Chaves vs PEA and Amari Coastal Bay Development Co, July 9, 2002

8/9/2019 Chaves vs PEA and Amari Coastal Bay Development Co, July 9, 2002

1/25

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, petitioner,vs.

PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY and AMARICOASTAL BAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

respondents.

G.R. No. 1332! "#$% &, 2!!2

CARPIO, J.:

This is an original Petition for Mandamus with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and a temporaryrestraining order. The petition seeks to compel thePublic Estates Authority !PEA! for brevity" to discloseall facts on PEA#s then on$going renegotiations with Amari %oastal &ay and 'evelopment %orporation!AMA()! for brevity" to reclaim portions of Manila &ay.The petition further seeks to enjoin PEA from signing anew agreement with AMA() involving suchreclamation.

T'( Fa)*+

*n +ovember -, /01, the government, through the%ommissioner of Public 2ighways, signed a contractwith the %onstruction and 'evelopment %orporation of the Philippines !%'%P! for brevity" to reclaim certainforeshore and offshore areas of Manila &ay. Thecontract also included the construction of Phases ) and)) of the Manila$%avite %oastal (oad. %'%P obligateditself to carry out all the works in consideration of fiftypercent of the total reclaimed land.

*n 3ebruary 4, /00, then President 3erdinand E.Marcos issued Presidential 'ecree +o. -54 creatingPEA. P' +o. -54 tasked PEA !to reclaim land,including foreshore and submerged areas,! and !todevelop, improve, ac6uire, 7 7 7 lease and sell any andall kinds of lands.! *n the same date, then PresidentMarcos issued Presidential 'ecree +o. -58transferring to PEA the !lands reclaimed in theforeshore and offshore of the Manila &ay! under theManila$%avite %oastal (oad and (eclamation ProjectM%%((P".

*n 'ecember /, /5, then President Marcos issued

a memorandum directing PEA to amend its contract

with %'%P, so that !9A:ll future works inM%%((P 7 7 7 shall be funded and owned byPEA.! Accordingly, PEA and %'%P e7ecuted aMemorandum of Agreement dated 'ecember /, /5, which stated;

!i" %'%P shall undertake allreclamation, construction, and such

other works in the M%%((P as maybe agreed upon by the parties, to bepaid according to progress of works ona unit priceow ?ater >evel locatedoutside the 3inancial %enter Area andthe 3irst +eighborhood @nit.!1

*n anuary /, /55, then President %oraBon%. A6uino issued =pecial Patent +o. 180,granting and transferring to PEA !the parcels of

land so reclaimed under the Manila$%avite%oastal (oad and (eclamation Project

M%%((P" containing a total area of one million ninehundred fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety four ,/8,5/4" s6uare meters.! =ubse6uently, on April /,/55, the (egister of 'eeds of the Municipality of ParaCa6ue issued Transfer %ertificates of Title +os.01-/, 01, and 01, in the name of PEA, coveringthe three reclaimed islands known as the !3reedom)slands! located at the southern portion of the Manila$%avite %oastal (oad, ParaCa6ue %ity. The 3reedom)slands have a total land area of *ne Million 3ive2undred =eventy Eight Thousand 3our 2undred and3orty *ne ,805,44" s6uare meters or 80.54hectares.

*n April 8, //8, PEA entered into a oint Denture Agreement !DA! for brevity" with AMA(), a privatecorporation, to develop the 3reedom )slands. The DAalso re6uired the reclamation of an additional 8-hectares of submerged areas surrounding theseislands to complete the configuration in the Master 'evelopment Plan of the =outhern (eclamationProject$M%%((P. PEA and AMA() entered into theDA through negotiation without public bidding.4 *n April 5, //8, the &oard of 'irectors of PEA, in its(esolution +o. 48, confirmed the DA.8 *n une 5,//8, then President 3idel D. (amos, through thenE7ecutive =ecretary (uben Torres, approved the DA.

*n +ovember /, //, then =enate PresidentErnesto Maceda delivered a privilege speech in the=enate and denounced the DA as the !grandmother of all scams.! As a result, the =enate %ommittee onFovernment %orporations and Public Enterprises, andthe %ommittee on Accountability of Public *fficers and)nvestigations, conducted a joint investigation. The

=enate %ommittees reported the results of their investigation in =enate %ommittee (eport +o. 8-dated =eptember , //0.0 Among the conclusions of their report are; " the reclaimed lands PEA seeks totransfer to AMA() under the DA are lands of thepublic domain which the government has not classifiedas alienable lands and therefore PEA cannot alienatethese landsG " the certificates of title covering the3reedom )slands are thus void, and 1" the DA itself isillegal.

*n 'ecember 8, //0, then President 3idel D. (amosissued Presidential Administrative *rder +o. 18

creating a >egal Task 3orce to conduct a study on the


2/25

legality of the DA in view of =enate %ommittee (eport+o. 8-. The members of the >egal Task 3orce werethe =ecretary of ustice,5 the %hief Presidential >egal%ounsel,/ and the Fovernment %orporate %ounsel.-

The >egal Task 3orce upheld the legality of the DA,contrary to the conclusions reached by the =enate%ommittees.

*n April 4 and 8, //5, the Philippine Daily Inquirer and Today published reports that there were on$goingrenegotiations between PEA and AMA() under anorder issued by then President 3idel D. (amos. According to these reports, PEA 'irector +estor Halaw, PEA %hairman Arsenio Iulo and retired +avy*fficer =ergio %ruB composed the negotiating panel of PEA.

*n April 1, //5, Antonio M. Julueta filed before the%ourt a Petition for Prohibition with Application for theIssuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction docketed as F.(. +o. 1//4

seeking to nullify the DA. The %ourt dismissed thepetition !for unwarranted disregard of judicialhierarchy, without prejudice to the refiling of the casebefore the proper court.!

