19. Chavez v.

PEA
G.R. No. 133250 | 9 July 2002 | Carpio, J.
Aggy | Topic: Information & Access to Public Records

TL;DR
Marcos passed PD 1084 & 1085 creating PEA and directing it to reclaim land, including foreshore and
submerged areas in the Philippines. Cory Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517 which essentially
transferred all the lands reclaimed during the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project
(MCCRRP) to PEA. As owner of the reclaimed lands, PEA entered into a JVA with AMARI (a private corp)
to develop the Freedom Islands. In the JVA, PEA also sought to transfer ownership of the reclaimed land
to AMARI. The issue started when Senate President Maceda said in his privileged speech that the JVA
was a scam. Various news reports were made regarding said controversy. It was said that renegotiations
were done with regard the JVA. Chavez (petitioner) seek to compel PEA to disclose any renegotiation
made with AMARI. During the pendency of the case, an amended JVA was signed and was later approved
by ERAP.

SC held that PEA had the duty to disclose the information regarding the pre-decisional stage of the contract.
It is covered by the right to information protected by the constitution.

Doctrine:
Right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final contract. The
information, however, must constitute definite propositions by the government and should not cover
recognized exceptions like privileged information, military and diplomatic secrets, similar matters affecting
national security and public order, and other limitations imposed by law.
Facts:

ANTECEDENT
1. Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP):
a. The government, through the Commissioner of Public Highways, signed a contract with
the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP):
1. Reclaiming of certain foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay
2. Construction of Phases I and II of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road
3. CDCP agreed to carry out all the work in consideration of 50% of the total
reclaimed land.
2. Feb. 4, 1977 - Marcos issued PD 1084 which created PEA (Public estates Authority; Respondent).
a. PD tasked PEA to “reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged areas” and “to develop,
improve, acquire, lease and sell any and all kinds of lands.”
3. PD 1085 was issued on the same day which transferred to PEA the lands reclaimed in the foreshore
and offshore of Manila Bay (facts 1.a.2).
4. Dec. 29,1981 - Marcos issued a memorandum ordering PEA to amend the contract with CDCP so
that all the future works in MCCRRP shall be funded and owned by PEA. The amendment stated:
a. CDCP will undertake all works in the MCCRRP
b. CDCP will give up all its development rights and transfer to PEA all the rights, title, interest
and participation of CDCP in and all the areas of land reclaimed in the MCCRRP as of Dec.
30, 1981.
5. Cory Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517 which granted and transferred to PEA the parcels
of lands so reclaimed under the MCCRP. (I think all reclaimed lands after Dec 30 na ‘to)
a. TCTs were then issued under PEA’s name.
MAIN FACTS OF THE ISSUE AT HAND:
1. PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with AMARI (private corporation) to develop the
Freedom Islands. (essentially binebenta nila kay AMARI yung reclaimed lands)
a. JVA required the reclamation of an additional 250 hectares of submerged areas surrounding
these islands to complete the configuration in the Master Development Plan of the Southern
Reclamation Project-MCCRRP.
b. PEA and AMARI entered into the JVA through negotiation without public bidding.
c. PEA’s board of directors confirmed the JVA and it was approved by Pres. Fidel Ramos.
2. Senate Pres. Ernesto Maceda delivered a privilege speech in the Senate and denounced the JVA
as the “grandmother of all scams”
3. Senate Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises and Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations conducted a joint investigation. Their
conclusions were:
a. the reclaimed lands PEA seeks to transfer to AMARI are lands of the public domain which
the government has not classified as alienable lands, thus, PEA cannot alienate these
lands;
b. the TCTs covering the Freedom Islands are thus void
c. JVA itself is illegal
4. Fidel Ramos issue AO 365 creating the Legal Task Force to conduct study on the legality of the
JVA.
a. The task force upheld JVA’s legality.
5. Philippine Daily Inquirer and Today published reports that there were ongoing renegotiations
between PEA & AMARI under an order of Fidel Ramos.
6. Franz Chavez (petitioner), as taxpayer, filed a petition for mandamus in SC.
a. He contends that the PH stands to lose billions of pesos in the JVA
b. He prays that PEA publicly disclose the terms of any renegotiation of the JVA invoking
Art. III, Sec. 7 and Art. II, Sec. 28 of the Constitution.
c. He also assails the sale as a blatant violation of Art. XII, Sec. 3.
7. While case is pending, PEA & AMARI signed the Amended JVA, which was later approved by
ERAP.
a. Due to this, Chavez, now, prays that the renegotiated contract be declared null and void.

Issue/Holding:
Guys, there are 7 issues in this case. Pero yung fifth lang talaga ang important. I will put the other issues
here na rin, but I will not discuss in length na para lang alam niyo. TY. You can also look at the full text
pala if you want. With headings naman si justice carpio magsulat hehe

W/N the constitutional right to information includes official information on ongoing negotiations before a
final agreement? – Yes.

