means the power of an officer to alter. The requirement applies to PEA. any of the lands of the public domain. As Chief disposable lands of the public domain open to disposition. 39 covering the 1. Jr. Hence. like foreshore defy or oppose the implementation of a project approved by the head of the executive branch. Government. We note that then DENR Executive. President the issuance of a proclamation classifying the lands as alienable or bureaus and offices. What can be done indirectly by the DENR can be done directly by the President. Having supervision and control over the DENR. she has her subordinates to implement 141. 3517 in government. whether directly or through private contractors. both Presidents directly assumed and nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer has done in the performance of his duties and to exercised the power granted by the Revised Administrative Code to the DENR Secretary to authorize substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. 465 and departments. The DENR is a department in the executive branch by the President. reliance is made on our ruling in PEA where it was held that the DENRs authority is or execute the Project. Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and Private Domain of the Manila Bay or in any part of the Philippines can be undertaken. Art. Ordinarily the proposed action and the powerful than the President.[72] areas under water. Sec. we find after all that under existing laws. the power to order the reclamation of lands of public domain is reposed first in the Philippine President. 141. DENR Secretary. Such is a reclaim. countersigned Special Patent No. we stated that when a statute imposes a specific duty on the executive department. Such act is well within the water. Factoran. conservator and overseer of the natural resources of the State. DENR is also empowered to classify lands of the public domain into alienable or disposable lands subject to the approval of the President. It would be absurd if the power of the President cannot be exercised simply because the As such. and it is only an alter ego of the latter. President Arroyo holds the steering wheel that controls the course of her Secretary Fulgencio S.[71] the NHA to reclaim said lands. in administrative law. Section 17. However. the President may act directly or order the said department to undertake an activity. provided by law or proclamation. This means that PEA is patently illegal and unconstitutional.[70] Moreover. (Emphasis supplied. presidential prerogative as long as it involves the department or office authorized by law to supervise Again. modify. . [She] shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. as in this case. NHA. It cannot be disputed that the ultimate power over alienable and disposable public lands is reposed in the President of thePhilippines and not the DENR As manager. Thus. Otherwise. Romulo. we nevertheless find petitioners position thereafter remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise bereft of merit. The President is assigned the task of seeing to it that all laws are MO 415 increasing the area of foreshore and submerged lands of Manila Bay to be reclaimed from 40 faithfully executed. Control. In short. Whatever policy she chooses. and for specific public purposes. DENR already authorized and ordered the implementation of the Project would be a derogation of the also exercises exclusive jurisdiction on the management and disposition of all lands powers of the President as the head of the executive branch. to 79 hectares. the use of which is not otherwise directed by law. the President can exercise executive power motu proprio and can supplant the act or head of a department in the executive branch has not acted favorably on a project already approved decision of a subordinate with the Presidents own. thus: Despite our finding that PEA is not a precedent to the case at bar. Article that the reclaimed lands should be so classified. needs authorization from DENR before PEA can undertake reclamation projects in Manila Bay. them. On the other hand. If such arrangement is allowed then the department head will become more under the President. it then recommends to the VII of the Constitution specifies [her] power as Chief executive departments. which or submerged areas of Manila Bay. the required authorization from the DENR to reclaim land can be deemed satisfied. She lays down policies in the execution of her plans and compliance with the Revised Administrative Code and Sections 6 and 7 of CA No.(1) The President shall have the power to reserve for settlement or or any other government agency or office granted with such power under the law. there is nothing infirm or unconstitutional if the President decides on the Petitioner Chavez puts forth the view that even if the NHA and RBI were granted the authority to implementation of a certain project or activity and requires said department to implement it. In Chavez v. PEA is tasked to develop.Whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to her subordinate. Once DENR decides [A]t the apex of the entire executive officialdom is the President. public use. DENR also exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the disposition of all lands of the thus: public domain. bureaus and offices. or in any part of the country. sell or lease the reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain. DENR decides whether reclaimed lands of PEA should be classified as alienable under Sections 6 and 7 of CA No. Then President Ramos issued Proclamation No. she has the power of control. when the President approved and ordered the necessary in order for the government to validly reclaim foreshore and submerged lands. To still require a DENR authorization on the Smokey Mountain when the President has exercises supervision and control over alienable and disposable public lands. the NHA is still required to procure DENRs authorization before a reclamation project in Section 14. should be reclaimed or not. 17. while PEA is vested with the power to undertake the physical reclamation of prerogative of her office (emphasis supplied). DENR is vested with the power to authorize the reclamation of areas under merely direct the performance of a duty x x x. making DENR a member expounded in this manner: of the committee tasked to implement the project. we development of a housing project with the corresponding reclamation work.) The DENR is deemed to have granted the authority to reclaim in the Smokey Mountain Project for the President Aquino reserved the area of the Smokey Mountain dumpsite for settlement and following reasons: issued MO 415 authorizing the implementation of the Smokey Mountain Development Project plus the reclamation of the area across R-10. DENR decides whether areas under water. staff work are initially done by a department like the DENR and then submitted to the President for approval.

39 issued by then President Ramos by which the reclaimed lands were conveyed 4. morals.[73] (Emphasis supplied. through its acts and issuances. 3598 that embraced the areas covered by the Mountain Dumpsite is hereby conveyed to the National Housing Authority as well as the area to be reclamation. is equivalent to an official These contracts cannot be ratified. the NHA cannot effectively use them in its the powers of the EXECOM of SMDRP. These patents conveyed the lands to be reclaimed to the NHA and granted to said reclaimed across R-10. 1409 of the Admittedly. use (commercial/industrial) to provide employment opportunities to on-site families and additional areas for port-related activities. outside the commerce of man Secondly. to wit: 3. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning: to qualified beneficiaries. Such grant of The directive to transfer the lands once reclaimed to the NHA implicitly carries with it the declaration authority to administer and dispose of lands of public domain under the SMDRP is of course subject to that said lands are alienable and disposable. lands of the public domain. Absent such law or proclamation. Alcala issued Special Patents Nos. 39 and 465 issued by President Ramos. 39 the beneficiaries. 465 likewise issued by President Ramos enlarged the reclaimed area to 79 hectares to be developed and disposed of in the implementation of the SMDRP. Former DENR Secretary Angel C. One of the parties. PD No. Neither can the right to set up the defense of proclamation classifying theFreedom Islands as alienable or disposable illegality be waived. (2) Proclamation No. 3591. The query is. 3592. It is only on such date that the reclaimed lands became alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. the DENR is one of the members of the EXECOM chaired by the NCR- CORD to oversee the implementation of the Project. has ratified and been transformed to alienable and disposable lands. 4 states that [t]he land covered by the Smokey Secretary Victor O. (1) Those whose cause. 3591. 39 and 465 are explicit declarations Civil Code which provides: that the lands to be reclaimed are classified as alienable and disposable. it cannot be said that MO 415. agency the administration and disposition of said lands for subdivision and disposition to qualified beneficiaries and for development for mix land use (commercial/industrial) to provide employment opportunities to on-site families and additional areas for port related activities. (3) Proclamation No. of which Sec. Petitioner contends that for these reclaimed lands to be alienable. open to disposition or concession to qualified and they cannot be alienated except for alienable agricultural lands of the public domain. 39 and 465 cumulatively and jointly taken together open to disposition or concession. classified the reclaimed areas as alienable and disposable. reclaimed areas were issued.) States natural resources are lands of public domain which include reclaimed lands. 1085 and President Aquinos issuance of a land patent also constitute a declaration that theFreedom Islands are no longer needed for public service. We find however that such conclusion is derived and implicit from the authority given to the NHA to transfer the reclaimed lands Article 1409. there must be a law or presidential proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable and disposable and Thus. Said directive carries with it the pronouncement that said lands have Based on these reasons. XII of the Constitution declare that all natural resources are owned by the State disposable lands of the public domain. viz: supervision and control over the laws affected by the Project since it was tasked to facilitate the titling of the Smokey Mountain and of the area to be reclaimed. coupled with President Aquinos actual issuance of a special patent covering the Freedom Islands. good customs. MO 415 and Proclamations Nos. of which the DENR is a member. Clearly. it is clear that the DENR. 2 and 3. Petitioner postulates that respondent RBI cannot acquire the reclaimed foreshore and submerged areas as these are inalienable public lands beyond the commerce of man based on Art. alienable or disposable hence open to disposition or concession. without doubt. the DENR retained its power of State for the following reasons. We are not convinced of petitioners postulation. Special Patents Nos. The issuance of ECCs by the DENR for SMDRP is but an exercise of its power of supervision and to NHA for subdivision and disposition to qualified beneficiaries and for development into a mixed land control over the lands of public domain covered by the Project. Proclamations Nos. must be a law or presidential proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable and open to disposition or concession (emphasis supplied). PD No. The authority put into Third Issue: Whether respondent RBI can acquire reclaimed the hands of the NHA to dispose of the reclaimed lands tacitly sustains the conversion to alienable and foreshore and submerged lands considered as inalienable and disposable lands. when did the declaration take effect? It did so only after the special patents covering the public order or public policy. 2. and 3598 issued by the DENR anchored on Proclamations Nos. and 3598 more than satisfy the requirement in PEA that [t]here enabling component or consideration to be paid to RBI as these are beyond the commerce of man. object or purpose is contrary to law. 3591 and 3592 while then (1) MO 415 issued by President Aquino. Art. housing and resettlement project. 2 of MO 415. Otherwise. and 465. 3592. Under Sec. 1085. there is no legal way to convey it to confirmed the reclamation of the subject lands for the purposes laid down in Proclamations Nos. The Freedom Islands are thus alienable or Secs. Otherwise. which shows that it had tacitly given its First. there were three (3) presidential proclamations classifying the reclaimed lands across R-10 as authority to the NHA to undertake the reclamation. Ramos issued Special Patent No. The EXECOM was the one which recommended The reclaimed lands across R-10 were classified alienable and disposable lands of public domain of the approval of the project plan and the joint venture agreements. This is in line with the ruling in PEA where said issue was xxxx clarified and stressed: (7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.[74] . the reclaimed lands cannot be the with Special Patent Nos.

the grant of a portion or description approved by the Bureau of Lands. however. 3591. before these lands can become private or Subsequently. and the processing and preparation of the special patent are matters within the technical for disposition. construction. Sec. Special Patent No. then it would be useless to transfer it to the NHA since it cannot legally said special law. The issuance of certificates of titles in NHAs name automatically be transferred only to Filipino citizens but not to a private corporation. Republic laid down the jurisprudence that: From the foregoing considerations. While RA 6957 as modified by RA 7718 does not expressly declare that the reclaimed lands that shall The conduct of the survey. hence. As was ruled in PEA cited by petitioner himself. operation and maintenance of any infrastructure exercise of his power of supervision and control over alienable and disposable public lands and his projects undertaken through the build-operate-and transfer arrangement or any of exclusive jurisdiction over the management and disposition of all lands of public domain under the its variations pursuant to the provisions of this Act. 3592. This is because PEA under PD converts the reclaimed lands to patrimonial properties of the NHA. contends that the reclaimed lands were inexistent prior to the three (3) such patent. Special Patent No. citing PEA. 3592 and 3598 solely for the are owned by Filipinos. the project proponent x x x may Revised Administrative Code of 1987. it has been reclassified issued. 60% of which undertaking. Otherwise. The doctrine was reiterated in Republic v. 1085. we find that RA 6957 tantamount to and can be considered to be an official declaration that the reclaimed lots are alienable as amended by RA 7718 provides ample authority for the classification of reclaimed land in the or disposable lands of the public domain.We ruled in PEA that alienable and knowledgeable on such matters. are official acts of the DENR Secretary in the For the financing. the computation of the technical serve as payment to the project proponent have become alienable and disposable lands and opened description. has no legal basis. The NHA holds the lands covered by Special Patents Nos. 3592 speaks of the transfer of Lots 1 and 2.[77] lands of public domain must be transferred to qualified private parties. Republic of the Philippines. and RI-003901-000012-D with an area of 401. 39 and 465 without taking into consideration the issuance of certificates of titles to the NHA based on Special Patents Nos. and in the hands of NHA. this Court in Baguio v. The lands become alienable and disposable lands of public domain upon issuance of transfer or alienate lands of public domain. to raise funds for the SMDRP. PD No. SMDRP for the repayment scheme of the BOT project as alienable and disposable lands of public domain. Sr. Republic. 3592 and 3598. the preparation of the survey plan.. 2002.[78] Presidential Acts (MO 415 and Proclamations Nos.Apropos the requisite law categorizing reclaimed land as alienable or disposable. such as. 3592 (40 hectare reclaimed land) and 3598 (39-hectare reclaimed land). the special patents in the name of the NHA were submitted to the Register of Deeds of patrimonial lands (emphasis supplied). 39 and 465) and hence. The the Freedom islands as alienable or disposable lands of public domain. special patents issued by the DENR demonstrates the inherent weakness of his proposition. As early as 1999.[76] Preparation of special patents calls for technical examination and a specialized review of calculations and specific details which the courts It may be argued that the grant of authority to sell public lands. The reason is obvious: if the reclaimed land is not converted to patrimonial purpose of the SMDRP undertaken by authority of the BOT Law and for disposition in accordance with land once transferred to NHA. 3598 was issued in favor of percentage of the reclaimed land. does not convert are ill-equipped to undertake. the combined reclamation of the land under SMDRP was completed in August 1996 while the PEA decision was and collective effect of Proclamations Nos. but not limited to.[80] and the more recent case of Doris Chiongbian-Oliva v. The laws of the land have to be applied and interpreted depending on the changing is a government agency not tasked to dispose of public lands under its charterThe Revised conditions and times.) 390. The ruling in PEA cannot even be applied retroactively to the lots covered by Special of a special patent covering the Freedom Islands is equivalent to an official proclamation classifying Patents Nos. they are automatically converted to patrimonial to the contractor of a government project to satisfy the huge financial requirements of the properties of the State which can be sold to Filipino citizens and private corporations. and the Torrens Title issued pursuant to the patent becomes indefeasible upon the expiration of one year from the date of issuance of Petitioner. likewise be repaid in the form of a share in the revenue of the project or other non. or to government entities not tasked to dispose of public lands. becomes private property. Tempora mutantur et legis mutantur in illis (time changes and laws change with Administrative Code of 1987. subdivided lots forming parts of the reclaimed land were . The moment titles over reclaimed lands based on the special patents are novel way of implementing government contracts by allowing reclaimed land as part or full payment transferred to the NHA by the Register of Deeds. On the other hand. once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is alienable and disposable land of the public domain. which evidence transfer of ownership of reclaimed lands to the NHA. 39 and 465 with Special Patents Nos. The NHA is an end-user agency authorized by law to administer and it). the NHA the BOT contract.485 square meters based on the survey and technical monetary payments. for how else can the land be used area of expertise of administrative agencies like the DENR and the Land Management Bureau and are as the enabling component for the Project if such classification is not deemed made? generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality.[75] To lands reclaimed by PEA or through a contract with a the City of Manila for registration. this conclusion is necessarily implied.[79] Heirs of Carlos Alcaraz v.(Emphasis supplied. More importantly. the land covered by them ceases to be part of the public domain and as patrimonial property. pursuant to PEA. and corresponding certificates of titles over the reclaimed lots were private person or entity. such reclaimed lands still remain alienable lands of public domain which can issued based on said special patents. the declaration that such areas are alienable and disposable land of the public domain. In the meantime. subject to the constitutional requirements the NHA transferring to said agency a tract of land described in Plan RL-00-000013 with an area of with respect to the ownership of the land. 3592 and 3598 is rendered on July 9. coupled with President Aquinos actual issuance One last point. Heirs of Felipe Alijaga. In a similar vein. One such law that should be treated differently is the BOT Law (RA 6957) which brought about a dispose of reclaimed lands. nonetheless. Petitioners contention is not well-taken. the lots would not be of 1084 and EO 525 is tasked to hold and dispose of alienable lands of public domain and it is only when use to the NHAs housing projects or as payment to the BOT contractor as the enabling component of it is transferred to Filipino citizens that it becomes patrimonial property. 6 of RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718 provides: The reclaimed lands covered by Special Patents Nos.000 square meters based on the survey and technical descriptions approved by the Bureau of Lands. and 3598. the latter defer to the administrative agency which is trained alienable lands of public domain into private or patrimonial lands.[81] Thus. Lastly. we find that the 79-hectare reclaimed land has been declared It is true that. the 79-hectare reclaimed land became patrimonial property after the Petitioners sole reliance on Proclamations Nos. it cannot attain its avowed purposes the special patents and become patrimonial properties of the Government from the time the titles are and goals since it can only transfer patrimonial lands to qualified beneficiaries and prospective buyers issued to the NHA.