*n April 0, //5, petitioner 3rank ). %haveB!Petitioner! for brevity" as a ta7payer, filed the instantPetition for Mandamus with Prayer for the Issuance of a rit of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order . Petitioner contends the governmentstands to lose billions of pesos in the sale by PEA of the reclaimed lands to AMA(). Petitioner prays thatPEA publicly disclose the terms of any renegotiation of

the DA, invoking =ection 5, Article )), and =ection 0, Article ))), of the /50 %onstitution on the right of thepeople to information on matters of public concern.Petitioner assails the sale to AMA() of lands of thepublic domain as a blatant violation of =ection 1, Article K)) of the /50 %onstitution prohibiting the saleof alienable lands of the public domain to privatecorporations. 3inally, petitioner asserts that he seeksto enjoin the loss of billions of pesos in properties of the =tate that are of public dominion.

After several motions for e7tension of time,1 PEA and AMA() filed their %omments on *ctober /, //5 and

une 8, //5, respectively. Meanwhile, on 'ecember 5, //5, petitioner filed an *mnibus Motion; a" to

re6uire PEA to submit the terms of therenegotiated PEA$AMA() contractG b" for issuance of a temporary restraining orderG andc" to set the case for hearing on oral argument.Petitioner filed a (eiterative Motion for )ssuanceof a T(* dated May , ///, which the %ourtdenied in a (esolution dated une , ///.

)n a (esolution dated March 1, ///, the%ourt gave due course to the petition andre6uired the parties to file their respectivememoranda.

*n March 1-, ///, PEA and AMA() signed the Amended oint Denture Agreement !AmendedDA,! for brevity". *n May 5, ///, the *fficeof the President under the administration of then President oseph E. Estrada approved the Amended DA.

'ue to the approval of the Amended DA by the

*ffice of the President, petitioner now prays thaton !constitutional and statutory grounds therenegotiated contract be declared null andvoid.!4

T'( I++#(+

The issues raised by petitioner, PEA8 and AMA() are as follows;

). ?2ET2E( T2E P()+%)PA>(E>)E3= P(AIE' 3*( )+ T2E

PET)T)*+ A(E M**T A+' A%A'EM)% &E%A@=E *3=@&=EL@E+T EDE+T=G

)). ?2ET2E( T2E PET)T)*+ME()T= ')=M)==A> 3*( 3A)>)+FT* *&=E(DE T2E P()+%)P>EF*DE(+)+F T2E 2)E(A(%2I *3%*@(T=G

))). ?2ET2E( T2E PET)T)*+ME()T= ')=M)==A> 3*( +*+$EK2A@=T)*+ *3 A'M)+)=T(AT)DE

(EME')E=G

)D. ?2ET2E( PET)T)*+E( 2A= !O"#$$TA%DI T* &()+F T2)= =@)TG

D. ?2ET2E( T2E %*+=T)T@T)*+A>()F2T T* )+3*(MAT)*+ )+%>@'E=*33)%)A> )+3*(MAT)*+ *+ *+$F*)+F+EF*T)AT)*+= &E3*(E A 3)+A> AF(EEME+TG

D). ?2ET2E( T2E =T)P@>AT)*+= )+ T2E AME+'E' *)+T DE+T@(E AF(EEME+T3*( T2E T(A+=3E( T* AMA() *3%E(TA)+ >A+'=, (E%>A)ME' A+' =T)>>T* &E (E%>A)ME', D)*>ATE T2E /50%*+=T)T@T)*+G A+'

D)). ?2ET2E( T2E %*@(T )= T2EP(*PE( 3*(@M 3*( (A)=)+F T2E)==@E *3 ?2ET2E( T2E AME+'E'*)+T DE+T@(E AF(EEME+T )=F(*==>I ')=A'DA+TAFE*@= T* T2E

F*DE(+ME+T.

T'( Co#*-+ R#$n/

First issue: whether the principal reliefs prayed for in the petition are moot and academic because of subsequent events.

The petition prays that PEA publicly disclose the!terms and conditions of the on$going negotiations for a new agreement.! The petition also prays that the%ourt enjoin PEA from !privately entering into,

perfecting andikewise, petitioner#s prayer to enjoin the signing of the Amended DA is now moot because PEA and AMA()have already signed the Amended DA on March 1-,///. Moreover, the *ffice of the President has

approved the Amended DA on May 5, ///.


3/25

Petitioner counters that PEA and AMA() cannot avoidthe constitutional issue by simply fast$tracking thesigning and approval of the Amended DA before the%ourt could act on the issue. Presidential approvaldoes not resolve the constitutional issue or remove itfrom the ambit of judicial review.

?e rule that the signing of the Amended DA by PEA

and AMA() and its approval by the President cannotoperate to moot the petition and divest the %ourt of its jurisdiction. PEA and AMA() have still to implementthe Amended DA. The prayer to enjoin the signing of the Amended DA on constitutional groundsnecessarily includes preventing its implementation if inthe meantime PEA and AMA() have signed one inviolation of the %onstitution. Petitioner#s principal basisin assailing the renegotiation of the DA is its violationof =ection 1, Article K)) of the %onstitution, whichprohibits the government from alienating lands of thepublic domain to private corporations. )f the AmendedDA indeed violates the %onstitution, it is the duty of the %ourt to enjoin its implementation, and if alreadyimplemented, to annul the effects of suchunconstitutional contract.