• ART. III, SEC. 7 and ART. II, SEC. 28 of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy
making and in the operations of government, as well as provide the people sufficient information
to exercise their other constitutional rights effectively. Right to information is also essential to
freedom of expression.
o “If the government does not disclose its official acts, transactions and decisions to
citizens, whatever citizens say, even if expressed without any restraint, will be
speculative and amount to nothing”
o With the right to information, people can participate in public discussions leading to the
formulation of government policies.
o Informed citizens = proper functioning of any democracy
• PEA and AMARI argues that the right to information does not include information involving
transactions which are still in the “exploratory/pre-decisional stage” because it will degrade the
quality of decision-making. (Officials might hesitate to express their real sentiments during
deliberations if there’s immediate public dissemination of info)
o SC distinguished first between (1) information that the law on public bidding requires
PEA to disclose publicly, and (2) information that the right to info requires to be released
to the public.
o Before consummating any contract, PEA must first, without any demand from anyone,
disclose to the public matters relating to the disposition of its properties because a public
bidding is required by the Government Auditing Code.
§ If PEA fails to do so, any citizen can demand this information at any time during
the bidding process.
§ Information, however, on on-going evaluation or review of bids or proposals
undertaken by the bidding committee is not immediately accessible under
right to info.
o BUT, once the committee makes its official recommendation, there arises a
“definite proposition” on the part of the government. From here, right to information
attaches. Hence, any citizen can access all the non-proprietary info leading to
such definite proposition. (I guess this would refer to the information re: the
evaluation of the bids aka the pre-decisional stage info)
o Requiring a consummated contract will keep the public in the dark until the contract
becomes a fait accompli (no option but to accept). Essentially, the people will be
prevented from participating in public discussion of any proposed contract, which will
effectively impair people’s basic rights.
• SC, then, discussed the 3 categories of information which are matters of public concern:
1. Official records (any doc that is part of the public records in the custody of
government)
2. Documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, and
decisions (docs recording, evidencing, establishing, confirming, supporting,
justifying, or explaining official acts of government)
3. Government research data used in formulating policies (research data,
whether raw, collated or processed, owned by government and used in formulating
government policies)
• Info which Chavez may access on the renegotiation of JVA includes evaluation reports,
recommendations, legal and expert opinions, minutes of meetings, terms of reference and
other documents attached to such reports of minutes, all relating to the JVA.
o Right to info does NOT compel PEA to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the
like relating to the renegotiation. (basically, di na nila need gumawa ng some kind
of “digests” basta ibigay nila ‘yun na yun)
o The right only affords people access.
o Also, one who exercises the right must copy the records at his expense.
o The right is also subject to reasonable regulations to protect the integrity of the
public records and to minimize disruption to government operations (e.g. rules
specifying when and how to conduct inspection and copying)
o The right does NOT extend to:
§ privileged information under separation of powers
§ military and diplomatic secrets
§ info affecting national security
§ info on investigations of crimes by law enforcement agencies before
prosecution of accused
§ other limitations imposed by law
 • IN SHORT, right to information includes information on on-going negotiations before a
final contract. PEA must disclose such, since they do not claim that the information is
privileged or that it falls under any of the exceptions.

OTHER ISSUES:
1. On w/n the issue is moot because AMARI already furnished Chavez with the copy of the
Amended JVA and said JVA was already approved by ERAP,
a. It is not moot because they still have to implement the JVA. If Amended JVA is
unconstitutional, it’s the court’s duty to enjoin its implementation.
2. On w/n petition should be dismissed for failing to observe the principle of hierarchy of
courts,
a. Mandamus falls under the original jurisdiction of the Court.
3. On w/n petition should be dismissed for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies
a. PEA had the affirmative duty to disclose the original JVA because a public bidding
was required, which it failed to do. Thus, petitioner had the right to seek direct
judicial intervention.
4. On petitioner’s standing
a. He has standing as a taxpayer.
5. On w/n the stipulations in the amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of lands, reclaimed,
violate the constitution
a. The Freedom Islands are alienable lands of the public domain. PEA may lease
these lands to private corps but they may not sell or transfer ownership to private
corps. PEA may only sell these lands to PH citizens, subject to the ownership
limitations in the 1987 constitution and existing laws.
6. On w/n the court if the proper forum to raise the issue of w/n the JVA is grossly
disadvantageous to the government
a. Amended JVA is null and void. No necessity to rule on this issue.

Ruling:
Petition is granted. Amended JVA is null and void.

Relevant Provisions:
ART II, SECTION 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State
adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving
public interest.

ART III, SECTION 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern
shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining
to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used
as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations
as may be provided by law.