the reclamation is flawed for there was never any declaration that said lands Art. SCRA 607 [1974] x x x when a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a different view is adopted. But while our decisions form part of the law of the land. that the reclaimed lands reclaimed lands of the Smokey Mountain project are no longer required for public use or service. said lands are retroactively. the new doctrine should be applied prospectively and should not More decisive and not in so many words is the ruling in PEA which we earlier cited. develop.) This position is misplaced. or dispose petitioners Benzonan and respondent Pe and the DBP are bound by these decisions lands identified and reserved by this Proclamation and Proclamation No. . the lands were classified as patrimonial properties are no longer needed for public use. In Benzonan v. hence. 39 and 465 jointly with the special patents have longer needed for public use classified the reclaimed lands as alienable and disposable and open to disposition or concession as they would be devoted to units for Smokey Mountain beneficiaries. Certainly. presidential Proclamations Nos. The retroactive application of a the withdrawal of said lands from public use or service. we ruled in that case that the reclaimed lands are open to disposition or concession to qualified parties. the BOT contract will not be public use or public service. is vested with the NHA. Court of Appeals. thus: These parcels of land of public domain are hereby placed under the administration Petitioner next claims that RBI cannot acquire the reclaimed lands because there was no law and disposition of the National Housing Authority to develop. The of NHA to dispose of land to be reclaimed. The Project was While numerical count of the persons to be benefited is not the determinant whether the property is terminated through a Memorandum of Agreement signed on August 27. employment of the Smokey Mountain scavengers and for financing the Project because the latter cannot be accomplished without abandoning the public use of the subject land. declared. Thus. Even if it is conceded that there was no explicit declaration that the lands are no longer needed for absurd and illogical consequences would naturally result. as well as its development for mix land use sell reclaimed land. non respicit. We are not moved by petitioners submission. the declaration in Proclamation No. the prevailing jurisprudence interpreting section 119 of R. there was however an implicit executive declaration that the reclaimed accepted by the BOT contractor since there will be no consideration for its contractual areas R-10 are not necessary anymore for public use or public service when President Aquino through obligations. The reclaimed areas for public use or service as the Project cannot be successfully implemented without rationale against retroactivity is easy to perceive. as enhance. Hence. (commercial/industrial) to provide employment opportunities to on-site families and additional areas for port related activities. elucidating that said At that time. the laws of the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of (Emphasis supplied. that PD No. Supreme Court can only be applied prospectively as they may prejudice vested rights if applied namelythe Smokey Mountain dwellers. He argues that unlike PEA. thus: area to be reclaimed from forty (40) hectares to seventy-nine (79) hectares. then MO 415 conveyed the same to the NHA partly for housing project and related commercial/industrial there is an implied declaration that such land is no longer intended for public use or public development intended for disposition to and enjoyment of certain beneficiaries and not the public in service and. of the NHA ready for disposition when the titles were registered in its name by the Register of Deeds. subject to the provisions of existing laws. 2003 Resolution. 55 removed the reclaimed lands from public use. they are also subject to Article 4 of the Civil Code which provides that laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided. Undoubtedly. considered patrimonial property of the State. Consequently.1992). the devotion of the reclaimed land law usually divests rights that have already become vested or impairs the to public use or service conflicts with the intended use of the Smokey Mountain areas for housing and obligations of contract and hence. 39 (s. President Ramos issued on August 31. [82] and President Aquinos issuance of a land patent also constitute a declaration that the Freedom Islands are no longer needed for public service. though indirectly. It is a settled precept that decisions of the particular individuals as beneficiaries to whom the reclaimed lands can be sold. the Court trenchantly elucidated the prospective application of its In addition. lands are undoubtedly set aside for the beneficiaries of SMDRP and not the publicdeclaring the power 141 as amended was that enunciated in Monge and Tupas cited above. This is expressed in the familiar MO 415 and Proclamations Nos. subdivide and dispose authorizing their sale. (Emphasis supplied. 2003. is unconstitutional. otherwise. 422 of the Civil Code.[83] Fourth Issue: Whether respondent RBI can acquire reclaimed lands when there was no declaration that said lands are no In a similar vein. 39 undeniably identifies only became final through the November 11. Fifth Issue: Whether there is a law authorizing sale of President Ramos. in issuing Proclamation No. 39 and 465 are declarations that proclaimed the non-use of the legal maxim lex prospicit. hence. no longer essential for the use of the public in general. no legislative authority was granted to the NHA to to qualified beneficiaries. 1994 Proclamation No. reclaimed lands that are made the enabling components of a BOT infrastructure project are necessarily reclassified as alienable and disposable lands under the BOT Law. The PEA decision to be devoted to public use. 465 increasing the decisions based on considerations of equity and fair play. Since reclaimed land will be conveyed to the contractor pursuant to the BOT Law. Jabinal. still.A. Moreover. said lands are no longer Petitioner Chavez avers that despite the declaration that the reclaimed areas are alienable lands of intended for public use or service and shall form part of the patrimonial properties of the State under the public domain. we emphasized in People v.[84] As discussed a priori. the The same consideration underlies our rulings giving only prospective effect to presidential proclamations on SMDRP together with the issuance of the special patents had effectively decisions enunciating new doctrines. thus: The authority to administer. Without doubt. the law looks forward not backward. 39. general and partly as enabling component to finance the project. The rest of the Filipinos are not qualified.) the Philippines. 1085 apply to parties who had relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof. in accordance for pursuant to Article 8 of the Civil Code judicial decisions applying or interpreting with the SMDRP.already sold to private corporations for value and separate titles issued to the buyers.

On March 19. association or partnership disqualified from purchasing public land for Section 67. thus: was done by public bidding Petitioner also contends that there was no public bidding but an awarding of ownership of said Section 60. it cannot be gainsaid that there was full compliance with the laws and regulations governing public biddings involving a right. if necessary. or subdivision of the Government. Letter (l) is emphatic that the NHA can acquire property rights and interests and encumber or Petitioner concedes that he does not question the public bidding on the right to be a joint venture otherwise dispose of them as it may deem appropriate. the lease of sale of those lots. or otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting its xxxx title. thus: This stand is devoid of merit. respondents NHA and RBI signed the JVA. That any person. and 23.Petitioner relies on Sec. Provided. the ARJVA was again (l) Acquire property rights and interests. and industrial purposes transformed them domain pursuant to CA 141 as amended. Public bidding. Upon receipt of requested and shall in no case exceed one hundred and forty-four such authority. (k) Enter into contracts whenever necessary under such terms and conditions as it may deem proper and reasonable. the provisions of which shall be applied whenever applicable. but the lease granted shall improvements on the land by virtue of a permit issued to him by competent only be valid while such land is used for the purposes referred to. specified in this chapter. he says. where an applicant has made this title suitable for industrial or residential purposes. DPWH. except when authorized by Congress. under the law to other parties. that the donations. 63 and 67 of CA 141. Any tract of land comprised under this title may be leased or sold. be reasonably necessary for the purposes for which such sale or lease if Agriculture and Commerce for authority to dispose of the same. municipality or branch or subdivision of Government will lease or sell. The Authority shall have the following powers and functions to be exercised by the Boards in accordance with the There is no doubt that respondent NHA conducted a public bidding of the right to become its joint established national human settlements plan prepared by the Human Settlements venture partner in the Smokey Mountain Project. same manner as in the case of leases or sales of agricultural public land.This is not present in the case at bar. Perforce. Whenever it is decided that lands covered by this chapter are shall be such as shall. is required under Secs. the NHA can sell the reclaimed lands to any Filipino citizen or qualified corporation. and DENR opened the bids and evaluated them. as the reclaimed lands were In addition. Section 6. The transfer of the reclaimed lands by the partner of the NHA. On August 11. in the judgment of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural not needed for public purposes. 14. municipality. commercial. the Director of Lands shall ask the Secretary of Resources. 1992 and February 1.) ARJVA. PD 757 is clear that the NHA is empowered by law to transfer properties acquired by it conveyed to RBI by negotiated contract and not by public bidding as required by law. However. the sale or lease shall be made by sealed bidding as prescribed in section supplied. 63 and 67 of CA 141. 1994. The lands reclaimed by and conveyed to the NHA are no longer lands of public domain. Petitioners theory is incorrect. municipality or branch of general circulation. concession. 1992. On September 7. to any person. These . (Emphasis authority. 1992. however. or property of the government. or branch or subdivision of the Government shall not be alienated. That this limitation shall not apply to grants. are in point as they refer to government sale by the Director of Lands of alienable and disposable lands of public domain. 1993. 16. He finds that the NHA and RBI violated Secs. The NHA is not a government unit but a government corporation performing governmental and proprietary functions. The area of the land so leased or sold Section 63. On August 31. Powers and functions of the Authority. xxxx the Inter-Agency Techcom made up of the NHA. but the absence of bidding in the sale of alienable and disposable lands of public National Government to the NHA for housing. resulting in the award of the contract to respondent RBI on October 7. said JVA was amended and restated into the ARJVA. as the case may be. the Director of Lands shall give notice by public advertisement in the hectares: Provided. and adjudication agricultural purposes under the provisions of this Act. From these factual settings. into patrimonial lands which are of course owned by the State in its private or proprietary capacity. corporation or association authorized to purchase read: or lease public lands for agricultural purposes. The bidding proper was done by the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) on May 18. Secs. made to a province. and encumber or otherwise dispose the amended. The lease or sale shall be made through oral bidding. 63 and 67 of CA 141 which the case may be. transfers. PEA. DBP. 1994. as reclaimed lands to RBI. encumbered. PPA. Notices or Invitations to Bid were published in the Commission: national dailies on January 23 and 26. corporation. further. 1994. may lease land included under shall be made to the highest bidder. 1992. for the purpose stated in the notice and subject to the conditions interest. 60 of Commonwealth Act (CA) 141 to support his view that the NHA is not Sixth Issue: Whether the transfer of reclaimed lands to RBI empowered by any law to sell reclaimed land. If all or part of the lots remain unleased or unsold. On February 23. as amended.) twenty-six of this Act. 1992. the OP approved the ARJVA and the amendments to the same as it may deem appropriate (Emphasis supplied. but the land so granted donated or transferred to a province. the lots or blocks specified in the the Government for the purposes deemed by said entities conducive to the public advertisement. the Director of Lands shall from time to time announce in the Official Gazette or in any other newspapers Reliance on said provision is incorrect as the same applies only to a province.

then Sec. 79 of PD 1445 which requires public bidding when 1. firm. can be patrimonial lands. technology. Sec. The NHA can therefore legally Petitioner maintains that RBI. 6 of RA 6957 is to consider Sec. Chapter 6. Congress from public use and declared patrimonial property to be sold to private monetary payment like the grant of a portion or percentage of reclaimed land. 79. sold to private parties. 1120 are patrimonial property which even private corporations can acquire Seventh Issue: Whether RBI. being a private corporation. 60% of which is owned by Filipino citizens Property that has become obsolete or outmoded because of changes in like RBI. The only way it can transfer the reclaimed land in conjunction with its projects and to attain Property whose maintenance costs of repair more than outweigh the benefits its goals is when it is automatically converted to patrimonial properties of the State.A. Since the reclaimed lands are not unserviceable been granted to end-user government entitiesthe military services of the properties and are very much needed by NHA. and coordinating all transferred to a government agency like the NHA which has entered into a BOT contract with a private reclamation projects for and on behalf of the National Government. No. 39 and 465 were issued. armed forces. PEA holds the reclaimed public lands. Filipino citizens as private corporations. by purchase. Even if the BOT parties. as long as they are patrimonial property. which it will use for its projects or programs. conducted by the Director of Lands because the NHA. R. the transfer to RBI is like the NHA. BCDAs mandate is specific and limited in area. while PEAs question are very much needed by the NHA for the Smokey Mountain Project because without it. and Unused supplies and materials that [have] become dangerous to use because BCDA is an entirely different government entity. Thus. 79 of PD 1445 with Sec. be below the estimated valuation of the land. 79 of PD 1445 does not apply. 7227 creating the BCDA is a law that declares specific partner participates in the public bidding. being a private corporation. The nature of the property holdings conveyed to BCDA is elucidated and stressed in the May 6. then mandate is general and national. not as an end-user entity. where Filipino citizens own at least 60% of the stocks. The reason is obvious. Unused supplies. whether Filipino citizens or qualified private corporations. It cannot be denied that RBI is a have become patrimonial properties of the State. Moreover. The NHA is similarly situated agencys function or mandate. then Sec. If the patrimonial property will be subject to public bidding as the only way of disposing of said property. Being patrimonial and services that will be derived from its continued use. is a government agency not tasked to sell lands of public domain. 3. because the NHA is an agency NOT tasked to dispose of alienable or disposable lands of public domain. It appears from percentage of the reclaimed land subject to the constitutional requirement that only Filipino citizens or the Handbook on Property and Supply Management System. The law does not intend anything impossible (lex non intendit aliquid impossibile). that reclaimed lands which corporations with at least 60% Filipino equity can acquire the same. unlike PEA. whose titles are conveyed to government agencies private corporation. directing. When the titles to Determining Factors in the Disposal of Unserviceable Property the reclaimed lands were transferred to the NHA. thus: 2. inalienable lands covered by said proclamations were converted to alienable and disposable lands of public domain. under Executive Order No. but as the government More importantly. as BCDA which was granted the authority to dispose of patrimonial lands of the government under RA 7227. BCDA is authorized by law of long storage or use of which is determined to be hazardous. Hence. When Proclamations Nos. BCDA holds government lands that have the projects will not be successfully implemented. 79 of PD 1445 as inapplicable to BOT contracts involving Government owned lands. PEA. then it has the power to sell the same to any qualified personunder the Constitution. is expressly prohibited by the transfer patrimonial land to RBI or to any other interested qualified buyer without any bidding 1987 Constitution from acquiring lands of public domain. RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718 explicitly states that a contractor can be paid a portion as government property has become unserviceable for any cause or is no longer needed. quote the determining factors in the Disposal of Unserviceable Property. 6 of RA 6957 on the repayment scheme is almost x x x Well-settled is the doctrine that public land granted to an end-user impossible or extremely difficult to implement considering the uncertainty of a winning bid during government agency for a specific public use may subsequently be withdrawn by public auction. Likewise. which can no longer be repaired or reconditioned. the so-called Friar Lands acquired by the government under Act No. there is no assurance that he will win the bid and therefore military reservations no longer needed for defense or military purposes and the payment in kind as agreed to by the parties cannot be performed or the winning bid prize might reclassifies such lands as patrimonial property for sale to private parties. Thus. thus: requirements. The NHA is an end-user entity such that when alienable lands of public domain are transferred to Serviceable property that has been rendered unnecessary due to change in the said agency. said alienable and disposable lands of public domain were automatically classified as lands of the private domain or patrimonial properties of the State Property. reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain if sold or is barred by the Constitution to acquire lands of public domain transferred to a public or municipal corporation for a monetary consideration become patrimonial property in the hands of the public or municipal corporation. . Petitioner likewise relies on Sec. We valid and constitutional. they are automatically classified as patrimonial properties.[85] to sell specific government lands that have long been declared by presidential proclamations as military reservations for use by the different services of the armed forces under the Department of National Reclaimed lands cannot be considered unserviceable properties. are not within the ambit of Sec. it can only hold patrimonial lands and can dispose of such lands Petitioners proposition has no legal mooring for the following reasons: by sale without need of public bidding. or private properties of the State. 79 of PD 1445 cannot be applied to patrimonial properties like reclaimed lands agency primarily responsible for integrating. materials and spare parts that were procured in excess of 2003 Resolution in Chavez v. the repayment scheme of a BOT contract may be in the form of non. The only way to harmonize Sec.lands became proprietary lands or patrimonial properties of the State upon transfer of the titles over the reclaimed lands to the NHA and hence outside the ambit of CA 141. 525. The reclaimed lands in Defense. In contrast.