The Amended DA is not an ordinary commercialcontract but one which seeks to transfer title and ownership to 367.5 hectares of reclaimed landsand submerged areas of anila !ay to a single private corporation. )t now becomes more compellingfor the %ourt to resolve the issue to insure thegovernment itself does not violate a provision of the%onstitution intended to safeguard the nationalpatrimony. =upervening events, whether intended or accidental, cannot prevent the %ourt from rendering a

decision if there is a grave violation of the %onstitution.)n the instant case, if the Amended DA runs counter tothe %onstitution, the %ourt can still prevent the transfer of title and ownership of alienable lands of the publicdomain in the name of AMA(). Even in cases wheresupervening events had made the cases moot, the%ourt did not hesitate to resolve the legal or constitutional issues raised to formulate controllingprinciples to guide the bench, bar, and the public.0

Also, the instant petition is a case of first impression. All previous decisions of the %ourt involving =ection 1, Article K)) of the /50 %onstitution, or its counterpart

provision in the /01 %onstitution,5 covered

agricultural lands sold to private corporationswhich ac6uired the lands from private parties.The transferors of the private corporationsclaimed or could claim the right to "udicial confirmation of their imperfect titles/ under #itle $$ of %ommonwealth Act. 4 !%A +o.4! for brevity". )n the instant case, AMA()seeks to ac6uire from PEA, a publ iccorporation, reclaimed lands and submergedareas for non%agricultural purposes by purchase under P' +o. -54 charter of PEA"and #itle $$$ of %A +o. 4. %ertainundertakings by AMA() under the AmendedDA constitute the consideration for thepurchase. +either AMA() nor PEA can claim judicial confirmation of their titles because thelands covered by the Amended DA are newlyreclaimed or still to be reclaimed. udicialconfirmation of imperfect title re6uires open,continuous, e7clusive and notorious occupationof agricultural lands of the public domain for atleast thirty years since une , /48 or earlier.

&esides, the deadline for filing applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect title e7pired on'ecember 1, /50.-

>astly, there is a need to resolve immediatelythe constitutional issue raised in this petitionbecause of the possible transfer at any time byPEA to AMA() of title and ownership to portionsof the reclaimed lands. @nder the AmendedDA, PEA is obligated to transfer to AMA() thelatter#s seventy percent proportionate share inthe reclaimed areas as the reclamationprogresses. The Amended DA even allows

AMA() to mortgage at any time the entirereclaimed area to raise financing for thereclamation project.

&econd issue: whether the petition meritsdismissal for failing to observe the principlegoverning the hierarchy of courts.

PEA and AMA() claim petitioner ignored the judicial hierarchy by seeking relief directly fromthe %ourt. The principle of hierarchy of courtsapplies generally to cases involving factual6uestions. As it is not a trier of facts, the %ourt

cannot entertain cases involving factual issues.

The instant case, however, raises constitutional issuesof transcendental importance to the public. The %ourtcan resolve this case without determining any factualissue related to the case. Also, the instant case is apetition for mandamus which falls under the original jurisdiction of the %ourt under =ection 8, Article D))) of the %onstitution. ?e resolve to e7ercise primary jurisdiction over the instant case.

#hird issue: whether the petition merits dismissal for non%e'haustion of administrative remedies.

PEA faults petitioner for seeking judicial intervention incompelling PEA to disclose publicly certain informationwithout first asking PEA the needed information. PEAclaims petitioner#s direct resort to the %ourt violates theprinciple of e7haustion of administrative remedies. )talso violates the rule that mandamus may issue only if there is no other plain, speedy and ade6uate remedyin the ordinary course of law.

PEA distinguishes the instant case from TaCada v.Tuvera1 where the %ourt granted the petition for mandamus even if the petitioners there did not initiallydemand from the *ffice of the President thepublication of the presidential decrees. PEA points outthat in TaCada, the E7ecutive 'epartment had anaffirmative statutory duty under Article of the %ivil%ode4 and =ection of %ommonwealth Act +o. 15 8

to publish the presidential decrees. There was,therefore, no need for the petitioners in TaCada tomake an initial demand from the *ffice of thePresident. )n the instant case, PEA claims it has noaffirmative statutory duty to disclose publicly

information about its renegotiation of the DA. Thus,PEA asserts that the %ourt must apply the principle of e7haustion of administrative remedies to the instantcase in view of the failure of petitioner here to demandinitially from PEA the needed information.

The original DA sought to dispose to AMA() publiclands held by PEA, a government corporation. @nder =ection 0/ of the Fovernment Auditing %ode, thedisposition of government lands to private partiesre6uires public bidding. ()* was under a positivelegal duty to disclose to the public the terms and conditions for the sale of its lands. The law

obligated PEA to make this public disclosure evenwithout demand from petitioner or from anyone. PEA


4/25

failed to make this public disclosure because theoriginal DA, like the Amended DA, was the result of anegotiated contract , not of a public bidding.%onsidering that PEA had an affirmative statutory dutyto make the public disclosure, and was even in breachof this legal duty, petitioner had the right to seek direct judicial intervention.

Moreover, and this alone is determinative of this issue,the principle of e7haustion of administrative remediesdoes not apply when the issue involved is a purelylegal or constitutional 6uestion.0 The principal issue inthe instant case is the capacity of AMA() to ac6uirelands held by PEA in view of the constitutional banprohibiting the alienation of lands of the public domainto private corporations. ?e rule that the principle of e7haustion of administrative remedies does not applyin the instant case.

Fourth issue: whether petitioner has locus standi to bring this suit

PEA argues that petitioner has no standing to institutemandamus proceedings to enforce his constitutionalright to information without a showing that PEA refusedto perform an affirmative duty imposed on PEA by the%onstitution. PEA also claims that petitioner has notshown that he will suffer any concrete injury becauseof the signing or implementation of the Amended DA.Thus, there is no actual controversy re6uiring thee7ercise of the power of judicial review.

The petitioner has standing to bring this ta7payer#s suitbecause the petition seeks to compel PEA to comply

with its constitutional duties. There are twoconstitutional issues involved here. 3irst is the right of citiBens to information on matters of public concern.=econd is the application of a constitutional provisionintended to insure the e6uitable distribution of alienable lands of the public domain among 3ilipinocitiBens. The thrust of the first issue is to compel PEAto disclose publicly information on the sale of government lands worth billions of pesos, informationwhich the %onstitution and statutory law mandate PEAto disclose. The thrust of the second issue is toprevent PEA from alienating hundreds of hectares of alienable lands of the public domain in violation of the%onstitution, compelling PEA to comply with aconstitutional duty to the nation.

Moreover, the petition raises matters of transcendental importance to the public. )n+have, v. (+-- ,5 the %ourt upheld the rightof a citiBen to bring a ta7payer#s suit on mattersof transcendental importance to the public, thus$

!&esides, petitioner emphasiBes, the

matter of recovering the ill$gottenwealth of the Marcoses is an issue of #transcendental importance to thepublic.# 2e asserts that ordinaryta7payers have a right to initiate andprosecute actions 6uestioning thevalidity of acts or orders of governmentagencies or instrumentalities, if theissues raised are of #paramount publicinterest,# and if they #immediately affectthe social, economic and moral wellbeing of the people.#

Moreover, the mere fact that he is acitiBen satisfies the re6uirement of personal interest, when the proceedinginvolves the assertion of a public right,such as in this case. 2e invokesseveral decisions of this %ourt whichhave set aside the procedural matter of locus standi , when the subject of thecase involved public interest.

7 7 7

)n Ta&ada '( Tu'era, the %ourt

asserted that when the issue concernsa public right and the object of mandamus is to obtain theenforcement of a public duty, thepeople are regarded as the real partiesin interestG and because it is sufficientthat petitioner is a citiBen and as suchis interested in the e7ecution of thelaws, he need not show that he hasany legal or special interest in theresult of the action. )n the aforesaidcase, the petitioners sought to enforcetheir right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right then recogniBedin =ection , Article )D of the /01

%onstitution, in connection with the rule thatlaws in order to be valid and enforceablemust be published in the *fficial FaBette or otherwise effectively promulgated. )n rulingfor the petitioners# legal standing, the %ourtdeclared that the right they sought to beenforced #is a public right recogniBed by noless than the fundamental law of the land.#

!egaspi '( "i'il $er'ice "ommission, whilereiterating TaCada, further declared that#when a mandamus proceeding involves theassertion of a public right, the re6uirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere factthat petitioner is a citiBen and, therefore, partof the general #public# which possesses theright.#

3urther, in Albano '( Reyes, we said thatwhile e7penditure of public funds may nothave been involved under the 6uestioned

contract for the development, managementand operation of the Manila )nternational%ontainer Terminal, #public interest 9was:definitely involved considering the importantrole 9of the subject contract: . . . in theeconomic development of the country and themagnitude of the financial considerationinvolved.# ?e concluded that, as aconse6uence, the disclosure provision in the%onstitution would constitute sufficientauthority for upholding the petitioner#sstanding.

=imilarly, the instant petition is anchored onthe right of the people to information andaccess to official records, documents andpapers a right guaranteed under =ection 0, Article ))) of the /50 %onstitution. Petitioner,a former solicitor general, is a 3ilipino citiBen.&ecause of the satisfaction of the two basicre6uisites laid down by decisional law tosustain petitioner#s legal standing, i.e. " theenforcement of a public right " espoused bya 3ilipino citiBen, we rule that the petition atbar should be allowed.!

?e rule that since the instant petition, brought by acitiBen, involves the enforcement of constitutional


5/25

rights $ to information and to the e6uitable diffusion of natural resources $ matters of transcendental publicimportance, the petitioner has the re6uisite locusstandi .

Fifth issue: whether the constitutional right toinformation includes official information on on% going negotiations before a final agreement.

=ection 0, Article ))) of the %onstitution e7plains thepeople#s right to information on matters of publicconcern in this manner;

!=ec. 0. The right of the people to informationon matters of public concern shall berecogniBed. *ccess to official records and to documents and papers pertaining toofficial acts transactions or decisions, aswell as to government research data used asbasis for policy development, shall beafforded the citiBen, subject to such

limitations as may be provided by law.!Emphasis supplied"

The =tate policy of full transparency in all transactionsinvolving public interest reinforces the people#s right toinformation on matters of public concern. This =tatepolicy is e7pressed in =ection 5, Article )) of the%onstitution, thus;

!=ec. 5. =ubject to reasonable conditionsprescribed by law, the =tate adopts andimplements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving

public interest .! Emphasis supplied"

These twin provisions of the %onstitution seek topromote transparency in policy$making and in theoperations of the government, as well as provide thepeople sufficient information to e7ercise effectivelyother constitutional rights. These twin provisions areessential to the e7ercise of freedom of e7pression. )f the government does not disclose its official acts,transactions and decisions to citiBens, whatever citiBens say, even if e7pressed without any restraint,will be speculative and amount to nothing. These twinprovisions are also essential to hold public officials !at

all times 7 7 7 accountable to the people,!/ for unless

citiBens have the proper information, theycannot hold public officials accountable for anything. Armed with the right information,citiBens can participate in public discussionsleading to the formulation of governmentpolicies and their effective implementation. Aninformed citiBenry is essential to the e7istenceand proper functioning of any democracy. Ase7plained by the %ourt in /almonte v.!elmonte Jr.1- N

!An essential element of thesefreedoms is to keep open a continuingdialogue or process of communicationbetween the government and thepeople. )t is in the interest of the =tatethat the channels for free politicaldiscussion be maintained to the endthat the government may perceive andbe responsive to the people#s will. Iet,this open dialogue can be effectiveonly to the e7tent that the citiBenry isinformed and thus able to formulate itswill intelligently. *nly when theparticipants in the discussion areaware of the issues and have accessto information relating thereto can suchbear fruit.!

PEA asserts, citing +have, v. (+-- ,1 that incases of on$going negotiations the right toinformation is limited to !definite propositions of the government.! PEA maintains the right doesnot include access to !intra$agency or inter$agency recommendations or communications

during the stage when common assertions arestill in the process of being formulated or are inthe #e7ploratory stage#.!

Also, AMA() contends that petitioner cannotinvoke the right at the pre$decisional stage or before the closing of the transaction. To supportits contention, AMA() cites the followingdiscussion in the /5 %onstitutional%ommission;

0M. S#a(. And when we say#transactions# which should bedistinguished from contracts,

agreements, or treaties or whatever, does theFentleman refer to the steps leading to theconsummation of the contract, or does herefer to the contract itselfO

M. O$( #he 0transactions0 used here $ suppose is generic and therefore it cancover both steps leading to a contract and

already a consummated contract r.(residing 1fficer.

r. &uare,: #his contemplates inclusionof negotiations leading to theconsummation of the transaction.

r. 1ple: 2es sub"ect only to reasonablesafeguards on the national interest.

r. &uare,: Thank you.!1 Emphasissupplied"

AMA() argues there must first be a consummatedcontract before petitioner can invoke the right.(e6uiring government officials to reveal their deliberations at the pre$decisional stage will degradethe 6uality of decision$making in governmentagencies. Fovernment officials will hesitate to e7presstheir real sentiments during deliberations if there isimmediate public dissemination of their discussions,putting them under all kinds of pressure before theydecide.