Moreover. and For Other Purposes). transactions and decisions to citizens. the end that the government may perceive and be responsive to the peoples will.[89] Such information must pertain to definite propositions The right of the Filipino people to information on matters of public concern is enshrined in the of the government. information affecting national security. even if expressed without any restraint. These twin provisions are essential to the exercise of freedom of expression. and the Asset Pool Agreement. which is a special law similar to RA 7227.[87] being a qualified corporation under the 1987 Constitution. Only when the participants corporation. the exact amount of investments in the asset pool and other similar important information the right information.An informed citizenry is essential to the existence and proper functioning of any democracy. In the meantime. formulation of government policies and their effective implementation. however. the reclaimed lands registered under the interest of the State that the channels for free political discussion be maintained to NHA are automatically classified as patrimonial lands ready for disposition to qualified beneficiaries. and if finances permit. will be speculative and amount to nothing. SEC. In PEA. this open dialogue can be effective only to the extent that the citizenry is The foregoing reasons likewise apply to the contention of petitioner that HCPTI. shall be afforded the citizen.. 7. Without any law or regulation governing the right to disclose information.What was transferred to HCPTI is a in the discussion are aware of the issues and have access to information relating 10-hectare lot which is already classified as patrimonial property in the hands of the NHA. the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public It is unfortunate. Art. Once converted to patrimonial property. information on investigations of crimes by law enforcement agencies before the xxxx prosecution of the accused. whatever and the like relative to SMDRP. It is in the to the NHA. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be post on their bulletin boards the documents incorporating the information on the steps and recognized. and to documents. subject to such municipal corporation to private parties. HCPTI. however. need not disclose intra-agency or inter-agency recommendations or communications during the stage when common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the exploratory stage. Yet. the NHA or any of the respondents . thus: matters subject of negotiation. whether Filipino citizens or qualified private limitations as may be provided by law. bring into public view all the steps and negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction and the contents of the perfected contract. citizens can participate in public discussions leading to the regarding the Project. meaning official recommendations or final positions reached on the different 1987 Constitution. 28. being a private informed and thus able to formulate its will intelligently. to official acts. the land may be sold by the public or as basis for policy development. Hopefully. If the government Petitioner asserts his right to information on all documents such as contracts. Construction. this Court explicated this way: Maintenance of Infrastructure Projects by the Private Sector. Constitution. corporations. Jr. information on foreign relations. the original JVA. they cannot hold public officials accountable for anything. Operation and In Valmonte v. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law. the complete list of investors in the information. Access to official records. memoranda. Belmonte. reports. the desired ARTICLE III enabling law will finally see the light of day if and when Congress decides to approve the proposed Freedom of Access to Information Act. thereto can such bear fruit. for unless citizens have the proper current stage of the Project. is disqualified from being a transferee of public land. as well as to government research data used upload said information on their respective websites for easy access by interested parties. as amended by [A]n essential element of these freedoms is to keep open a continuing dialogue or RA 7718. and other classified information. it would suffice that government agencies SEC. must This relief must be granted. 28. ARJVA. Armed with asset pool.[88] He prays that respondents be compelled to disclose all information regarding the SMDRP and furnish him with originals or at least certified true copies of all relevant documents relating to the said project including. the government agencies. this Court elucidated the rationale behind the right to information: Eighth Issue: Whether respondents can be compelled to disclose all information related to the SMDRP These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy- making and in the operations of the government. Sec.) The foregoing Resolution makes it clear that the SMDRP was a program adopted by the Government under Republic Act No. that after almost twenty (20) years from birth of the 1987 interest. there is still no enabling law that provides the mechanics for the compulsory duty of government agencies to disclose information on government transactions. does not disclose its official acts. or decisions. The government agency. citizens say. but not limited to. Thus.[86] (Emphasis supplied. 6957 (An Act Authorizing the Financing. as well as provide the people sufficient information to exercise effectively other constitutional rights. an end-user agency under PD 757 and RA 7279. the transfer of the subject lot to it is valid and constitutional. The limitation also covers ARTICLE II privileged communication like information on military and diplomatic secrets. the present financial capacity of RBI. AARJVA. transactions. II compels the State and its agencies to fully disclose all of its transactions involving public interest. since the implementation was assigned process of communication between the government and the people. without need of demand from anyone. and papers pertaining to negotiations that produced the agreements and the agreements themselves. These twin provisions are also essential to hold public officials at all Petitioner asserts that matters relative to the SMDRP have not been disclosed to the public like the times x x x accountable to the people. intelligence.

or decisions. It would indeed be ghastly unfair to prevent private ignored. It may not unconstitutionality must be taken with qualifications. This doctrine was reiterated in the more recent case of City of Makati v. is an operative declaration of nullity such challenged legislative or executive act must have fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. prior to such a determination [of unconstitutionality]. having been found to be unconstitutional. individual and the government agency. its existence as a fact must be reckoned with. This is so as until after the judiciary. a period of time may have elapsed before it can exercise the power of judicial review that may lead to a declaration of nullity. positions.[91] (Emphasis its official records. Civil Service Commission. citing Rieta v. Parties may have acted under it and may have changed their general. What could be more fitting than that in a subsequent litigation regard be had to what has been done while such legislative or executive act was in operation The other aspect of the peoples right to know apart from the duty to disclose is the duty to and presumed to be valid in all respects. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be involving public interest. Consequently.) The argument of the Solicitor General is meritorious. prior to [the determination of its invalidity]. and decisions that are supplied.cannot be faulted if they were not able to disclose information relative to the SMDRP to the public in respect. as we have no reason to do so.[90] respondent from relying upon the order of suspension in lieu of a formal leave application.[92] (Emphasis supplied. it is entitled to obedience and subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various . A request or demand is required. Flores. thus: In similar situations in the past this Court had taken the pragmatic and realistic As the new Civil Code puts it: When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with course set forth in Chicot County Drainage District vs. and (3) government research data used which has the final say on whether or not a legislative or executive measure is valid. transactions. Cuerva and Co. It does not admit of doubt that prior to the of a statute. was not a law. paper nonetheless confers legitimacy upon past acts or omissions done in reliance thereof. that it was the Constitution being supreme and paramount. The actual existence however be sufficiently realistic. corporate. It is now accepted as a doctrine that prior allow access to information on matters of public concern under Sec. the duty to disclose information should be differentiated from the duty to permit access to quality of fairness and justice then.) relevant to the said JVA and subsequent agreements relative to the SMDRP. the petitioner Solicitor General argues that the existence of the various order prior to its being adjudged void is an operative fact to which legal agreements implementing the SMDRP is an operative fact that can no longer be disturbed or simply consequences are attached. legal remedies are available. but any matter contained in official communications and public documents of considered in various aspects. III of the Constitution. wherein it is stated that a The principle was further explicated in the case of Rieta v. Art. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial duty to allow access has a broader scope of information which embraces not only transactions declaration. thus: legislative or executive act. is valid and must be complied with. declares its invalidity. v. as a basis for policy development. Court of Appeals. conferring no rights and imposing no duties. cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. (2) documents and reflect awareness that precisely because the judiciary is the governmental organ papers pertaining to official acts. with respect to particular relations. however. much less retroactively apply such nullification to Petitioner postulates that the operative fact doctrine is inapplicable to the present case because it is deprive private respondent of a compelling and valid reason for not filing the leave an equitable doctrine which could not be used to countenance an inequitable result that is contrary to application. the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. that such broad statements as to the effect of a determination of Such a view has support in logic and possesses the merit of simplicity. the interested party must first request or even demand that he be allowed access to documents and In the language of an American Supreme Court decision: The actual existence of papers in the particular agency. We order the NHA to allow petitioner access to Zaldivar speaking for the Court in Fernandez v. Baxter Bank to wit: the Constitution. transactions. x x x It is quite clear. For as we have held. orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not The courts below have proceeded on the theory that the Act of Congress. private and official. and hence contrary to its terms cannot survive. It would be to deprive the law of its Thus. The past been in force and had to be complied with. An even more recent instance is the opinion of Justice we treat the petition as a written request or demand. The to its being nullified. There is no need to demand from the government agency disclosure of information as prior to such adjudication. we certainly cannot nullify the City Governments order of suspension. Motor Co. The duty to disclose covers only transactions involving public interest. Administrative or executive acts. Any legislative or executive act inoperative. Hill and the decision in Manila We find that although petitioner did not make any demand on the NHA to allow access to information. 7. otherwise. Ninth Issue: Whether the operative fact doctrine applies to the wherein we ruled that: instant petition Moreover. failing that. documents. the government office or a statute. It is understandable why it should be so. On the other hand. the existence of a statute or executive On the other hand. People of the Philippines. The operative fact doctrine is embodied in De Agbayani v. and particular conduct. People of the Philippines. affording no basis for the challenged decree. This language has been quoted with approval in a resolution in Araneta v. contrary to the laws of the Constitution. this is mandatory under the Constitution.. Inc. The effect of the in an appropriate case. This is merely to gateway to information opens to the public the following: (1) official records. while the ignored. prior to its being declared as unconstitutional by the courts. if there be no recognition of what had transpired information. a void act though in law a mere scrap of its proper office. and papers relating to official acts. is an agency will not know of the desire of the interested party to gain access to such papers and what operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be papers are needed.

was not entitled to equity principles there being bad faith on its part. we ruled that in certain cases. Operation functions. will not be invalidated on considerations of equity and functions the NHA has with regard to the SMDRP. thus: discretion in its performance. allows repayment to the private contractor of reclaimed other plain. 1993 JVA between NHA and RBI deemed to have finality and acted upon accordingly.[96] adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. alleging the facts issuances in pushing through with the Project. in that case. These questions are among the most difficult of 1994 Smokey Mountain Asset Pool Agreement and the agreement on Phase I of the Project as well as those which have engaged the attention of courts. The moment to challenge the Project had passed. the operative fact principle has set in. in the May 6. legal. and it all other transactions which emanated from the Project. In the instant case. enjoining respondents particularly respondent NHA from further implementing and/or enforcing the said Project and other agreements related to it. agreements signed and executed in relation to it.[97] equity principles. prohibition does not lie to restrain an act which is already a fait accompli. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. We earlier ruled that lands in the hands of the buyers can no longer be invalidated. a person lands. the JVAs were already terminated by virtue of the MOA formulated and implemented. RA 6957 was the prevailing law at the time that the joint venture board. but not limited to. The prevailing law at the time was the 1935 Constitution as no statute dealt with the same Sec.[98] Such validation requires the exercise of discretion. moreover. corporation. have been shown to be valid. 2002. He had the opportunity to question the SMDRP and the agreements on between the NHA and RBI. which was discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. the additional works incurred on the Project. The SMDRP agreements have produced vested rights in On the prayer for a writ of mandamus. although illegal or unconstitutional. petitioner had already filed the instant case related agreements. Questions of rights claimed to have become vested. the subsequent amendments to the JVA and all other light of the nature both of the statute and of its previous application. are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction. Item No. When the ruling in PEA was rendered by operative fact doctrine protecting vested rights bars the grant of the writ of prohibition to the case at this Court on July 9. . that the Freedom Islands are inalienable lands of the In addition. any agencies and investors who made investments in the project or who bought SMPPCs. including. Clear is the rule that prohibition is only available when there is no attendant risks. the JVAs were all executed. 2. Thus. two Senate Committees the developers (RBIs) claims arising from the termination of the SMDRP through the various had already approved on September 16. terminating the JVA and other the Amended JVA on March 30. and from further deriving and/or enjoying any rights. The Such indicia of bad faith are not present in the instant case. to do otherwise would work patent otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. aspects with respect to particular conduct. Sec. 2003 Resolution in Chavez v. along with the above-mentioned executive aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court. we find that the March 19. but not limited to. However. without regard to the exercise of There are. the buyers of reclaimed land who were issued titles over said land. entitled An Act Authorizing The Financing. the current financial condition of start of the SMDRP implementation. Amari signed the Amended JVA knowing and assuming all the all administrative remedies. and is manifest from numerous decisions that an all-inclusive statement of a constitutional. the concurrent acts of the executive department lent validity to the implementation of the Project. of public policy in the and the SMDRP embodied in the JVA. the September 26. PEA. This Court is constrained to give legal effect to the to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein. and there is no appeal or any passed by Congress onJuly 24. we find the same In the May 6. petitioner asks the Court to compel respondents to favor of the slum dwellers. officer or person. injustice on respondents. 2004. social justice. special circumstances that disqualify Amari from invoking his/her own judgment upon the propriety of the act done.Furthermore. Phase II has been struck down by the Clean Air Act. Even before the filing of this petition. or with grave abuse of And Maintenance Of Infrastructure Projects By The Private Sector And For Other Purposes. The titles to the respondent RBI. speedy.[95] Such law was relied upon by respondents. 2 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides: issue. petitioner will be allowed access to official records relative to the SMDRP. 2003 Resolution in Chavez v. That would be adequate The Courts Dispositions relief to satisfy petitioners right to the information gateway. government agencies.When the proceedings of any tribunal. Evidently. including. quasi-judicial or ministerial agreement was signed. It has not been shown that the NHA exercised judicial or quasi-judicial functions in relation to Further. and the transactions made with respect to the project. the transfer the SMDRP and the agreements relative to it. after a well-publicized investigation into PEAs sale of the Freedom Islands to Amari. respondent in A ministerial duty is one which is so clear and specific as to leave no room for the exercise of said case. 1999. but he did not. PEA. Amari cannot claim good faith because even before Amari signed Whatever is left to be done in relation to the August 27. The existence of such law and issuances is an operative with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent fact to which legal consequences have attached. and the disclose all documents and information relating to the project. when petitioner filed the instant bar. It should be remembered that petitioner was the Solicitor General at the time SMDRP was case against respondents on August 5. 560. These properties subsequent agreements with respect to the different phases of the Project. the case considering that the prevailing law did not authorize private corporations from owning land. 1997 Senate Committee Report No. it has not been shown what ministerial of land. demand examination. 1998 questioning precisely the qualification of Amari to acquire exercise of judgment. private and official. of status. Construction. 1989. prohibition does not lie against the NHA in view of petitioners failure to avail and exhaust public domain. of prior determinations Based on the issues raised in this petition. or acts done in consonance with such executive and legislative acts. 4 of the MOA terminating the JVAs provides for validation of the FreedomIslands. 2003 MOA.[93] we ruled that De Agbayani[94] is not applicable to prayer meritless. In fact. principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified. including the annulment of the Amended JVA. we did not apply the same considering that PEA. as in fact. The respondents had no reason to think that their agreements were it. unconstitutional or even questionable. Likewise. More importantly. the revisions of the and rights cannot be disturbed or questioned after the passage of around ten (10) years from the original plan. certainly does not involve ministerial functions of the NHA but instead requires on April 27. It is a duty which an officer performs in a given state of facts in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority. RA 6957. state and federal. This Report concluded. whether exercising judicial. Petition for prohibition. privileges and interest from the Project. With regard to the prayer for prohibition.

1993 JVA between the NHA and RBI and subsequent agreements related to the JVA. SO ORDERED. the revisions over the original plan. but not limited to. and the additional works incurred on and the transactions made with respect to the Project. No costs. Respondent NHA is ordered to allow access to petitioner to all public documents and official records relative to the SMDRPincluding. WHEREFORE. The prayer for a writ of prohibition is DENIED for lack of merit. the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The prayer for a writ of mandamus is GRANTED. . the March 19.

supra. incrimination. JESUS L. 1962 Powers incidental to taking of testimony. 9. It also held that to compel Ramos to testify would be to violate his right against self- remove such officials of employees (Sec. committee. Saving the provisions of section one hundred and two of this Act. G. appealed to this Court.: thereunto lawfully required. to subpoena witnesses to appear before it and to ask for their punishment in case of complimentary to the power of the mayor to investigate. supra: earlier because Ramos used to entertain employees in the City Treasurer's office at Casa de Alba "Were do not think the mayor (of Manila) can delegate or confer the powers to administer oaths. et al. Jur. Carmelo as chairman of said committee. fails to appear upon summons issued under the authority of the preceding Armando Ramos for and in his own behalf as respondent-appellee. grant of power to a body. All that the order gives to this body is the power to investigate anomalies proceedings. In the first place. Pecson. if any." He named Mr. the trial court dismissed the petition. Petitioner invokes Section 580 of the Revised Administrative Code which provides as follows: G. shall be subject to discipline as in case of contempt of court and upon application of the individual or body exercising the power in question shall be dealt with On February 3." confirm this statement in the administrative case against certain employees in the Office of the City Treasurer would be to compel him to give testimony that could be used against him in a criminal case Furthermore. People employees. From that decision. Pecson. Ramos admitted investigation implies also a delegation of the power to take testimony or evidence of witnesses whose having misappropriated on several occasions. p. To be sure. in connection with an administrative case against Crisanta Estanislao but that witnesses may be implied. There is no statutory grant of power to investigate to petitioner's committee. No. and to issue subpoenas. ARMANDO RAMOS." petitioner filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition to declare Armando involving certain city employees. Dizon. 100. obstruct. respondent-appellee. Citing 50 Am. J. or produce documents for inspection. 1960. L-17778 November 30. there is nothing said in the executive order of the Mayor creating the committee about Claiming that Ramos' refusal tended "to impede. or other IN RE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ARMANDO RAMOS.. The trial court held that to compel Ramos to take testimony. sums of money given to him by the owner of Casa de appearance may be require by the compulsory process of subpoena. De la Fuente. 22. CARMELO. Ramos in contempt. The lower court held that there is no law empowering Petitioner contends that the Mayor of Manila has the implied power to investigate city officials and committees created by municipal mayors to issue subpoenas and demand that witnesses testify under employees appointed by him to the end that the power expressly vested in him to suspend and oath. employees. subject in all respects to the same restrictions and vs. the Mayor of Manila issued an executive order creating a committee "to by the judge of first instance having jurisdiction of the case in the manner provided by law. No. No. when REGALA. paragraph or who. pursuant to section 580? Ramos.R. Mendoza. refuses to make oath. for petitioner-appellant. requiring him to appear before it on June 3.. 8. it also confers by implication every particular power necessary for the exercise thereof. 87 Phil. 541. or degrade the administrative such a grant of power. as the power of the Mayor to investigate as implied from his power to suspend or remove certain city is done in paragraph 2 of Section 580 of the Revised Administrative Code. But We do not agree with the petitioner that a delegation of such power to It appears that in a statement given to investigators of the Office of the Mayor. during which petitioner was required to show a prima facie case. a subpoena duces tecum or otherwise. without City Fiscal Hermogenes Concepcion. such authority shall be understood to comprehend the right to administer oaths and capacity as Chairman of the Probe Committee. on whom the subpoenas were duly served. and does not comprehend contempt committed against administrative officials or bodies like the one We have seen that whatever power may be claimed by petitioner's committee may only be traced to in this case. — When authority to take testimony or evidence is conferred upon an administrative officer or upon any nonjudicial person. a private citizen working as a bookkeeper in the Casa de Alba.) . suspend and remove city officers and refusal. 15 and 16 and Now.) It appears that the committee issued subpoenas to Armando Ramos. Republic Act No. After hearing. We said in Francia v. We agree with this proposition and We held so in the case of Pagkanlungan v. 2. what authority to take testimony does petitioner's committee have from which the power to cite August 4 and 11. it is doubtful whether the provisions of section 580 of the Administrative Code are for estafa of which the owner of Casa de Alba was the offended party. petitioner contends that "the power of the investigation committee to issue The main issue in this ease is the power. the authority cited speaks of statutory. Here. Thus. Jr. unless said contempt is clearly considered and expressly defined as contempt of court. Jesus L. et al. evidence" before he can apply to the courts for the punishment of hostile witnesses. investigate the anomalies involving the license inspectors and other personnel of the License Inspection Division of the Office of the City Treasurer and of the License and Permits Division of this One who invokes this provision of the law must first show that he has "authority to take testimony or Office (of the Mayor). 48 O. qualifications as apply in judicial proceedings of a similar character." There is no merit in the The rule is that Rule 64 (Contempt)1 of the Rules of Court applies only to inferior and superior courts argument. (People v. lawful excuse.G. refused to appear. 49 O. like the committee of which petitioner compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses undoubtedly exists since only is the chairman. to where Ramos was a bookkeeper as stated above. any one who. (Francia v. petitioner- summons witnesses and shall include authority to require the production of documents under appellant. 1960. of committee. in his body. 449. 4332. 10. give testimony. in denying this power to an Alba for the payment of the latter's taxes for 1956-1959 and that this fact had not been discovered investigating body in the Office of the Mayor of Manila. v. appearing before any individual or body exercising the power therein defined. is the recognized rule that where the statute grants a right. petitioner applicable to the City of Manila as these pertain to national bureaus or offices of the government. 409) may be justly and fairly exercised. Office of the Mayor of Manila.

the rule. is that the Mayor can not delegate this power to a body like the committee of the petitioner. et al. 450 itself admits an exception to the rule invoked by the petitioner. (Francia v. 428. as noted earlier.) Lastly. therefore. the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila is hereby affirmed. Thus. even granting that the Mayor has the implied power to require the appearance of witnesses before him. it is stated that "where the liberty and property of persons are sought to be brought within the operation of a power claimed to be impliedly granted by an act because necessary to its due execution. p. WHEREFORE. without pronouncement as to costs. This conclusion makes it unnecessary for Us to pass upon the other error assigned by petitioner as having been allegedly committed by the trial court." Here. 50 Am. supra. no less than the liberty of Armando Ramos is involved in the claim of the committee to the right to cite witnesses. Pecson. the case must be clearly seen to be within those intended to be reached. We hold. that petitioner's committee has no power to cite witnesses to appear before it and to ask for their punishment in case of refusal. Jur.In the second place. . Sec..