?e must first distinguish between information the law

on public bidding re6uires PEA to disclose publicly,and information the constitutional right to informationre6uires PEA to release to the public. &efore theconsummation of the contract, PEA must, on its ownand without demand from anyone, disclose to thepublic matters relating to the disposition of its property.These include the siBe, location, technical descriptionand nature of the property being disposed of, theterms and conditions of the disposition, the parties6ualified to bid, the minimum price and similar information. PEA must prepare all these data anddisclose them to the public at the start of thedisposition process, long before the consummation of the contract, because the Fovernment Auditing %ode

re6uires public bidding . )f PEA fails to make this


6/25

disclosure, any citiBen can demand from PEA thisinformation at any time during the bidding process.

)nformation, however, on on%going evaluation or review of bids or proposals being undertaken by thebidding or review committee is not immediatelyaccessible under the right to information. ?hile theevaluation or review is still on$going, there are no

!official acts, transactions, or decisions! on the bids or proposals. 2owever, once the committee makes itsofficial recommendation, there arises a definite proposition on the part of the government. 3rom thismoment, the public#s right to information attaches, andany citiBen can access all the non$proprietaryinformation leading to such definite proposition. )n+have, v. (+-- ,11 the %ourt ruled as follows;

!%onsidering the intent of the framers of the%onstitution, we believe that it is incumbentupon the P%FF and its officers, as well asother government representatives, to disclose

sufficient public information on any proposedsettlement they have decided to take up withthe ostensible owners and holders of ill$gotten wealth. =uch information, though,must pertain to definite propositions of thegovernment , not necessarily to intra$agencyor inter$agency recommendations or communications during the stage whencommon assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the !e7ploratory!stage. There is need, of course, to observethe same restrictions on disclosure of information in general, as discussed earlier Nsuch as on matters involving national

security, diplomatic or foreign relations,intelligence and other classified information.!Emphasis supplied"

%ontrary to AMA()#s contention, the commissioners of the /5 %onstitutional %ommission understood thatthe right to information contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of thetransaction. %ertainly, a consummated contract isnot a re6uirement for the e7ercise of the right toinformation. *therwise, the people can never e7ercisethe right if no contract is consummated, and if one isconsummated, it may be too late for the public to

e7pose its defects.)*wphi)(n+t

(e6uiring a consummated contract will keep thepublic in the dark until the contract, which maybe grossly disadvantageous to the governmentor even illegal, becomes a fait accompli . Thisnegates the =tate policy of full transparency onmatters of public concern, a situation which theframers of the %onstitution could not haveintended. =uch a re6uirement will prevent thecitiBenry from participating in the publicdiscussion of any proposed contract, effectivelytruncating a basic right enshrined in the &ill of (ights. ?e can allow neither an emasculation of a constitutional right, nor a retreat by the =tateof its avowed !policy of full disclosure of all itstransactions involving public interest.!

The right covers three categories of informationwhich are !matters of public concern,! namely;" official recordsG " documents and paperspertaining to official acts, transactions anddecisionsG and 1" government research dataused in formulating policies. The first category

refers to any document that is part of the publicrecords in the custody of government agenciesor officials. The second category refers todocuments and papers recording, evidencing,establishing, confirming, supporting, justifying or e7plaining official acts, transactions or decisionsof government agencies or officials. The thirdcategory refers to research data, whether raw,collated or processed, owned by thegovernment and used in formulatinggovernment policies.

The information that petitioner may access on

the renegotiation of the DA includes evaluationreports, recommendations, legal and e7pertopinions, minutes of meetings, terms of reference and other documents attached tosuch reports or minutes, all relating to the DA.2owever, the right to information does notcompel PEA to prepare lists, abstracts,summaries and the l ike relating to therenegotiation of the DA.14 The right only affordsaccess to records, documents and papers,which means the opportunity to inspect andcopy them. *ne who e7ercises the right mustcopy the records, documents and papers at his

e7pense. The e7ercise of the right is also

subject to reasonable regulations to protect theintegrity of the public records and to minimiBedisruption to government operations, like rulesspecifying when and how to conduct the inspectionand copying.18

The right to information, however, does not e7tend tomatters recogniBed as privileged information under the

separation of powers.1

The right does not also applyto information on military and diplomatic secrets,information affecting national security, and informationon investigations of crimes by law enforcementagencies before the prosecution of the accused, whichcourts have long recogniBed as confidential.10 The rightmay also be subject to other limitations that %ongressmay impose by law.

There is no claim by PEA that the informationdemanded by petitioner is privileged informationrooted in the separation of powers. The informationdoes not cover Presidential conversations,

correspondences, or discussions during closed$door %abinet meetings which, like internal deliberations of the =upreme %ourt and other collegiate courts, or e7ecutive sessions of either house of %ongress, 15 arerecogniBed as confidential. This kind of informationcannot be pried open by a co$e6ual branch of government. A frank e7change of e7ploratory ideasand assessments, free from the glare of publicity andpressure by interested parties, is essential to protectthe independence of decision$making of those taskedto e7ercise Presidential, >egislative and udicialpower.1/ This is not the situation in the instant case.

?e rule, therefore, that the constitutional right toinformation includes official information on on%going negotiations before a final contract. The information,however, must constitute definite propositions by thegovernment and should not cover recogniBede7ceptions like privileged information, military anddiplomatic secrets and similar matters affectingnational security and public order.4- %ongress has alsoprescribed other limitations on the right to informationin several legislations.4

&i'th issue: whether stipulations in the *mended J/* for the transfer to **4$ of lands reclaimed or to be reclaimed violate the +onstitution.


7/25

#he 4egalian octrine

The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore andsubmerged areas is rooted in the (egalian doctrinewhich holds that the =tate owns all lands and waters of the public domain. @pon the =panish con6uest of thePhilippines, ownership of all !lands, territories andpossessions! in the Philippines passed to the =panish

%rown.4

The Hing, as the sovereign ruler andrepresentative of the people, ac6uired and owned alllands and territories in the Philippines e7cept those hedisposed of by grant or sale to private individuals.

The /18, /01 and /50 %onstitutions adopted the(egalian doctrine substituting, however, the =tate, inlieu of the Hing, as the owner of all lands and waters of the public domain. The (egalian doctrine is thefoundation of the time$honored principle of landownership that !all lands that were not ac6uired fromthe Fovernment, either by purchase or by grant,belong to the public domain.!41 Article 11/ of the %ivil

%ode of 55/, which is now Article 4- of the %ivil%ode of /8-, incorporated the (egalian doctrine.

1wnership and isposition of 4eclaimed ands

The =panish >aw of ?aters of 5 was the firststatutory law governing the ownership and dispositionof reclaimed lands in the Philippines. *n May 5,/-0, the Philippine %ommission enacted Act +o.84 which provided for the lease but not the saleof reclaimed lands of the government tocorporations and individuals. >ater, on +ovember /, //, the Philippine >egislature approved Act +o.

504, the Public >and Act, which authoriBed thelease but not the sale of reclaimed lands of thegovernment to corporations and individuals. *n+ovember 0, /1, the +ational Assembly passed%ommonwealth Act +o. 4, also known as the Public>and Act, which authori,ed the lease but not thesale of reclaimed lands of the government tocorporations and individuals. %A +o. 4 continuesto this day as the general law governing theclassification and disposition of lands of the publicdomain.

#he &panish aw of aters of 8966 and the +ivil

+ode of 899

@nder the =panish >aw of ?aters of 5, theshores, bays, coves, inlets and all waters withinthe maritime Bone of the =panish territorybelonged to the public domain for public use.44

The =panish >aw of ?aters of 5 allowed thereclamation of the sea under Article 8, whichprovided as follows;

!Article 8. >ands reclaimed from thesea in conse6uence of worksconstructed by the =tate, or by theprovinces, pueblos or private persons,with proper permission, shall becomethe property of the party constructingsuch works, unless otherwise providedby the terms of the grant of authority.!

@nder the =panish >aw of ?aters, landreclaimed from the sea belonged to the partyundertaking the reclamation, provided thegovernment issued the necessary permit and

did not reserve ownership of the reclaimed landto the =tate.

Article 11/ of the %ivil %ode of 55/ definedproperty of public dominion as follows;

!Art. 11/. Property of public dominionis N

. That devoted to public use, such asroads, canals, rivers, torrents, portsand bridges constructed by the =tate,riverbanks, shores, roadsteads, and

that of a similar characterG

. That belonging e7clusively to the=tate which, without being of generalpublic use, is employed in some publicservice, or in the development of thenational wealth, such as walls,fortresses, and other works for thedefense of the territory, and mines,until granted to private individuals.!

Property devoted to public use referred toproperty open for use by the public. )n contrast,

property devoted to public service referred to propertyused for some specific public service and open only tothose authoriBed to use the property.

Property of public dominion referred not only toproperty devoted to public use, but also to property notso used but employed to develop the national wealth. This class of property constituted property of

public dominion although employed for someeconomic or commercial activity to increase thenational wealth.

Article 14 of the %ivil %ode of 55/ governed the re$classification of property of public dominion into privateproperty, to wit;

!Art. 14. Property of public dominion, whenno longer devoted to public use or to thedefense of the territory, shall become a partof the private property of the =tate.!

This provision, however, was not self$e7ecuting. Thelegislature, or the e7ecutive department pursuant tolaw, must declare the property no longer needed for public use or territorial defense before the governmentcould lease or alienate the property to private parties.48

*ct ;o. 865< of the (hilippine +ommission

*n May 5, /-0, the Philippine %ommission enacted Act +o. 84 which regulated the lease of reclaimedand foreshore lands. The salient provisions of this lawwere as follows;

!=ection . The control and disposition of the foreshore as defined in e7isting law, andthe title to all -overnment or public landsmade or reclaimed by the -overnment by dredging or filling or otherwise throughoutthe Philippine )slands, shall be retained by the -overnment without prejudice to vestedrights and without prejudice to rightsconceded to the %ity of Manila in the >unetaE7tension.

=ection . a" The =ecretary of the )nterior

shall cause all Fovernment or public lands


8/25

made or reclaimed by the Fovernment bydredging or filling or otherwise to be dividedinto lots or blocks, with the necessary streetsand alleyways located thereon, and shallcause plats and plans of such surveys to beprepared and filed with the &ureau of >ands.

b" @pon completion of such plats and plans

the -overnor%-eneral shall give notice tothe public that such parts of the lands somade or reclaimed as are not needed for public purposes will be leased for commercial and business purposes, 7 7 7.

7 7 7

e" #he leases above provided for shall bedisposed of to the highest and best bidder therefore, subject to such regulations andsafeguards as the Fovernor$Feneral may bye7ecutive order prescribe.! Emphasis

supplied"

Act +o. 84 mandated that the government should retain title to all lands reclaimed by thegovernment . The Act also vested in the governmentcontrol and disposition of foreshore lands. Privateparties could lease lands reclaimed by the governmentonly if these lands were no longer needed for publicpurpose. Act +o. 84 mandated public bidding inthe lease of government reclaimed lands. Act +o. 84made government reclaimed lands sui generis in thatunlike other public lands which the government couldsell to private parties, these reclaimed lands were

available only for lease to private parties.

Act +o. 84, however, did not repeal =ection 8 of the=panish >aw of ?aters of 5. Act +o. 84 did notprohibit private parties from reclaiming parts of the seaunder =ection 8 of the =panish >aw of ?aters. >andsreclaimed from the sea by private parties withgovernment permission remained private lands.