You are.: WHEREFORE. . in the light of the foregoing. Angadanan Agro-Industrial College. For his part. of August 15. Isabela. The petitioner followed him and later saw that respondent Castillejo was already holding a wrench. petitioner. GAOIRAN. J. he filed with the RTC of Cauayan. Atty.R. 1999. Not WHEREFORE. issued the Resolution dated February 20.R. Retired Chairman. you are hereby PREVENTIVELY SUSPENDED FOR NINETY (90) DAYS WITHOUT PAY effective best interest of the service. 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cauayan. Commission on Higher Education. 807. and DIOSDADO TELAN. you are directed to state whether or Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by not you elect a formal hearing of the charges against you or you waive your rights to such hearing. as dismissing petitioner Gaoiran from the service for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the amended. Dasig. Castillejo. pursuant to the provisions of P. 15. then Chairman of the CHED. likewise. The incident allegedly took place on August 15. nullifying the Resolution dated June 3.[3] The factual antecedents of the case are as follows: The petitioner did not submit his written counter-affidavit or answer to the charges against him. left eye. Administrative Officer II. 1997 at The petitioner sought reconsideration of the formal charge and preventive suspension order. petitioner had already served the suspension. GAOIRAN is hereby meted the content with the injuries he inflicted on respondent Castillejo. Considering the gravity of the instant charge against you. oath. Legal Affairs Service. respondent Hon. the existence of Director Mayos resolution. No. who was later appointed Director of the Legal Affairs Service of Circuit Trial Court of Angadanan-San Guillermo and docketed as Criminal Case No. apparently unaware of facie case against the petitioner. Isabela. if any. In your answer. However. then Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). Suddenly. Moreover. finding the During the fact-finding investigation. Atty. also of the same school. Vocation School so the petitioner held his feet. 61477. 1997. This irked the petitioner because there were students and other teachers in the vicinity. respondent FLORIAN R.[2] a to restrain the enforcement of the said preventive suspension order. a petition for certiorari and prohibition Head Teacher III in the High School Department of the Angadanan Agro-Industrial College (AAIC). Isabela. Alcala. Angadanan Agro-Industrial After the fact-finding investigation was terminated. just then. vs. 2:30 p. Dasig issued the Formal Charge and Order of Preventive Suspension dated July 27. you are hereby directed to answer in writing and under oath the above charges against you within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. Mayo. inflicted physical injuries on same school. On October 29. charged the petitioner with mauling him while he was performing his duties therein. Angadanan. seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. the petitioner tried to throw him down penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE for unlawfully attacking a person in authority while in the the stairs but was prevented by the timely intervention of Mr. she treated respondent Castillejo for the wounds he sustained on his left eye. SP No. now Chairman. Watchman I of the school. 1998 stating in part: DECISION CALLEJO. ALCALA. CASTILLEJO. he was about to leave the school premises. against the petitioner for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Angadanan Agro-Industrial College. Gaoiran. then and there. Branch 20. HON.. upon receipt thereof. then Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Director III. respondent Castillejo slipped and fell flat on the floor.m. Respondent Castillejo just turned his back and proceeded to his office. The petitioner noticed that Commission on Higher Education. conducted a fact-finding investigation on the mauling incident to determine the existence of a prima However. left eyebrow and lower lip. This is without prejudice to the complainants right to institute the proper criminal and civil statements. FELIPE S. the case was dismissed for being moot and academic. during and after the preliminary fact-finding investigation. Administrative Officer I. 97-42. 1997. Angel C.m. SR. against the petitioner on the ground that the letter-complaint of respondent Castillejo was not under Felina S. respondent Castillejo averred that at 2:30 p. Belinda L. Appended to the letter-complaint were the verified criminal contending that the letter-complaint was not under oath and that he was not informed nor apprised of complaint filed by respondent Castillejo against the petitioner and the sworn statements of his the complaint against him before. witnesses. 1999. November 26. the petitioner averred that at around 2:30 p. ESTER ALBANO GARCIA. Joel Voltaire V. the CHED. Instructor I & Head Teacher III. AMMUGAUAN. submitting therewith sworn statements of your witnesses and other pertinent documents. Rupac. The petitioner confronted respondent Castillejo and asked the latter why he had to embarrass him (petitioner) in front of the students. the petitioner dismissing him therefrom. 2004] out the petitioners attendance card. Instead. the petitioner made a side step and FLORIAN R. Thereafter. While going down the stairs. Alcala. 1999 of Hon. SR. Branch 20. The petitioner delivered blows on respondent Castillejos head. respondent Edmond M. Isabela. Angel C. then and there. 150178.m. The criminal complaint for assault to a person in authority was filed with the Municipal Thereafter. the medical certificate issued by Dr. the appellate court reversed the Decision dated February 15.. Miguel showed that on August actions against the respondent relative thereto. Florian R. The dispositive portion of respondent Alcalas resolution states: suddenly barged into his (Castillejos) office and. ANGEL C. while he was performing his usual duties as Administrative Officer II. inside the school premises. advised of your right to counsel. left eyebrow and lower lip. OIC Designate. Ismael Bautista. Accountant I of the active performance of his duties and responsibilities and. In the assailed decision. on August petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and 15. 1997. 1997. a letter-complaint was filed with the CHED against petitioner Gaoiran. EDMOND M. assaulted and boxed him. considering that the state-supervised school in Angadanan. the petitioner met Bautista and Henry Superintendent I.D.respondents. issued another Resolution dated June 3. respondent Castillejo shouted to the security guard to punch [G. Inside respondent Castillejos office. and upon finding of a prima facie case College. dismissing the administrative complaint The letter-complaint was referred to the Legal Affairs Service of the CHED. In his letter-complaint. respondent Castillejos left eyebrow was bleeding and he was putting up a struggle (nagpupumiglas). Bautista and other employees of the AAIC corroborated respondent Castillejos his person.

1999. Dasig. as yet. 2000. The CA pointed out that while the said resolution was ostensibly dated February 20. put an end to HOLDING THAT A VOID COMPLAINT IS DEEMED INEXISTENT. the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. When Director Mayo of the Legal Affairs Service. Prior FORMAL CHARGE AND ORDER OF PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION IS LEGAL. hence.O. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW IN NOT complaint against him had already been dismissed. School Superintendent I of AAIC. 1998. Angadanan. and the law then in force be acted upon by the authority concerned provided that the same is verifiable. at all times. in his February 20. The CA further ratiocinated that. 1999 Resolution. 1999. hence. 1. it declared as 4.The Vocational Schools Superintendent of Angadanan Agro-Industrial College. 1999 Resolution. even granting that the February 20.[4] WHEREFORE. opined that in administrative proceedings. a petition for certiorari. which stemmed from the said letter-complaint. No. because it did not contain a certification of non-forum shopping.[6] administrative proceedings may be commenced against a subordinate officer or employee by the Secretary or head of office of equivalent rank. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW FOR NOT In its Decision dated February 15. Isabela. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE only on July 14.[11] also known as the fact that the letter-complaint was not under oath was not fatal. which requires that an administrative complaint against a civil service official or of the Legal Affairs Service. the latter was resolved jointly. SECTION 4 AND PARAGRAPH D OF SECTION 4. SO ORDERED. 1999 Resolution was null and void.[8] to these dates. Such dismissal. Angel C. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW IN HOLDING without legal effect Director Mayos February 20. ORDERING A FORMAL INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARGES PROFFERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER THERE BEING NO FORMAL INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE COMMISSION. On appeal by the respondents. dismissing the petitioner from the service. The petitioner then filed with the RTC of Cauayan. In so ruling. afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain his side. The RTC found that after 2 OF THE OMNIBUS RULES IMPLEMENTING BOOK 5 OF EXECUTIVE [ORDER] NO. Director As the petitioner himself submits. was. 48[5] of Executive Order (E. The CA. respondent Alcala acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing his June 3. 1999 of Director Mayo of the Legal Affairs Service. 1999 Resolution. entitled to the presumption of regularity. necessary. the Court of Appeals (CA). for his part. the petitioner now comes to this Court alleging as follows: February 20. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW IN NOT investigation had not. The CA declared as valid respondent Alcalas June 3. 1999. investigation was still required to be conducted under the Civil Service Rules. dismissed the administrative complaint against the petitioner on the ground that the letter-complaint was not under oath. they shall be Mayos February 20. a formal or trial-type hearing is not. the CA noted an apparent irregularity in Director Mayos February 20. then OIC E. Consequently. dismissing the administrative THAT RESPONDENT ESTER ALBANO GARCIA WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW KNOWING THAT complaint against the petitioner. according to the RTC. who replaced respondent Alcala as Chairman of the CHED. 1999 Resolution. On the other hand. The CA also held that. the formal charge and order of preventive suspension filed against him.[9] Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of regularly issued. contrary to Director Mayos ruling. 1999 of Director Joel Voltaire Mayo is hereby The petitioner received a copy of the above resolution on July 12. Alcala is hereby declared valid while the Resolution dated February 20. deemed inexistent as it was not made under oath. the CA declared . In this case. he dismissed the petitioner from the service despite the fact that the administrative complaint against him had already been dismissed per the Resolution of Aggrieved. 2001. premises considered.O. Moreover. 1999 Resolution. the date of its actual issuance remained doubtful. The dispositive portion of the assailed CA decision reads: SO ORDERED. the litigation. as then Chairman of the CHED. THE LOWER COURT MAY DISPENSE WITH HER ANSWER TO THE PETITION. him by respondent Felipe P. a formal PERTINENT CIVIL SERVICE LAWS. since under Section at the time. likewise. or regional directors. Moreover.) No. Ammugauan. was hereby directed to effectively implement this Order and to submit a report thereon within three (3) denied procedural due process by the RTC when it rendered its decision without awaiting her answer days upon implementation. 94-0521. The petitioner cites Section 2. Branch 20. to the petition. 292 AND OTHER the formal charge was filed against the petitioner and he chose not to file an answer thereto. reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC. Accordingly. BEING A NOMINAL PARTY. the formal 2. THE LATTER. The CA ruled that between the two conflicting resolutions. Director Mayo nonetheless overstepped his authority because Atty. likewise. 1999. 1999. On the other hand. The petitioner. Isabela. Sr. 1999 and received by the latter 5. 1999 of then Chairman of CHED. Thus. for the reason that the administrative 3. He alleged that respondent Alcala committed grave abuse of discretion when. SECTION 2. the Section 4(d)[10] of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. dismissing the petitioner from the service. the petitioner was not denied procedural due process as he was The Court is not persuaded.[7] prohibition and injunction. the letter-complaint did not allegedly comply with the petitioner as early as July 27. a copy thereof was mailed to respondent Castillejo only on July 6. 292. 1999 Resolution and respondent Alcalas June 3. had the authority to reverse and set aside the acts or issuances of his subordinates. including The petitioner vigorously contends that the letter-complaint of respondent Castillejo should be that of Director Mayo. SECTION it declared the June 3. the existence of the said resolution had not been established. in the assailed Decision of September 10. in the Resolution dated June 3. the law. had filed the formal charge and order of preventive suspension against employee be in writing and under oath. the Resolution dated June 3. received a copy thereof only on July 1. 292. Even an anonymous complaint may Uniform Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of Administrative Investigation. been terminated. the petitioner maintains that Director Mayo rightfully dismissed the same and that respondent Alcala abused his discretion when he dismissed the petitioner from the service. is that respondent Ester Albano Garcia. 1999 Resolution. respondent Alcala. 1999 Resolution of respondent Alcala null and void. or head of local Since respondent Castillejos letter-complaint failed to comply with the formal requirements of government or chiefs of agencies. the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner as UPHOLDING THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW ESPECIALLY RULE XIV. the foregoing issues are interrelated. which was served on declared to be without legal effect..

Mr. as already mentioned. in administrative proceedings. through the Court Administrator. furnishing you a copy of my complaint filed in court. the complainant shall submit sworn required to answer and indicate whether or not he elects a formal investigation should his answer be statements covering his testimony and those of his witnesses together with his documentary deemed not satisfactory. respondent Castillejos letter-complaint contained the following averments: of the charges against the latter. Said complaint shall be in writing and under oath. In any case. No.[16] Sec. uphold the petitioners contention that respondent Castillejos letter- complaint was inexistent and could not be acted upon by the CHED for to do so. but. but also even anonymous complaints filed against court employees or officials for violations of the Code of Ethical . The Court cannot. Head Teacher III of with supporting sworn statements and documents.[12] Indeed. investigates and takes cognizance of. Sec. Dasig against the petitioner charging him with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and directing him to submit his answer in writing and under oath that constituted the . If a prima facie case exists. no complaint against a civil service official or concededly verified. It must be pointed out that. Florian R. Isabela. Complaint in Writing and Under Oath. the same shall not be given due threatening the witnesses.[14] proceedings may be commenced against a subordinate officer or employee by the Secretary or head of office of equivalent rank. appended thereto were the verified criminal complaint that he filed against the employee shall be given due course unless the same is in writing and subscribed and sworn to by the petitioner.. the CHED referred the matter to its Office of Legal Affairs Service and Atty. merely triggered a fact-finding manner as to apprise the civil servant concerned of the nature and cause of the accusation against investigation by the CHED. or chiefs of agencies. Subtitle A thereof read: In the absence of any one of the above-mentioned requirements. therefore. as OIC Director thereof. or regional directors. (1) Administrative rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. 2. under Criminal Case No. On the other hand. the disciplining authority shall dismiss the case.. The said letter- complaint did not. technical Sec. conducted a fact-finding investigation on the incident.O. course. I am Mr. Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E. No complaint against a civil servant shall be given due Acting thereon.[17] . same acts or omissions and issues has been filed before another agency or administrative tribunal. him and to enable him to intelligently prepare his defense or answer. The complaint should be written in a clear manner. not a complaint within the purview of the provisions mentioned above. In this case. the letter-complaint of respondent Castillejo is or upon sworn. contrary to the petitioners assertion.O. by the Sec. 292 and CSC rules on administrative cases both refer to the actual charge to which the person complained of is (2) In the case of a complaint filed by any other persons. No. in which he shall indicate whether or not he elects Angadanan Agro-Industrial College for mauling him last August 15. No.. while the letter-complaint of respondent Castillejo was not (c) Except when initiated by the disciplining authority. Sections 46(c) and 48(1) and (2). 292 and effectively deprive the Government of its disciplining power over people who hold a public trust. These documents could very well be complainant. 292. Gaoiran is now intimidating two of the witnesses against him thats why may I request for an immediate investigation of the case. 97-42 for Assault to Person in Authority. The case is now filed in the Court of Justice docketed the disciplining authority shall dismiss the case. sworn statements and other documents submitted.[15] this Court held that the complaint under E. Florian R. likewise. Conduct. as well as the sworn statements of his witnesses. would result in an The complaint shall also contain the following: absurd and restrictive interpretation of E. course. unless the same is in writing and under oath. for you to determine the gravity of the case administratively. states: highly appreciated. If the answer is found satisfactory. Your preferential attention and favorable action in this request are earnestly requested and will be Further. considered as constituting the complaint against the petitioner. Edmond M. 94-0521. In fact. it is not totally uncommon that a government agency is given a wide latitude in the scope and exercise of its investigative powers. written complaint of any other persons. commence the administrative proceedings against the petitioner..[13] After all. Discipline: General provisions. 292. invoked by the petitioner. Gaoiran. for him to be suspended or probably removed from the service to avoid him from office. Chapter 6. the complaints shall be dismissed. If on the basis of such papers a prima facie case is found not to exist. 1997 at around 2:30 in the a formal investigation if his answer is not considered satisfactory. No. cited by the petitioner. and the respondent shall be allowed not less than seventy-two hours after receipt of the complaint to answer the charges in writing under oath together The undersigned wish to file his complaint against Mr. 48. Procedures in Administrative Cases Against Non-Presidential Appointees. simple and concise language and in a systematic requiring an answer from him. otherwise. In this case.O. In the fairly recent case of Civil Service Commission v. it was the formal charge and order of preventive suspension filed by Atty. Court of Appeals. Section 4(d) of CSC Resolution No. 46. Castillejo. afternoon for the accused to be disciplined. 4. Dasig. this Court. Section 2.O. by itself. Any person may file an administrative complaint with the Commission or any of its proper commission. he shall notify the respondent in writing. to which shall be attached copies of the complaint. Administrative Officer II of Angadanan Agro-Industrial College. reads: Angadanan. all under oath. not only unverified. The pertinent provisions governing the initiation of administrative complaints against civil service (d) a statement that no other administrative action or complaint against the same party involving the officials or employees are provided in Book V of E. evidence. or head of local government.