*ct ;o. =97< of the (hilippine egislature

*n +ovember /, //, the Philippine >egislatureenacted Act +o. 504, the Public >and Act.4 The

salient provisions of Act +o. 504, on reclaimedlands, were as follows;

!=ec. . #he -overnor%-eneralupon the recommendation of the&ecretary of *griculture and ;atural 4esources shall from time to timeclassify the lands of the public

domain into N

a" *lienable or disposable,

b" Timber, and

c" Mineral lands, 7 7 7.

=ec. 0. 3or the purposes of thegovernment and disposition of alienable or disposable public lands,the -overnor%-eneral upon

recommendation by the &ecretary of *griculture and ;atural 4esources shall from time to timedeclare what lands are open todisposition or concession under this *ct .!

=ec. 5. 1nly those lands shall bedeclared open to disposition or concession which have beenofficially delimited or classified 7 77.

7 7 7

=ec. 88. Any tract of land of the publicdomain which, being neither timber nor mineral land, shall be classified assuitable for residential purposes or for commercial industrial or other productive purposes other thanagricultural purposes, and shall beopen to disposition or concession,shall be disposed of under theprovisions of this chapter, and nototherwise.

=ec. 8. #he lands disposable under thistitle shall be classified as follows;

>a? ands reclaimed by the-overnment by dredging fillingor other meansG

>b? Foreshore@

>c? arshy lands or lands coveredwith water bordering upon theshores or banks of navigable lakesor riversG

d" >ands not included in any of theforegoing classes.

7 7 7.

=ec. 85. #he lands comprised in classes

>a? >b? and >c? of section fifty%si' shall bedisposed of to private parties by leaseonly and not otherwise, as soon as the-overnor%-eneral upon recommendationby the &ecretary of *griculture and ;atural 4esources shall declare that thesame are not necessary for the public service and are open to disposition under this chapter. #he lands included in class >d?may be disposed of by sale or lease under the provisions of this *ct.! Emphasissupplied"

=ection of Act +o. 504 authoriBed the Fovernor$Feneral to !classify lands of the public domain into 7 77 alienable or disposable!40 lands. =ection 0 of the Actempowered the Fovernor$Feneral to !declare whatlands are open to disposition or concession.! =ection 5of the Act limited alienable or disposable lands only tothose lands which have been !officially delimited andclassified.!

=ection 8 of Act +o. 504 stated that lands!disposable under this title45 shall be classified! asgovernment reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands,as well as other lands. All these lands, however, must

be suitable for residential, commercial, industrial or


9/25

other productive non%agricultural purposes. Theseprovisions vested upon the Fovernor$Feneral thepower to classify inalienable lands of the publicdomain into disposable lands of the public domain.These provisions also empowered the Fovernor$Feneral to classify further such disposable lands of thepublic domain into government reclaimed, foreshore or marshy lands of the public domain, as well as other non$agricultural lands.

=ection 85 of Act +o. 504 categorically mandatedthat disposable lands of the public domain classifiedas government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy landsshall be disposed of to private parties by leaseonly and not otherwise. The Fovernor$Feneral,before allowing the lease of these lands to privateparties, must formally declare that the lands were !notnecessary for the public service.! Act +o. 504reiterated the =tate policy to lease and not to sellgovernment reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands of the public domain, a policy first enunciated in /-0 in Act +o. 84. Fovernment reclaimed, foreshore and

marshy lands remained sui generis, as the onlyalienable or disposable lands of the public domain thatthe government could not sell to private parties.

The rationale behind this =tate policy is obvious.Fovernment reclaimed, foreshore and marshy publiclands for non$agricultural purposes retain their inherentpotential as areas for public service. This is the reasonthe government prohibited the sale, and only allowedthe lease, of these lands to private parties. The =tatealways reserved these lands for some future publicservice.

Act +o. 504 did not authoriBe the reclassification of government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy landsinto other non$agricultural lands under =ection 8 d".>ands falling under =ection 8 d" were the only landsfor non$agricultural purposes the government couldsell to private parties. Thus, under Act +o. 504, thegovernment could not sell government reclaimed,foreshore and marshy lands to private parties unlessthe legislature passed a law allowing their sale.4/

Act +o. 504 did not prohibit private parties fromreclaiming parts of the sea pursuant to =ection 8 of the=panish >aw of ?aters of 5. >ands reclaimed from

the sea by private parties with governmentpermission remained private lands.

ispositions under the 835 +onstitution

*n May 4, /18, the /18 %onstitution tookeffect upon its ratification by the 3ilipino people.The /18 %onstitution, in adopting the (egalian

doctrine, declared in =ection , Article K))), that N

!=ection . All agricultural, timber, andmineral lands of the public domain,waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, andother mineral oils, all forces of potential energy and other naturalresources of the Philippines belong tothe =tate, and their disposition,e7ploitation, development, or utiliBationshall be limited to citiBens of thePhilippines or to corporations or

associations at least si7ty per centumof the capital of which is owned bysuch citiBens, subject to any e7istingright, grant, lease, or concession at thetime of the inauguration of theFovernment established under this%onstitution. ;atural resources withthe e'ception of public agricultural land shall not be alienated , and nolicense, concession, or lease for thee7ploitation, development, or utiliBationof any of the natural resources shall begranted for a period e7ceeding twenty$five years, renewable for another twenty$five years, e7cept as to water rights for irrigation, water supply,fisheries, or industrial uses other thanthe development of water power, inwhich cases beneficial use may be themeasure and limit of the grant.!Emphasis supplied"

The /18 %onstitution barred the alienation of all natural resources e7cept public agriculturallands, which were the only natural resourcesthe =tate could alienate. Thus, foreshore lands,considered part of the =tate#s natural resources,became inalienable by constitutional fiat,

available only for lease for 8 years, renewable for another 8 years. The government could alienateforeshore lands only after these lands were reclaimedand classified as alienable agricultural lands of thepublic domain. Fovernment reclaimed and marshylands of the public domain, being neither timber nor mineral lands, fell under the classification of publicagricultural lands.8- 2owever, government reclaimedand marshy lands, although subject to classification asdisposable public agricultural lands, could only beleased and not sold to private parties because of Act+o. 504.