Second. the answer. reversed and set aside the Resolution dated February 20.R. 292. Subtitle A. Dasig submitted her memorandum to respondent Alcala recommending the petitioners dismissal. however. The petitioners allegation is. His June 3. Conduct of Formal Investigation. Book V of E. one shall nevertheless be conducted if upon evaluation of the complaint. As the complaint complainant and the respondent. 1998. SP No. the petitioner insists that no formal investigation was conducted after the formal charge had been filed against him in violation of Section 22 of CSC Resolution No. this office finds substantial evidence to hold the respondent against the petitioner was initiated by the appropriate disciplining authority. the Court agrees with the CA day to one year. No. Atty. belied by respondent Alcalas statement in his resolution. It is borne by the records that Atty. Dasig. Dasig already filed the formal charge against the petitioner after a fact-finding investigation had been conducted on the mauling incident and a prima facie case had been established against him. thus. 1998 and. that respondent Alcalas June 3.[23] The petitioner was agencies and instrumentalities. formal charge was filed as early as July 27.O. Title I- 46(c)[19] and 48(1). by reason of his position as then Chairman of the CHED.complaint. through Atty. in effect. the oral testimony given during the fact-finding investigation was considered in his (respondents) favor to enable this office to determine the veracity of the allegations imputed against the respondent. Neither is it required that the same contain a verification of non-forum shopping. 1999 finding the petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to First.[20] Chapter 6. the basis for the dismissal of the administrative complaint stated in Director Mayos the best interest of the service and dismissing him therefrom.O. This notwithstanding. No. Book V of Executive Order No.[22] subscribed and sworn to. premises considered. 1999 Resolution dismissing the petitioner from the service prevails In fine. Since it was the CHED.[18] Notably. and the documents in support thereof. 94-0521 which reads: Section 22. Chapter 7. in part.e..[21] as the disciplining authority. respondent Alcala. Chapter 7 of E. jurisdiction was properly acquired over the misconduct on first offense is punishable by dismissal. The SO ORDERED. the petitioner cannot rightfully claim that he was denied procedural due process. resolution. to wit: Nevertheless. 292. Significantly. that the Secretaries and heads of What is repugnant to due process is the denial of the opportunity to be heard. Dasig signed the formal charge and order of preventive suspension for After weighing all the evidences [sic] submitted and the testimonies given by the witnesses for both the Commission in her capacity as then OIC of the CHEDs Legal Affairs Service. . WHEREFORE. under Sections administratively liable for violation of subparagraphs (2) and (27) of Section 46(b). grave the formal charge or complaint against the petitioner. A formal investigation shall be held after the respondent has filed his answer or after the period for filing an answer has expired. provinces. No. the petition is DENIED. Third. 61477 is AFFIRMED in toto. 1999 Resolution dismissing the administrative complaint. Resolution of June 3. during the formal investigation of the case. On the other hand. respondent [referring to the petitioner] failed to submit his written counter-affidavit/answer to the charges filed against him by the complainant so he was declared in default. unless the period is extended by the Commission in meritorious cases. 292 provides. highly irregular for Director Mayo to dismiss the administrative complaint against the petitioner long after the formal charge had already been filed against him and the matter was already for respondent Alcalas resolution. Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E. conduct grossly prejudicial case. He cannot now feign denial of due process. as earlier discussed. patently erroneous.O. the appellate court committed no reversible error in upholding respondent Alcalas over that of Director Mayos February 20. 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. on September 21. Atty. The Decision dated September 10. 1999 Resolution dismissing the petitioner from the service. the same need not be A. cities and municipalities shall have jurisdiction to undoubtedly afforded the opportunity to present his side as he was directed to file his written answer investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers and employees under their to the formal charge against him. 292 otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987. He opted not to do so. the merits of the case cannot be judiciously resolved without conducting such formal investigation. to the best interest of the service on first offense is punishable by suspension for six months and one Anent the issue on which of the two conflicting resolutions is valid. jurisdiction. is. his subordinate. Although the respondent did not elect a formal investigation. which filed Under Section 22. Finally. Section 47(2). had the authority to reverse and set aside the acts or issuances of his subordinates. It shall be completed within thirty (30) days from the date of the service of the formal charge. that the letter-complaint was not verified. it was issued by Director Mayo in excess of his authority. i. 1999 of Director Mayo. It was.

Presiding Judge. and MARK B. Southern District of Florida. the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U. 1069 "Prescribing the Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes in a Foreign Country". 139465. No.. S. Esmso DECISION MELO... District Court. B). two [2] counts..R. Based on the papers submitted. by way of Resolution No. [G. The bugle sounds and this Court must once again act as the faithful guardian of the fundamental writ. 1977.. J.: The individual citizen is but a speck of particle or molecule vis--vis the vast and overwhelming powers of government. Maximum Penalty 5 years on each count).. or the governments ironclad duties under a treaty. private respondent appears to be charged in the United States with violation of the following provisions of the United States Code (USC): A). Article 7 thereof (on the admissibility of the documents accompanying an extradition request upon certification by the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the requested state resident in the Requesting State).. expressed its concurrence in the ratification of said treaty. Note Verbale No. radio. RALPH C. LANTION.. representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. vs. Maximum Penalty 5 years on each count). Attached to the Note Verbale were the Grand Jury Indictment. petitioner.26 USC 7201 (Attempt to evade or defeat tax. 1994... Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. Kycalr On June 18. and other supporting documents for said extradition. then Secretary of Justice Franklin M..S. two [2] counts. signed in Manila the "Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America" (hereinafter referred to as the RP-US Extradition Treaty). The Court is now called to decide whether to uphold a citizens basic due process rights. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the United States. On November 13. It also expressed its concurrence in the Diplomatic Notes correcting Paragraph (5)(a). C). JIMENEZ. The Senate.respondents. 1999. The Decree is founded on: the doctrine of incorporation under the Constitution. 11.18 USC 1343 (Fraud by wire. Branch 25.18 USC 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States. Regional Trial Court of Manila. HON.. . four [4] counts. and the need for rules to guide the executive department and the courts in the proper implementation of said treaties. Maximum Penalty 5 years on each count). or television. 2000] SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. the mutual concern for the suppression of crime both in the state where it was committed and the state where the criminal may have escaped.. then President Ferdinand E.. Drilon. January 18.. the extradition treaty with the Republic of Indonesia and the intention of the Philippines to enter into similar treaties with other interested countries. The petition at our doorstep is cast against the following factual backdrop: On January 13. His only guarantee against oppression and tyranny are his fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights which shield him in times of need. the warrant of arrest issued by the U.

.. in a reply-letter dated July 13.) request the United States Government requested the Philippine Government to prevent unauthorized disclosure of the subject information. This Department is not in a position to hold in abeyance proceedings in Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents. In this particular extradition (p. Accordingly. The Department request and the documents in support thereof. moved that he be given ample time to file a memorandum. Maximum Penalty 5 2. information and documents obtained through grand jury process covered by strict secrecy rules under United States law. following reasons: to give him access thereto. 104-105.. petitioner issued Department Order No.D. This Departments denial On the same day. Evaluation by this Department of the aforementioned documents is not a preliminary investigation nor akin to preliminary investigation of criminal cases. issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction (pp. Rollo. to which we are a party provides that "[E]very treaty in force is request from the U.. Rollo. provides that the Philippine Government must represent the interests of the United 1069. requests for requested papers.. and the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation. this Court hereby Orders the respondents. who appeared in his merely determine whether the procedures and requirements under the relevant law own behalf. (pp. through counsel.D. The United States had to secure orders from the concerned District Courts authorizing the United States to disclose certain grand E). or access to. private respondent. request and Investigation. or oppose. a period of time to amplify on his request. No. Later. Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the wrote a letter dated July 1. Private respondent also requested that the proceedings on the matter be held in extradition or surrender of accused or convicted persons must be processed abeyance in the meantime. Article 7 of the Extradition Treaty between the Philippines and the United States Rollo). 1069. expeditiously. certiorari(to set aside herein petitioners letter dated July 13. We After due notice to the parties. denied the foregoing requests for the for mandamus (to compel herein petitioner to furnish private respondent the extradition documents.18 USC 1001 (False statement or entries. Evidentiary requirements under our domestic law are also set forth in Section 4 of The aforementioned petition was docketed as Civil Case No. 15. and after receiving a copy of the Diplomatic Note. disposing: therefore not available. as well as all documents and papers submitted therewith. Maximum Penalty less than one year). 1999). 249 designating and authorizing a panel of of your request is consistent with Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty which attorneys to take charge of and to handle the case pursuant to Section 5(1) of Presidential Decree No.. The panel found that the "official English translation of of Justice under P.) the request of the United States Government. Such was the state of affairs when. their agents and/or representatives to maintain the status quo by extradition documents and this Department will not pose any objection to a request refraining from committing the acts complained of. private respondent requested that preliminarily. 77-78... We find it premature to furnish you with copies of the extradition request and restrain petitioner from considering the extradition request and from filing an extradition petition in supporting documents from the United States Government. thirty-three [33] jury information to Philippine government and law enforcement personnel for the counts. with an application for the accordance with the provisions of the extradition treaty and our extradition law. the extradition request. The constitutionally guaranteed rights of the accused in all criminal prosecutions are On August 10. on August 6. Branch 25 of said regional trial court stationed in Manila which is presided over by the Honorable Ralph C. purpose of extradition of Mr. and prohibition (to 1. from conducting further for ample time to evaluate said documents. Government. No.. Scslx enumerates the documentary requirements and establishes the procedures under which the documents submitted shall be received and admitted as evidence. the case was heard on August 9. and treaty have been complied with by the Requesting Government. 14. Calrky 3. 1999. the panel began with the "technical evaluation and assessment" of the extradition States in any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition. that needed to be addressed" (p. 99-94684 and thereafter raffled to P. petitioner. 1999). namely: the Secretary of It is only after the filing of the petition for extradition when the person sought to be Justice. private respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region a petition against the Secretary of Justice. pending evaluation by court. Rollo). he be given at least a copy of. and to enjoin the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the NBI from performing any this Department of the sufficiency of the extradition documents submitted in act directed to the extradition of private respondent to the United States).. six [6] counts.2 USC 441f (Election contributions in name of another. Any further disclosure of the said information is not authorized by the United States District Courts. The formal request for extradition of the United States contains grand jury years on each count). but the same was denied. Mesm proceedings in connection with the request of the United States Government for the . S. 1999 Secretary of Foreign Affairs. the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the National Bureau of extradited will be furnished by the court with copies of the petition. 1999 addressed to petitioner requesting copies of the official extradition Law of Treaties. 1999 letter. and binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith". 1069 is the counsel of the foreign governments in all some documents in Spanish were not attached to the request and that there are some other matters extradition requests. WHEREFORE. 1999. D). 1999. respondent judge issued an order dated the previous day. Lantion. Jimenez. and thereafter to evaluate the request impartially. Petitioner. the In response to private respondents July 1. connection with an extradition request. and to afford him an opportunity to comment on. (but received by private respondent only on August 4. that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have received copies of the Extradition is a tool of criminal law enforcement and to be effective. fairly and objectively).

would this entitlement ACCESS TO THE OFFICIAL EXTRADITION REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS AND FROM constitute a breach of the legal commitments and obligations of the Philippine Government under the DENYING PRIVATE RESPONDENT AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE A COMMENT ON. this 17th day of August 1999. 1999 by the trial court. The respondents are. 1994. Also issued. I. pursuant to Section 5. Section 2(a) thereof defines extradition as "the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in THE PETITION FOR (MANDAMUS). Lantion. petitioner initiated the instant proceedings. ordered to file their respondent in Civil Case No. the Court has elected to go directly into the substantive merits of the case. is private respondent entitled to the two basic due process rights of notice and hearing? An affirmative answer would necessarily render the proceedings at the trial court. and shall be accompanied by: . the issues call for a review of the extradition procedure. Missdaa PETITIONER WAS UNQUALIFIEDLY PREVENTED FROM PERFORMING LEGAL DUTIES UNDER THE EXTRADITION TREATY AND THE PHILIPPINE EXTRADITION LAW. Extradition Treaty? GRANTED SO AS TO CONSTITUTE AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS OF THE MANDAMUS ISSUES. The RP-US Extradition Treaty which was executed only on November 13. addressed to the Secretary of (pp. 110-111. AND on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government. 1999 issued by public 9:00 oclock in the morning. the Court required private respondent to file his comment. AND WILL NOT SUFFER ANY IRREPARABLE INJURY. from filing the corresponding Petition with a Regional On August 17. representatives or The hearing as to whether or not this Court shall issue the preliminary injunction. You. SO ORDERED. OR RP-US Extradition Treaty? And assuming that the result would indeed be a breach.) (pp. your agents. as Trial court. as any person or persons acting in your place or stead are hereby ORDERED to CEASE agreed upon by the counsels for the parties herein. for a period of twenty (20) days from service on respondents of this Order. 1999. also called as the Philippine Extradition Law. abstracted as follows: PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHT IN ESSE THAT NEEDS PROTECTION AND The Extradition Request ENFORCEMENT.. THE MAIN PRAYER FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN conflict between private respondents basic due process rights and the provisions of the RP-US THE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS. Rollo. compel us to JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER delineate the focal point raised by the pleadings: During the evaluation stage of the extradition BECAUSE: Slxs c proceedings. Chief Justice. GIVEN by the Honorable HILARIO G. ON ITS connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty imposed FACE. thus allowing petitioner to fast-track the process leading to the filing of the extradition petition with the BY ORDERING HEREIN PETITIONER TO REFRAIN FROM COMMITTING THE ACTS proper regional trial court. 19-20. as directed. THEREFORE. The issues having transcendental importance. would call for the immediate lifting of the TRO issued by this Court dated August 24. in the event that private respondent is adjudged entitled to COMPLAINED OF. E. NOW. and of the issuance of the TRO of August 17. IN EFFECT. effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court. CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION IS. a review of these issues as well as the extensive arguments of both parties. 1999 at and DESIST from enforcing the assailed order dated August 9. THE REQUEST. Respondent Judge Ralph C. moot and academic (the issues of which are substantially the same as those before us now). Supreme Court of the Philippines. are IV." The portions of the Decree relevant to the instant case which involves a charged and not convicted individual. DAVIDE. GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF However. 99-94684.) Foreign Affairs. was a temporary restraining order (TRO) providing: slx mis to the United States.) The case was heard on oral argument on August 31. is set on August 17. brushing aside peripheral procedural matters which concern the proceedings in II. written comment and/or opposition to the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction on or before said date. To be sure. 120-121. The request is made by the Foreign Diplomat of the Requesting State. filed Forthwith. Civil Case No. Rollo. (pp. after which the parties. particularly the propriety of the filing of the petition therein. 1999. 1999. Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Court. Corollarily. 99-94684. while a negative resolution I. and from performing any act directed to the extradition of the petitioner prayed for. Rollo. Presidential Decree No. 1069. is there any OPPOSITION TO. likewise. TO DESIST FROM REFUSING PRIVATE RESPONDENT basic due process rights at the evaluation stage of the extradition proceedings. arguing that: their respective memoranda. extradition of the petitioner. PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH From the pleadings of the opposing parties.. CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION WAS. ushered into force the implementing provisions of III. both procedural and substantive issues are patent. JR. FORMALLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY DEFICIENT.

particularly to prevent the flight of the prospective 1.). 5." .). Upon a finding made by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs that the extradition request and its who shall immediately designate and authorize an attorney in his office to take supporting documents are sufficient and complete in form and substance. Section 5. Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty. consular officer of the Requested State resident in the Requesting State (Embassy Note No. A copy of the charging document.) . complained of. location of the person sought. The judge may issue a warrant of arrest if it appears that the immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused will best serve the ends of justice (Paragraph [1]. ibid. A recital of the acts for which extradition is requested. the court shall render a decision granting the extradition and giving the reasons therefor upon a showing of the existence of a prima facie case. as In accordance with Paragraphs 2 and 3. insofar as practicable and not inconsistent with the summary nature of the proceedings. Said decision is appealable to the Court of Appeals. and the time and place of the commission of these acts. the provisions of the Rules of Court. sufficient for evaluation of the request. upon receipt of the petition for extradition. the acts or omissions 9. Paragraph [1]. who shall immediately designate and authorize an attorney in his office to take charge of the case (Paragraph [1]. Such other documents or information in support of the request. he shall deliver the same to charge of the case. ibid. the Secretary of Justice. and the designation or description of the offense by the law. 1069. D. (Paragraph 2. the executive authority of the Requested State determines that the request is politically motivated. Embassy Note No. (1) Unless it appears to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs that the request fails to The Extradition Petition meet the requirements of this law and the relevant treaty or convention.1. 1069. The original or an authentic copy of the criminal charge and the warrant of arrest issued by the 7. statements. Such evidence as.Korte then is the coverage of this task? The presiding judge of the regional trial court. (Section 4. The Extradition Hearing 2. . or pertinently provides: that the offense is a military offense which is not punishable under non-military penal legislation. according to the law of the Requested State. . A statement of the provisions of the law describing any time limit on the prosecution or the execution of punishment for the offense. ibid. Upon conclusion of the hearing. Section 9 thereof provides that in the hearing of extradition is requested. and immediately executory (Section 12. except for the required 15-day period to file brief (Section 13. The lawyer designated shall then The above provision shows only too clearly that the executive authority given the task of evaluating file a written petition with the proper regional trial court of the province or city. Sda adsc (Paragraph 3. Presidential Decree No. upon application by the Requesting State. 052 from U. or other types of information specified in paragraph 3 or paragraph 4 of (Section 10.). and 2. shall apply. Documents. which sets forth the duty of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.) 3.) In this light. No. Embassy.). the extradition petition. ibid. the executive soon as practicable. he shall forward the request together with the related documents to the Secretary of Justice. or some other instruments his arrest and committal for trial if the offense had been committed there. his whereabouts in the Philippines. statements. Nevertheless. The Extradition Law does not specifically indicate whether the extradition proceeding is criminal. Presidential Decree No. During the hearing. or dismiss the petition 6. A statement of the provisions of law describing the punishment for the offense. 951309 from the Department of Foreign Affairs). Documents. issue an order summoning the prospective extraditee to appear and to answer authority must ascertain whether or not the request is supported by: the petition on the day and hour fixed in the order. or other types of information which describe the identity and probable extraditee. 3. with a prayer that the the sufficiency of the request and the supporting documents is the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. P. with the fullest particulars as to the name and identity of the accused. represent the latter throughout the proceedings.). A statement of the provisions of the law describing the essential elements of the offense for which or a special proceeding. 1069). A copy of the warrant or order of arrest issued by a judge or other competent authority. if known. as applicable. The text of the applicable law or a statement of the contents of said law. and The executive authority (Secretary of Foreign Affairs) must also see to it that the accompanying documents received in support of the request had been certified by the principal diplomatic or 4. Paragraph 3. Article 7. Section 8 4. civil. The provisions of the Rules of Court governing appeal in criminal cases in the Court of Appeals shall apply in the aforementioned appeal. whose decision shall be final said Article. A statement of the facts of the offense and the procedural history of the case. S. 8. having equivalent legal force. shall. Rtc spped of the Decree provides that the attorney having charge of the case may. ibid. would provide probable cause for authority of the Requesting State having jurisdiction over the matter. Section 6. Article 3 of the Treaty provides that "[e]xtradition shall not be granted if Section 5 of the Presidential Decree. What court take the extradition request under consideration (Paragraph [2]. ibid.

of persons or entities coming under its jurisdiction (Ibid. is one of the determinative powers of an administrative body which better [1]. looking at the factual milieu of the case before us. as expressly provided in Paragraph investigatory power. the Department also had to go over functions or merely investigatory functions: Adjudication signifies the exercise of power and authority them so as to be able to prepare an extradition petition (tsn. then there is an absence of judicial discretion and judgment. however. records. He had to officially constitute a panel of attorneys. and under Paragraph [3]. it would not allow determine whether or not the extradition should be effected. that in contrast to ordinary investigations. p. functions and its power is limited to investigating the facts and making findings in respect thereto. in less than one day. Ultimately. said process may be characterized as an investigative or inquisitorial process in contrast to a proceeding conducted in the exercise of an administrative bodys quasi-judicial power. comply with the requirements of the law and the treaty and. investigation is indispensable to prosecution. 198. 27). 26). Article 2 & and Paragraph [3]. 1098 [1957]. abide by the provisions of Presidential Decree No. for which reason he simply forwarded the request to the Department of Justice. US Extradition Treaty. Ipso facto. has. the record cannot support the presumption of regularity that the Department of Foreign It is to be noted. p. and to present evidence in support of the parties. Ex sm A strict observance of the Extradition Law indicates that the only duty of the Secretary of Justice is to file the extradition petition after the request and all the supporting papers are forwarded to him by In administrative law. the Department of Justice received the request. That is the role of the court. It does not exercise judicial to find out whether they comply with the requirements laid down in the Extradition Law and the RP. 1069. Notably. p. 24-25). process. op. How then could the DFA Secretary or pending the submission of the request. which is a useful Department of Foreign Affairs discharging its duty of thoroughly evaluating the same and its aid or tool in an administrative agencys performance of its rule-making or quasi-judicial functions. in this regard. whether or not the request is politically motivated. or to require disclosure of However. Its only power is to determine whether the papers powers and the other enlarging its commission. his undersecretary. United States. 1999. RP-US Extradition Treaty). With the foregoing abstract of the extradition proceedings as backdrop.S. The Department of Foreign Affairs. This The Secretary of Justice. Torres (100 Phil.. make the more authoritative determination? a contracting party may request the provisional arrest of the person sought pending presentation of the request (Paragraph [1]. but he shall be automatically discharged after 60 days if no request is submitted (Paragraph 4). (2) the right to be heard which consists in having a presented to it. Mse sm opposition. accompanying documents. production of documents. For while it is true that the extradition or otherwise (De Leon. the evaluation procedure is Affairs thoroughly reviewed the extradition request and supporting documents and that it arrived at a characterized by certain peculiarities. and (3) that the evaluation proceedings be held in abeyance pending the filing of private respondent's opposition to the request. and analyzing evidence. (b) to outrightly deny the request if on its face and on the face of the supporting documents the crimes indicated are not extraditable. Section 5 of the Extradition Law. Primarily. belongs to a class by itself. extradition petition. the Secretary of Justice has the ministerial duty of filing the enables it to exercise its quasi-judicial authority (Cruz. Inquisitorial power. RP-US Extradition Treaty). RP-US Extradition Treaty). 1993 ed. pp. The body has no power to indirectly conveying the message that if it were to evaluate the extradition request. testimony of witnesses. the provisional arrest of the prospective extraditee by himself..The trial court determines whether or not the offense mentioned in the petition is extraditable based The evaluation process. sufficient to be the basis of an through the Solicitor General. or that the offense is a military offense which is citing Morgan vs. and (c) rendering an order or decision papers. The body has no power to adjudicate in regard to the rights and obligations of both the The two Departments seem to have misread the scope of their duties and authority. reports. At such stage. Phil. Presidential Decree No. technical assessment of the completeness and sufficiency of the extradition papers. This extradition papers. Petitioner ratiocinates in this connection that although the Department of The Court laid down the test of determining whether an administrative body is exercising judicial Justice had no obligation to evaluate the extradition documents. unreported). Administrative Law: Text and Cases. indicates the magnitude of the error of the Department of Foreign Affairs in taking lightly its responsibilities. one abdicating its Requesting State and the prospective extraditee. itself: What is the nature of the role of the Department of Justice at the evaluation stage of the August 31. Plainly then. Such finding is thus merely initial and not final. it sets into motion the wheels of the extradition well-founded judgment that the request and its annexed documents satisfy the requirements of law. and investigate the activities. apparently without the The power of investigation consists in gathering. the Department of In Ruperto v. This is so because the Treaty provides that in case of urgency. it may result in the deprivation of liberty of the prospective extraditee. 1). Article 3 of the Treaty. 1999. just like the extradition proceedings proper. Article 3. the following day or less than 24 hours later. Thereafter. 1999. Affairs that his Department. cit. but it is also erroneous to say that it is purely an Extradition Treaty. 28-29. eminent as he is in the field of law. which is also known as examining or not punishable under non-military penal legislation. it would appear that there was failure to information by means of accounts. it to adjudicate upon the rights and obligations of the parties before it. and if the agency is not authorized to make a final pronouncement affecting the reasonable period of time to oppose the request. could not privately review the papers all deprivation can be effected at two stages: First. The bodys private respondent to participate in the process of evaluation. the Court had occasion to rule on the Justice took it upon itself to determine the completeness of the documents and to evaluate the same functions of an investigatory body with the sole power of investigation. is merely acting as a post office. 1069 provides for a shorter period of 20 days after which the arrested person could be discharged (Section ... power allows the administrative body to inspect the records and premises. Article 3. It is not a criminal investigation. p. request was delivered to the Department of Foreign Affairs on June 17. Administrative Law. the executive authority has the power: (a) to make a requested is a political one (Paragraph [1]. 1996 ed. and (c) to make a determination whether or not the request is politically motivated. Hence. extradition proceedings? Sclaw Hence. Article 9. pp. the following query presents or that the offense is a military one which is not punishable under non-military penal legislation (tsn. therefore. The trial court also determines whether or not the offense for which extradition is exercise of ministerial functions. (b) the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Kyle The above description in Ruperto applies to an administrative body authorized to evaluate extradition documents. to determine supported by the facts proved (De Leon. 64). moreover. August 31. organizing. filed a manifestation that it is adopting the instant petition as its own. It on the application of the dual criminality rule and other conditions mentioned in Article 2 of the RP-US is sui generis. if the only purpose for was also at this stage where private respondent insisted on the following: (1) the right to be furnished investigation is to evaluate evidence submitted before it based on the facts and circumstances the request and the supporting papers. It is the latter official who is authorized to evaluate the extradition determining facts based upon the evidence presented. power is limited to an initial finding of whether or not the extradition petition can be filed in court. to assure their sufficiency. a quasi-judicial proceeding involves: (a) taking and evaluation of evidence. The statement of an assistant secretary at the Department of Foreign Notably. 304 U.

169 U. 1379. of an information against the respondent. as well as the guarantee of being heard by an impartial and competent tribunal (Cruz. Constitutional Law. the evaluation As early as 1884. such as an administrative investigation of a licensed physician who is charged with identical language and terminology.. In essence. Presidential Decree No. or newly devised in the discretion of the make available to a respondent in an administrative case or investigation certain constitutional rights legislative power. or if not. Justice principles of liberty and justice. Gideon vs. the courts instead prefer to have the meaning of the due process clause "gradually ruled that since the investigation may result in forfeiture of property. which may result in the filing extraditee during the pendency of the extradition petition in court (Section 6. which. such as the right to counsel and the right commitments. Capsulized. Clearly.S. Logically. essentially criminal since such technical assessment sets off or commences the procedure for. it refers to "the embodiment of the sporting earlier case of Almeda. Court of Appeals (235 SCRA 241 [1992]) (p. the proceeding does not involve the conviction of the wrongdoer for validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life. 8. but a very imminent one. New Jersey. Sr. Wright is not authority for petitioners conclusion that his preliminary processing is not akin to a preliminary investigation. Non-observance of returned or replaced. there are rights formerly available only at the trial stage that had U. citing American idea of fair play" (Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Owners Association vs. Illinois. protection to their respective citizens. in furtherance of the general public good. Similar to the prevent his possible flight from the Requested State. At the same time. 20 jurisprudence. Article III of the 1987 Constitution which is ordinarily available only in criminal prosecutions.S. It relates to certain immutable principles of justice which inhere in the very idea of proceeding is under a statute such that if an indictment is presented the forfeiture can be included in free government (Holden vs. the criminal case. as pointed out by Mr. As described by petitioner himself. citing the earlier case of Cabal vs. the basic rights of notice and hearing pervade not second only to life itself and enjoys precedence over property. Perez (5 SCRA 970 [1962]). Kapunan (supra) involved an administrative charge of unexplained wealth against a progress and improvement. Further. information. liberty. thus saliently exhibiting the criminal or penal aspect of the process. involving as it does the possible deprivation of liberty. and the offense charged. therefore. Rollo). these rights will invalidate the proceedings. laid down the test to determine whether a proceeding is civil or criminal: If the SCRA 849 [1967]). 335. is placed True to the mandate of the due process clause. Petitioners evaluation stage. a preliminary investigation. Wainwright. is an even greater deprivation than forfeiture of meeting every modern problem. Court. 384 U. which regards and preserves these that are ordinarily available only in criminal prosecutions. we had occasion to public authority. this is a "tool" for criminal law enforcement (p. Escobedo vs. and their having been designed from earliest time to the present to property. The characterization of a treaty Because of these possible consequences. Individuals are entitled to be notified of any pending case affecting their interests. must be held to be due process of law" (Hurtado vs. can possibly lead to his arrest. 366). Miranda vs. 135. 78). against self-incrimination (tsn. The Supreme Courts have expounded as the spirit with which the provisions are informed and impressed. Compliance with due process requirements cannot be deemed non-compliance with treaty been advanced to an earlier stage in the proceedings. In this detained. the temporary arrest of the prospective evaluation stage of extradition proceedings. we therein straitjacket. Board of Medical Examiners (28 SCRA 344 [1969]). and to the deprivation of his 1069). There is also the arise" (Twining vs. the time spent in incarceration is irretrievable and beyond recompense. such proceeding is criminal in nature. Toward this effect and in order to avoid the confines of a legal respondent which was filed under Republic Act No. p. It had administrative agency conducting an investigative proceeding. however. both States accord common due process In Pascual v. RP-US Extradition Treaty). there is an impending threat to a prospective extraditees liberty as early as during the Petitioners reliance on Wright vs.20[d]). Kapunan (6 SCRA 1059 [1962]). we conclude that the evaluation process is akin to an inWright was in reference to the applicability of the prohibition against an ex post facto law. a favorable action in an extradition request exposes a person to eventual extradition once a request is forwarded to the Requested State. The requirements of due process are interpreted in both the United States and the Philippines as not denying to the law the capacity for Cabal vs. for while forfeited property can be only in criminal and civil proceedings. 516). 110 Mendoza during the oral arguments. Article 9. 1993 Ed. In a number of cases. based on the hierarchy of constitutionally protected rights. the purpose of this detention is to the same result the arrest and imprisonment of the respondent or the person charged. The United States and the Philippines share a mutual concern about the suppression and punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions. right.S. where the Court. for sense. 102-106). but in administrative proceedings as well. they may claim the right to appear therein and present their . x law procedural due process which consists of the two basic rights of notice and hearing. 1999.S. and such forfeiture partakes the nature of a penalty. Hardy. and upon notice. 211 U. meet the exigencies of an undefined and expanding future. Practically. 478. the consequences of which are nothing to do with the denial of the right to notice. the United States Supreme Court ruled that "any legal proceeding enforced by process partakes of the nature of a criminal investigation. the provisions only mean that By comparison. which could result in his loss of the privilege to practice medicine if found guilty. 378 U. Arizona. It is not only an imagined threat to his liberty. City Mayor of Manila. The cases mentioned above refer to an impending threat of deprivation of ones property or property pp. If.S. and hearing. the evaluation procedure is akin to a preliminary investigation since both procedures may have he will only be discharged if no request is submitted. it cannot be Due process is comprised of two components substantive due process which requires the intrinsic considered as civil. and ultimately. California. 436). but more importantly. subsequently rearrested (Paragraph [5]. the proceeding is civil in nature. pointed out that the the elasticity in their interpretation. the prospective extraditee may be continuously to a foreign country. No less is this true. August 31. whether sanctioned by age or custom. we held that the right against self. although it may be civil in form. Again. Sc incrimination under Section 17. and where it must be gathered from the statute that the action is meant to be criminal in its nature. or property. 372 U. their dynamic and resilient character which make them capable of revocation of ones license as a medical practitioner. or the Anti-Graft Law. liberty. but even more so in the case before us. although the Extradition Law is silent on this respect. the deprivation of liberty of a prospective extraditee. Second. extends to administrative proceedings which possess a criminal or penal The due process clauses in the American and Philippine Constitutions are not only worded in exactly aspect. they are alike in what their respective immorality. 78. Sclex Memorandum) that the extradition treaty is neither a piece of criminal legislation nor a criminal procedural statute is not well-taken. vs.S. the administrative proceedings ascertained by the process of inclusion and exclusion in the course of the decisions of cases as they are deemed criminal or penal.

he attached thereto a letter dated September 13.) [In this regard. and that the documents have been claimed. . 1999. which essentially include a copy of the instrument charging the person demanded with a crime. citing Ex parte Moore. In order to achieve extradition of an alleged fugitive. to a nuisance per se (Article 704. Government. and the right to In international proceedings. be considered dispensable in certain instances. Said judge or magistrate is authorized to hold a hearing to consider the Let us take a brief look at the nature of American extradition proceedings which are quite noteworthy evidence offered in support of the extradition request (Ibid. a formal request for extradition is transmitted subsequently through the diplomatic channel. like the summary abatement of (with special reference to the RP-US Extradition Treaty). granting him the right to be furnished a copy of the complaint. In interstate rendition or extradition. charging any person found within his jurisdiction" with having demand must be in proper form. Phil. (b) the defendant is being sought for offenses for which the applicable treaty proceedings.S. the Department of State prepares a declaration confirming that a formal request has been made. 1996 ed. IV. 337).C. the court must determine whether the person arrested is extraditable to the foreign American jurisprudence distinguishes between interstate rendition or extradition which is based on country. 3186). it is noted that a long line of American decisions pronounce that was in the demanding state at the time the offense charged was committed. p. Section 3. 410. Department of Justice. the right being such a basic one has been held to be a right mandatory on demand (Ibid. and Justice. or judgment of conviction or sentence and other instruments Secretary of State (18 U. it incorporates its requirements with respect to said charging instrument or papers are mandatory since said papers are determinations in factual findings and conclusions of law and certifies the persons extraditability. the affidavits. and the cancellation of a passport of a person sought for criminal 1. extradition procedures and principles.S. summarizing the U. accompanying the demand or requisitions be furnished and delivered to the fugitive or his 64). such as the summary distraint and levy of the property of a delinquent taxpayer. and judicial decisions. and that the person international extradition proceedings partake of the character of a preliminary examination before a demanded is charged with the commission of the crime or that prosecution has been begun in the committing magistrate. Applying the above principles to the case at bar. extradition treaties generally provide for the presentation to the submit counter-affidavits and other supporting documents within ten days from receipt thereof. Local Government Code. the governor of the asylum state has the duty to permits extradition. The Department of State forwards the incoming Philippine extradition request to the Department of replacement of a temporary appointee.S. 1999 from the Criminal Division of the U. Statutory 6. At the hearing. B.) Spped given a liberal construction to carry out their manifest purpose. and international extradition to conduct the hearing. Civil Code). and the 2. However. All requests for extradition are transmitted through the diplomatic channel. the padlocking of filthy restaurants or theaters showing obscene movies or like establishments which are immediate threats to public health and decency. such as an indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate.2d 853).W. Mis sc 4.S. and other supporting documents. If the court decides that the elements necessary for extradition are present. such as the allegation that the person demanded extradition (Ibid. A statutory provision requiring duplicate copies of the indictment. and the designation of the particular officer having authority to act in behalf of the complainant. 2d 103. rather than a trial of the guilt or innocence of the alleged fugitive (31A Am demanding state before some court or magistrate (35 C. such as: In petitioners memorandum filed on September 15. In urgent cases. Before doing so.J. however.S.S. The court must also determine that (a) it has jurisdiction over the defendant and jurisdiction the Extradition Clause in the U. In proceedings where there is an urgent need for immediate action. The ultimate decision whether to surrender an individual rests with the information.W. 406-407).S.. The Extradition Clause and the implementing statute are and that he committed the offenses charged (Ibid. Rule 112 of the Rules of Court guarantees the respondents basic due process rights.J.. the Secretary of State. the requisition papers or the received a "complaint made under oath. executive authority of the Requested State of a requisition or demand for the return of the alleged Moreover. Administrative Law. 3184). 158 Tex.side and to refute the position of the opposing parties (Cruz. affidavit. 407 and Ex parte Tucker. Cr. that is. and all the elements or jurisdictional facts essential to the committed any of the crimes provided for by the governing treaty in the country requesting extradition must appear on the face of the papers. the preventive suspension of a public servant facing wit: administrative charges (Section 63. Blg.C. In the event of a provisional arrest.S. federal statutes. The necessary in order to confer jurisdiction on the governor of the asylum state to effect the extradition court then forwards this certification of extraditability to the Department of State for disposition by (35 C. where the respondent is not precluded from enjoying the right to notice and hearing at a later time without prejudice to the person affected. Scmis demanding nation (31A Am Jur 2d 815). that the offenses are 3. that under Article 17 thereof the parties provide reciprocal legal representation in extradition proceedings..S.] then filed with the governor of the asylum state. Where the twin rights have previously been offered but the right to exercise them had not been covered as extraditable offenses under Article 2 thereof.) considering that the subject treaty involves the U. 2. Department of Justice. p. and must contain such papers and documents prescribed by statute. 408-410). authenticated in accordance with the federal statute that ensures admissibility at any subsequent extradition hearing. P. Constitution (Art. A judge or magistrate judge is authorized to issue a warrant for the arrest of the prospective extraditee (18 U. Where there is tentativeness of administrative action. the respondent shall have the right to examine all other evidence submitted by the offender. which are basically governed by a combination of treaties 1. The extradition documents are Jur 2d 826). which is to effect the return as swiftly as possible of persons for trial to the state in which they have been charged with crime (31A Am 5. S. the query may be asked: Does the evaluation stage of the extradition proceedings fall under any of the described situations mentioned above? 3. The judge or magistrate judge is vested with jurisdiction to certify extraditability after having Jur 2d 754-755). and vice-versa. 256 S. 324. Cr. that the treaty is in full force and effect. attorney is directory. 2 cl 2). prosecution. requests for the provisional arrest of an individual may be made directly by the Philippine Department of Justice to the U. and (c) there is probable cause to believe that the defendant is the person sought deliver the fugitive to the demanding state. These twin rights may. Mis spped In a preliminary investigation which is an administrative investigatory proceeding.

It is not enough that Apart from the due process clause of the Constitution. 387) since after a close evaluation of the extradition papers. It is no exaggeration to say that a person recognized. the governor of the asylum state may not. Secretary of Agrarian Reform. Private Respondents Memorandum. 7. may cause his immediate incarceration. is sacrificed at the altar of expediency. Jospped careful examination of the extradition documents the Secretary of Foreign Affairs finds that the request fails to meet the requirements of the law and the treaty. SCRA 343. and to documents and papers pertaining to invoking a right guaranteed under Article III of the Constitution is a majority of one official acts. One of the basic principles of the democratic system is that where the rights of the individual are concerned. The prejudice to the "accused" (pp. The establishment of prompt efficacious procedures to achieve legitimate state ends petitioner even admits that consultation meetings are still supposed to take place between the is a proper state interest worthy of cognizance in constitutional adjudication. the notice and hearing requirements of administrative due process cannot be dispensed with and shelved aside." Miso From the foregoing. he for the preparation and filing of the petition for extradition. To be effective.S. and those that are not properly authenticated). the Department of may hold that federal and statutory requirements. or decisions.) Spped jo is thus blatant and manifest. We agree with private respondents citation of an American Supreme Court ruling: Government of certain problems in the extradition papers (such as those that are in Spanish and without the official English translation. fairly say of the Bill of Rights in general. it should be observed that the Department of Justice exerted notable efforts in assuring compliance with the requirements of the law and the treaty since it even informed the U. Illinois. Is private respondent precluded from enjoying the right to notice and hearing at a later timewithout (Stanley vs. Similarly. which are significantly jurisdictional. 175 limitations as may be provided by law. will excuse the Sec. it is the Department of extraditee yet in the strict sense of the word. not only after the extradition petition is filed in court.J. Indeed.S. but ironically on the other. 375-376 [1989]). The "accused" (as Constitution but of the United States as well. But the lawyers in his Department and those from the U. and the Due Process Clause.7. in the absence of mandatory statute. and prosecuting the petition for extradition. the end does not justify the means. it results in an administrative The United States. it may be observed that in the United States. and. Extradition may or may not occur. With the meticulous nature of Constitution recognizes higher values than speed and efficiency. In this light. in particular. there is no act on the courts determination of extraditability. if adverse to the person involved. than mediocre ones. but even during the evaluation proceeding itself by virtue of the provisional arrest allowed under the treaty and the implementing law. a person facing extradition may present enforcement. Access to official records. however. He emphasizes that petitioners primary concern is the possible delay in the evaluation process. 645. be the points earlier mentioned (see pp. However. then forwards the request to the Department of Justice compelled to act favorably (37 C. Justice Department. adherence to fair procedures are. On one hand. requested state has the power to deny the behest from the requesting state. 404 U. perfunctorily turned over the request to the Department of Justice met (31 Am Jur 2d 819). shares the same interest as the Philippine Government determination which. as well as to government research data used even as against the rest of the nation who would deny him that right (Association of as basis for policy development. shall be afforded the citizen. Section 2[c] of Presidential Decree No. how then can we say that it is a proceeding that urgently necessitates immediate and prompt action that they were designed to protect the fragile values of a vulnerable citizenry from where notice and hearing can be dispensed with? the overbearing concern for efficiency and efficacy that may characterize praiseworthy government officials no less. this Courts ruling is invoked: Plainly. There is no question that not even the strongest moral conviction or the most urgent public need. Sadly. which cannot just be completed in an abbreviated period of time due to its intricacies. Summary does not mean precipitous haste. Mere expediency will not excuse constitutional shortcuts. Government should the person aforesaid requirements will not vest our government with jurisdiction to effect the extradition. there is yet no extraditee. if so warranted. In the Philippine context. The subject of an extradition request may not litigate questions concerning the motives of the There can be no dispute over petitioners argument that extradition is a tool of criminal law requesting government in seeking his extradition. The that no right that of liberty secured not only by the Bills of Rights of the Philippines grant of the request shall lead to the filing of the extradition petition in court. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be bypassing of an individuals rights. Inc. 656) prejudice to him? Here lies the peculiarity and deviant characteristic of the evaluation procedure. no doubt. 10-12). accelerated or fast-tracked proceedings and whether to surrender an individual to the foreign government concerned.S. who makes the final determination persons must be processed expeditiously. It does not carry a disregard of the basic principles inherent in "ordered liberty. faces the threat of arrest. it is also necessary that the means employed to pursue it of Article III which reads: Nex old be in keeping with the Constitution. In the Philippine setting. In fact. if after a preparing. . the power to act or not to Is there really an urgent need for immediate action at the evaluation stage? At that point. and having satisfied itself on extradition. under an extradition treaty. subject to such Small Landowners in the Philippines. vs. In interstate Foreign Affairs which should make the initial evaluation of the request.S. transactions. the executive authority of the which has taken over the task of evaluating the request as well as thereafter. he shall not forward the request to the Department of Justice for the filing of the extradition petition since non-compliance with the Private respondent asks what prejudice will be caused to the U. They do not always clash in discord. private respondent likewise invokes Section 7 there be a valid objective. requests for extradition or the surrender of accused or convicted whatever information he deems relevant to the Secretary of State. 1069 calls him). filing. however. one might the evaluation.S. Nevertheless. Worthy of inquiry is the issue of whether or not there is tentativeness of administrative action. sought to be extradited be given due process rights by the Philippines in the evaluation stage. in the person of the Secretary of State. 40-41. not always incompatible. and perhaps more. have not been Foreign Affairs. in the instant case. extradition begins and ends with one entity the Department of State which has the power to evaluate the request and the extradition documents in the beginning. subject only to a few notable exceptions. Accordingly.

who is not directly affected by the matters policy of peace. Constitution A Reviewer-Primer. cooperation and amity with all nations. these two components of the law of the land are not pitted against each other. Civil them. Moreover. the law is silent as to these contrast. 1992 ed. and (2) the corollary right of access process clause in the Constitution? to official records and documents. either because these directly affect provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state. Maniks of democratic government (Ibid. op. Reference to the U. The extradition of a fellow Filipino would be forthcoming. The rule of pacta sunt servanda. However. From the procedures earlier abstracted. In a situation. S. Accordingly. Manikan In the case at bar. Hence. freedom. equality. Gonzales vs. action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere (Salonga & Yap. The observance of our do not fall under the guarantee of the foregoing provision since the matters contained in the country's legal duties under a treaty is also compelled by Section 2. the real party in interest is the people and any proper regard for the generally accepted principles of international law in observance of the citizen has "standing". Assuming the answer is in the affirmative.). where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made When the individual himself is involved in official government action because said action has a direct between a rule of international law and municipal law.. private respondent argues that which provides that "[t]he Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. The concept of matters of public concern escapes exact definition. but are not superior to. p. at such particular time.. Section 14. and may either cause him some kind of deprivation or injury.. 1996 ed. 2 SCRA 984 [1961]) for the reason that such courts information on matters of public concern. both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the official acts. if the person invoking the right is the one of incorporation. and in clearly granted to the prospective extraditee. Consequently. Article II of the Constitution documents requested are not of public concern. we see a void in the a third party invokes this constitutional provision. The fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not pertain him. the The right to information is implemented by the right of access to information within the control of the principle lex posterior derogat priori takes effect a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may government (Bernas. particularly the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against cit.Mani kx Incorporation Clause in the above-cited constitutional provision (Cruz. repeal a treaty. Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize their lives or simply because such matters arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen (Legaspi v." Under the doctrine requested. rights. Strictly speaking. 101 Phil. Government. S. however. As to an accused in a criminal proceeding. p. prior thereto. 104) and rely on the implementing the same. p. 55). no official governmental action of our own during the judicial determination of the propriety of extradition. he actually invokes should be upheld by the municipal courts (Ichong vs. We limit ourselves only to the effect of the grant of the basic rights of notice premise that ultimately it is an informed and critical public opinion which alone can protect the values and hearing to private respondent on foreign relations. one of the oldest and most fundamental maxims of international law. Hernandez.S. we are afraid that the balance regards the basic due process rights of a prospective extraditee at the evaluation stage of extradition must be tilted. In its implementation. constitution (Ibid. in favor of the interests necessary for the proper functioning of proceedings. to or imply the primacy of international law over national or municipal law in the municipal sphere. p. private respondents entitlement to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the Philippine Government under the RP-Extradition Treaty? . as public concern since they may result in the extradition of a Filipino. Philippine Political Law. the law? En contrario. so as to give effect to both since it is to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with Service Commission. However. 150 SCRA 530 [1987]). he invokes are organs of municipal law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances (Salonga & Yap. because our government by then shall have already made an official decision to grant the extradition request. records of the extradition hearing would already fall under matters of public concern. During the evaluation procedure. after the filing of the extradition petition and the government. The general right guaranteed by said provision is the right to information on matters of public concern. Later. 1999 requires the parties to a treaty to keep their agreement therein in good faith.. the basic right to be notified under Section 1 of the Bill of Rights and not exactly the right to Hechanova. as implemented by Presidential Decree No. the right of access to official records First and foremost. Consequently. p. 1069. national legislative enactments. let us categorically say that this is not the proper time to pass upon the is likewise conferred. stating that the extradition papers are matters of provisions of the RP-US Extradition Treaty.. In re: Garcia. 12). is there really a conflict between international law and municipal or national from the U. invokes the right to information. Petitioner interprets this silence as unavailability of these rights. rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no further legislative directly affected thereby. Instead. or decisions. transactions. 9 SCRA 230 [1963]. 1155 [1957]. No official action from our country has yet been taken. 1997 ed. 13). In states where the constitution is the highest law of the land. hence the invocation of the right is premature. p. such as the Republic of Such information may be contained in official records. 1996 ed. Government. and adheres to the interest only becomes material when a third person. The doctrine of incorporation. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. The The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals (or local courts) are confronted 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. as applied in most countries. 337). Public International Law. extradition procedures also manifests this silence. This concept embraces a with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know. 336). 1996 ed. his right to information becomes absolute. if There is no occasion to choose which of the two should be upheld. every act of a public officer in the conduct of the governmental process is a matter of public concern (Bernas. These cognate or related rights are "subject to limitations as may be provided constitutionality of the provisions of the RP-US Extradition Treaty nor the Extradition Law by law" (Bernas.The above provision guarantees political rights which are available to citizens of the Philippines. is there really a conflict between the treaty and the due namely: (1) the right to information on matters of public concern. Petitioner argues that the matters covered by private respondents letter-request dated July 1. On the other hand. adopts the the distinction between matters vested with public interest and matters which are of purely private generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. he describes the evaluation procedure as an "ex parte technical assessment" of the sufficiency of the extradition We now pass upon the final issue pertinent to the subject matter of the instant controversy: Would request and the supporting documents. jurisprudence dictates that municipal law bearing on his life. The 1987 Phil. the papers requested by private respondent pertain to official government action In the case at bar. decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing with.. papers have some relation to matters of foreign relations with the U. justice. and in documents and papers pertaining to the Philippines.). the rights of notice and hearing are government has as yet been done.

and if he does. statutory law or judicial pronouncements (Smith Bell & Co." may be availed of only in the absence of. may be provided by law. Court of Appeals: secrecy cannot be lifted at any stage of the extradition proceedings. 1069? Similarly. Court of for copies of the extradition documents from the governor of the asylum state. vs. Presidential Decree No. (at p. 1707. vs. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Phils. 273 SCRA 457 [1997]. 632 [1997]). for any prohibition against the conferment of the two basic procedural requirement that a statute cannot dispense with and still remain basic due process rights of notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition consistent with the constitutional provision on due process. NLRC. Earlier. does this imply that for a period of time. despite Section 15. In essence. We have to consider similar situations in jurisprudence for an application by analogy. in certain instances. . 276 SCRA 1 [1997]. Jamer vs. in interstate extradition proceedings as explained above. he must ever hold the oar of freedom in the stronger arm. which is aptly described as "justice could thus be subservient thereto? Ncm outside legality. 270 SCRA 96 [1997]. NLRC. RP-US Extradition Treaty. Inc. It is equally clear to us that an employee must be informed of the charges preferred against him. because there is no provision of its availability. and that the normal way by which the employee is One will search in vain the RP-US Extradition Treaty. performance of its commitments under the Extradition Treaty are insubstantial and should not be given paramount consideration. NLRC. although not administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek guaranteed by statute or by treaty. we must apply the rules of fair play. 267 SCRA 530 [1997]. The constitutional issue in the case at bar does not even The basic principles of administrative law instruct us that "the essence of due process in call for "justice outside legality. Magnaye. a provisional arrest is even allowed by the Treaty and the Extradition Law (Article 9. That would not be in keeping with the principles of democracy on which our Constitution is SCRA 315 [1997]. National Police Commission (271 SCRA 447 [1997]) right to be supplied the same becomes a demandable right (35 C. Court of Appeals. 20. government authority. where we ruled that in summary proceedings under Presidential Decree No.. District Court concerned has authorized although summary dismissals may be effected without the necessity of a formal investigation. Article III of the Constitution which states that "[t]he privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be Said summary dismissal proceedings are also non-litigious in nature. 671) Following petitioners theory. 410). the Extradition Law. In the evaluation process. the secrecy surrounding the action of the (Providing Legal Assistance for Members of the Integrated National Police who may be charged for Department of Justice Panel of Attorneys. private respondent does not only face a clear and present danger of loss of provide therefor. as one traverses treacherous waters of conflicting and opposing currents of liberty and Petitioners fears that the Requesting State may have valid objections to the Requested States non. This Court will not tolerate the least disregard of constitutional guarantees in the enforcement of a law or treaty. In the absence of a law or principle of law. which may eventually lead to his forcible banishment to persons. NLRC. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt a foreign land. [I]t is clear to us that what the opening sentence of Section 40 is saying is that A libertarian approach is thus called for under the premises.. Petitioner contends that the United States requested the Philippine Government to prevent Prescribing its Powers and Functions and for Other Purposes). 278 SCRA 602 [1997]. or be released on recognizance as deprivation of private respondents liberty is easily comprehensible. 268 SCRA 677 [1997]). lest an errant and wayward course be laid. Presidential Decree No. are protected by constitutional guarantees. during trial. 278 SCRA premised. Padilla to the organic law of the land if we choose strict construction over guarantees against the deprivation vs. notwithstanding Section 13.. Neither the Treaty nor the Extradition Law precludes these rights from a prospective extraditee. American jurisprudence and procedures on extradition pose no proscription.J. before conviction. David-Chan vs. petitioners revelation that everything it refuses to make available at this stage would be obtainable Appropriating Funds Therefor and for other purposes). 283 SCRA 31 [1997]). Inc. the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended." since private respondents due process rights. The Department of Justice states that the U. We would not be true reconsideration of the actions or ruling complained of (Mirano vs. yet we upheld the due process suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it"? Petitioners rights of the respondent. In fact. The second minimum proceedings.S. If the information is truly confidential. however. Article III of the Constitution which provides that "[a]ll property or employment. be bailable by sufficient sureties. the veil of minimum requirements of due process still operate. his Appeals (201 SCRA 661 [1991]) and Go vs. The convergence of petitioners favorable action on the extradition request and the is strong. Not even during trial. Ncmmis extraditee. overturned by Service-Connected Offenses and Improving the Disciplinary System in the Integrated National Police. Aquinas School vs. NLRC.We disagree. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended " Can petitioner validly argue that since these contraventions are by virtue of a treaty and hence affecting foreign relations. the prospective extraditee may even request Of analogous application are the rulings in Government Service Insurance System vs. As held inGSIS vs. The confidentiality argument is. Oldmis o . procedural due process refers to the method or manner by which the law is enforced (Corona vs. Court of Appeals. An application of the basic twin due process rights of notice and hearing will not go against the treaty or the implementing How then do we implement the RP-US Extradition Treaty? Do we limit ourselves to the four corners of law. Helpmate. but of liberty itself. PLDT vs. Sec. This is a jurisprudence and procedures on extradition. as amended by Presidential Decree No. shall. 1069).S. the aforestated guarantees in the Bill of Rights We have ruled time and again that this Courts equity jurisdiction. 971 unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. requirement is that the employee charged with some misfeasance or malfeasance must have a reasonable opportunity to present his side of the matter. we stated that there are similarities between the evaluation process and a preliminary his defenses against the charges levelled against him and to present evidence in investigation since both procedures may result in the arrest of the respondent or the prospective support of his defenses. Hence. 276 of liberty. 807 (Providing for the Organization of the Civil Service Commission in Accordance with Provisions of the Constitution. and Presidential Decree No. as well as American so informed is by furnishing him with a copy of the charges against him.. that is to say. 1069 does not In the case at bar. an employee may be removed or dismissed even without formal investigation. the the disclosure of certain grand jury information. Verily. theory would also infer that bail is not available during the arrest of the prospective extraditee when the extradition petition has already been filed in court since Presidential Decree No. and never against.

the same is hereby ordered dismissed. The incidents in Civil Case No. in view of the foregoing premises. and to grant him a reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting evidence. SO ORDERED .WHEREFORE. 99-94684 having been rendered moot and academic by this decision. Petitioner is ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers. the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

M. Remolona. 3. Salupadin who represented himself as working at the Batasan.8 That from 1986 to 1988. 3. vs. then they parted. Remolona. 1991. Quezon. Cagayan de Oro and got a rating of 65. Consequently. 95-2908 on April 20. Sheet that she possesses any eligibility. while his wife Nery Remolona is a teacher at the Kiborosa Elementary School. Laguna on his way to San Pablo City.25% administrative action against Remolona but absolved Mrs. . CSC Regional Director Bella A.7 That he went to Lucena City and complained to Dr. only petitioner Remolona appeared. Nery Remolona is automatically reinstated 3.5 That the following week. He DECISION attached the corroborating affidavits of Mesdames Carmelinda Pradillada and Rosemarie P. ESTELITO V. Remolona's eligibility. they met again at the Batasan where he handed to Atty. Culture & Sports at Infanta. In fact.[8] A formal hearing ensued wherein the parties presented their respective Region IV Director Bella Amilhasan to conduct an investigation on Mrs.000. at around 1:00 P.1 That sometime in the first week of September.000. Magsino in writing x x x that Mr. Remolona was campaigning for a fee of P8. that he received information that Mrs. America was able to get six (6) checks at P2. 3. Furthermore. a review of the records and of the arguments presented fails to persuade this Commission to "3. he showed the Report of Rating to the District Supervisor. after evidence. 3. It must be pointed out that it was her husband who unilaterally worked to secure a fake eligibility for her. finding the spouses Estelito and Nery Remolona guilty of dishonesty and imposing the penalty of dismissal and all its accessory penalties.00 per examinee for a passing mark in the teacher's board examinations. December 10. respondent. Furthermore. Based on the foregoing. Director II. America got mad at them. Accordingly. and Atty. and that he did it because he wanted them to be of Education. then CSC Chairman Patricia A. Cruz. Quezon. 137473. absolved Nery facts[6] regarding the issuance of the questioned Report of Rating of Mrs. America would verify the authenticity of his wife's Report of Rating. inquired from the Civil Service Commission (CSC) together. and that the list of examinees for and be meted the corresponding penalty. in the case of Nery Remolona.4 That the following day they met at the Batasan where he gave the amount of P2. he met one Atty. America is asking for money in exchange for the appointment of his wife but failed to make good his promise.R.: and Nery C. Thursday. Nery Remolona from any liability since it as per Report of Rating issued by the National Board for Teachers.000. Madelo. application form and picture of his wife."[5] 1995.[4]Mr. REMOLONA.00 plus P500. Remolona who purportedly got a rating of 81. 1999[2] denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Remolona is the Postmaster at the Postal Office Service in Infanta. Tomas issued an Order directing CSC dishonesty.. Nery Remolona did not indicate in her Personal Data Salupadin about his wife having difficulty in acquiring an eligibility. which is Remolona from liability and held that: summarized in the Memorandum[7] submitted by Director Pasion as follows: "Further. Quezon. by substantial evidence. Mr. acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by the spouses Remolona. The case against Atty.000. 1993 was filed against petitioner Remolona. Remolona with a passing grade. Sto. he burned the original. America. Remolona. Hadji Salupadin (this is how it substantial enough to effect his conviction. His act of securing a fake eligibility for his wife is proved sounded) who happened to be sitting beside him. District Supervisor of the Department that his wife has no knowledge thereof. the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied insofar as respondent Estelito Remolona is concerned. offered his help for a fee of P3. Francisco R. falsification and On February 11.00%. a Formal Charge dated April 6.00 each plus bonus dated July 31. 1989 does not include the name of Remolona. the Office.2 That a conversation broke out between them until he was able to confide his problem to Atty. Nery C.600. And when he felt that Mr. Amilhasan issued a Memorandum dated February verification from the Register of Eligibles in the Office for Central Personnel Records revealed "that 14. Francisco America who informed her (sic) that there was no vacancy. No. who took the examination in Said recommendation was adopted by the CSC which issued Resolution No. He signed a written statement of CSC. WHEREFORE. However. the Commission finds her innocent of the offense charged." requirements. 2001] the Report of Rating of one Nery C. J. Remolona (Remolona) from the government service for dishonesty.00.[10] In its Resolution No. Hadji Salupadin was held in During the preliminary investigation conducted by Jaime G. 1991. Thereafter. Pasion. The evidence is Sta. 1996. Remolona x x x. Remolona admitted that he was responsible in acquiring the alleged fake eligibility. The present petition seeks to review and set aside the Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals 3. dismissal of petitioner Estelito V.3 That Atty. 3. Lucena City. 1990.00 bonus who in turn handed to him [G. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.00. 1995[9] recommending that the spouses Estelito and Nery Remolona be found guilty as charged Remolona's name is not in the list of passing and failing examinees. 965510[11] dated August 27. for there is no evidence to show that she has used the fake eligibility to 3.9 That Mr. 1998[1] upholding the decision of the Civil Service Commission which ordered the of Nery C. and the Resolution dated February 5.6 That sometime in the last week of September. Romantico PUNO. support an appointment or promotion. 061285 as indicated in her report of rating belongs to a certain Marlou C. In a letter[3] dated January 3. to her former position as Teacher with back salaries and other benefits. Resolution No. Director Pasion recommended the filing of the appropriate as to the status of the civil service eligibility of Mrs. Examination No. Hadji Salupadin for possession of fake eligibility. petitioner. 95-2908 is modified in the sense that respondent Nery Remolona is exonerated of the charges. America likewise disclosed has not been shown that she willfully participated in the commission of the offense. Civil Service Field abeyance pending proof of his identity. However. August 2. Salupadin the amount of P1. while riding in a Kapalaran Transit Bus from reconsider its earlier resolution insofar as Estelito Remolona's culpability is concerned." Records show that petitioner Estelito V.

a party in an administrative inquiry may or credibility of witnesses. he enjoys and possesses a certain influence and power which renders the victims of his grave misconduct. Custodial investigation is the stage where the police actuations. he is deemed not to have been dismissed for cause. The contention of Remolona that he never executed an extra-judicial admission and that he merely signed a blank form cannot be given credence. the Court of Appeals rendered its questioned decision dismissing the petition for In the case at bar.[12] The general rule is that where the findings of the administrative body are amply supported by substantial evidence. whether there is a prima facie evidence sufficient to form a belief that an offense cognizable by the CSC has been committed and that Remolona is probably guilty thereof and should be administratively charged. Dishonesty investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and the discipline and particular suspect who had been taken into custody by the police to carry out a process of morale of the service. he is expected to be circumspect in his 2. 1. Although the offense of dishonesty is punishable under The main issue posed for resolution is whether a civil service employee can be dismissed from the Civil Service law. the object sought is not the freedom of action in any significant way. he is given more and ample was not assisted by counsel during the investigation as required under Section 12 paragraphs 1 and opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men. He claims that the extra. and by reason of his office. judicial admission allegedly signed by him is inadmissible because he was merely made to sign a blank form. when confronted with conflicting versions of factual matters. 2260 justice will not generally interfere with purely administrative matters which are addressed to the (otherwise known as the Civil Service Act) and Section 39. even against offices and entities of 3. Considering that the charge of dishonesty involves the performance of his official duty.[18] The rule. even if he performs his The submission of Remolona that his alleged extrajudicial confession is inadmissible because he duties correctly and well. in denying petitioner's motion for new trial. and actions specially where he is being administratively charged with a grave offense which carries the penalty of dismissal from service.[14] interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements. Thus. they affect his right to continue in office. No ill-motive or bad faith was ever . office and hence. and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person being investigated is for the administrative agency concerned in the exercise of discretion to determine which party with counsel. and the fact that no damage was government officer or employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct. Perforce. In an administrative proceeding. Remolona insists that his dismissal is a violation of his right to due process under Section 2(3). Hence. paragraph 2. it capacity to represent himself. the exclusionary rule under paragraph (2). Quezon and. such findings are accorded not only respect but also finality. Remolona was not accused of any crime in the investigation conducted by the review filed by herein petitioner Remolona.[16] It is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence. in sustaining the dismissal of the petitioner for an offense not work connected in relation to his official position in the government service. The investigation was conducted for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and likewise denied. The rationale for the rule is that if a the length of his service in government. Remolona likewise imputes a violation of his right to due process falsification of the certificate of rating of his wife Nery Remolona. the admissions made by Remolona during such investigation may be used as Petitioner submits that the Court of Appeals erred: evidence to justify his dismissal.[19] investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measure against erring public officers and employees. determine the proceeding. Remolona opines that such act must have been committed in the performance of the government service for an offense which is not work-related or which is not connected with the his function and duty as Postmaster. 292 (otherwise known as the arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion or when they have acted in a capricious and whimsical Administrative Code of 1987). CSC was not forwarded to the Court of Appeals. is that courts of of counsel or not. This proposition is untenable.[15] applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation. Article VII of Republic Act No. The right to counsel attaches only upon the start of such punishment of such officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the investigation. Article III of the 1987 Constitution deserves scant consideration the government other than the office where he is employed. Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. Rule XIV (on discipline) of sound discretion of government agencies unless there is a clear showing that the latter acted the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. Section 12 of the Bill of Rights preservation of the publics faith and confidence in the government. he pleads that the penalty of dismissal with 292. or otherwise substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency may not be assisted by counsel. this petition for review. It is when questions are initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his The principle is that when an officer or employee is disciplined. course of the performance of duty by the person charged. This is clear from the provisions of Section 32. even if caused to the government. the right to counsel is not always imperative in administrative manner such that their action may amount to an excess of jurisdiction. with the purpose of We have carefully scrutinized the records of the case below and we find no compelling reason to maintaining the dignity of government service. He also avers that his motion for new trial should be granted on the ground that the It cannot be denied that dishonesty is considered a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the hearing of the case before the Regional Office of the first offense under Section 23. as such. and are binding on While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal this Court. The written admission of Remolona is authority is not part of a criminal prosecution. therefore. that this is his first offense. the same has no bearing on his during the preliminary investigation because he was not assisted by counsel. a respondent has the option of engaging the services deserves credence on the basis of the evidence received. 3. need not be committed in the forfeiture of all benefits is too harsh considering the nature of the offense for which he was convicted. Remolona occupies a high position in government as Postmaster at Infanta. said defects of character are not connected with his office.[17] Thus. in holding that petitioner is liable for dishonesty. irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent's on the sufficiency of evidence. And the rule is that dishonesty. The right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a oppression and dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and criminal case under custodial investigation. the fact remains that under existing laws. His motion for reconsideration and/or new trial was CSC field office. in order to warrant dismissal. The private life of an employee cannot be segregated from his public life. Finally. As such.[13] replete with details that could have been known only to him. Article XI (B) of the Constitution which provides that no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause. The Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official. the hearing conducted by the investigating deviate from the findings of the CSC and the Court of Appeals. because by reason of his government position. Therefore. On appeal.

there was still falsification of an official document that constitutes gross dishonesty which cannot be countenanced.[21] The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees enunciates the State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. it is within the discretion of the Court of Appeals to have the original records of the proceedings under review transmitted to it. 1-95 of this Court clearly states that in resolving appeals from quasi-judicial agencies.imputed to Director Pasion who conducted the investigation. The transmittal of the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the formal hearing before the CSC is entirely a matter of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. We likewise find no merit in the contention of Remolona that the penalty of dismissal is too harsh considering that there was no damage caused to the government since the certificate of rating was never used to get an appointment for his wife. considering that he was an accountable officer and occupied a sensitive position. Revised Administrative Circular No. SO ORDERED. the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Although no pecuniary damage was incurred by the government. The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed remains unrebutted.[20] Verily. . the Court of Appeals decided the merits of the case on the bases of the uncontroverted facts and admissions contained in the pleadings filed by the parties.[22] WHEREFORE. Nery Remolona.