The prohibition on private parties from ac6uiringownership of government reclaimed and marshy landsof the public domain was only a statutory prohibitionand the legislature could therefore remove suchprohibition. The /18 %onstitution did not prohibitindividuals and corporations from ac6uiringgovernment reclaimed and marshy lands of the publicdomain that were classified as agricultural lands under e7isting public land laws. =ection , Article K))) of the

/18 %onstitution provided as follows;

!=ection . ;o private corporation or association may acquire lease or hold public agricultural lands in e'cess of onethousand and twenty four hectares nor may any individual acquire such lands by purchase in e'cess of one hundred and forty hectares or by lease in e'cess of one thousand and twenty%four hectares, or by homestead in e7cess of twenty$four hectares. >ands adapted to graBing, note7ceeding two thousand hectares, may be

leased to an individual, private corporation, or association.! Emphasis supplied"

=till, after the effectivity of the /18 %onstitution, thelegislature did not repeal =ection 85 of Act +o. 504 toopen for sale to private parties government reclaimedand marshy lands of the public domain. *n thecontrary, the legislature continued the long established=tate policy of retaining for the government title andownership of government reclaimed and marshy landsof the public domain.

+ommonwealth *ct ;o. 8


10/25

*n +ovember 0, /1, the +ational Assemblyapproved %ommonwealth Act +o. 4, also known asthe Public >and Act, which compiled the then e7istinglaws on lands of the public domain. %A +o. 4, asamended, remains to this day the e'isting general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber andmineral lands.8

=ection of %A +o. 4 empowers the President toclassify lands of the public domain into !alienable or disposable!8 lands of the public domain, which prior tosuch classification are inalienable and outside thecommerce of man. =ection 0 of %A +o. 4 authoriBesthe President to !declare what lands are open todisposition or concession.! =ection 5 of %A +o. 4states that the government can declare open for disposition or concession only lands that are !officiallydelimited and classified.! =ections , 0 and 5 of %A+o. 4 read as follows;

!=ec. . #he (resident upon therecommendation of the &ecretary of *griculture and +ommerce shall fromtime to time classify the lands of the public domain into N

>a? *lienable or disposable,

b" Timber, and

c" Mineral lands,

and may at any time and in like manner transfer such lands from one class toanother,81 for the purpose of their administration and disposition.

=ec. 0. 3or the purposes of the administrationand disposition of alienable or disposablepublic lands, the (resident uponrecommendation by the &ecretary of *griculture and +ommerce shall fromtime to time declare what lands are opento disposition or concession under this Act.

=ec. 5. 1nly those lands shall bedeclared open to disposition or concession which have beenofficially delimited and classified and, when practicable, surveyed, and which have not been reserved for public or quasi%public uses, nor appropriated by the Fovernment, nor in any manner become privateproperty, nor those on which a privateright authoriBed and recogniBed by this Act or any other valid law may beclaimed, or which, having beenreserved or appropriated, have ceasedto be so. 7 7 7.!

Thus, before the government could alienate or dispose of lands of the public domain, thePresident must first officially classify these landsas alienable or disposable, and then declarethem open to disposition or concession. Theremust be no law reserving these lands for public

or 6uasi$public uses.

The salient provisions of %A +o. 4, ongovernment reclaimed, foreshore and marshylands of the public domain, are as follows;

!=ec. 85. *ny tract of land of the public domain which being neither timber nor mineral land is intended to be used for residential purposesor for commercial industrial or other productive purposes other than agricultural and is open todisposition or concession shall bedisposed of under the provisions of this chapter and not otherwise.

=ec. 8/. #he lands disposable under this title shall be classified asfollows;

>a? ands reclaimed by the-overnment by dredgingfilling or other means@

>b? Foreshore@

>c? arshy lands or lands coveredwith water bordering upon theshores or banks of navigable lakesor riversG

d" >ands not included in any of theforegoing classes.

=ec. -. Any tract of land comprised under this title may be leased or sold, as the casemay be, to any person, corporation, or association authoriBed to purchase or leasepublic lands for agricultural purposes. 7 7 7.

=ec. . #he lands comprised in classes>a? >b? and >c? of section fifty%nine shall be disposed of to private parties by leaseonly and not otherwise, as soon as the(resident , upon recommendation by the=ecretary of Agriculture, shall declare that the same are not necessary for the public

service and are open to disposition under this chapter. #he lands included in class >d?may be disposed of by sale or lease under the provisions of this *ct.! Emphasissupplied"

=ection of %A +o. 4 readopted, after theeffectivity of the /18 %onstitution, =ection 85 of Act+o. 504 prohibiting the sale of government reclaimed,foreshore and marshy disposable lands of the publicdomain. All these lands are intended for residential,commercial, industrial or other non$agriculturalpurposes. As before, =ection allowed only the lease

of such lands to private parties. The government couldsell to private parties only lands falling under =ection8/ d" of %A +o. 4, or those lands for non$agricultural purposes not classified as governmentreclaimed, foreshore and marshy disposable lands of the public domain. 3oreshore lands, however, becameinalienable under the /18 %onstitution which onlyallowed the lease of these lands to 6ualified privateparties.

=ection 85 of %A +o. 4 e7pressly states thatdisposable lands of the public domain intended for residential, commercial, industrial or other productive

purposes other than agricultural !shall be disposed


11/25

of under the provisions of this chapter and not otherwise.! @nder =ection - of %A +o. 4, the term!disposition! includes lease of the land. Any dispositionof government reclaimed, foreshore and marshydisposable lands for non$agricultural purposes mustcomply with %hapter )K, Title ))) of %A +o. 4,84

unless a subse6uent law amended or repealed theseprovisions.

)n his concurring opinion in the landmark case of 4epublic 4eal )state +orporation v. +ourt of *ppeals,88 ustice (eynato =. Puno summariBedsuccinctly the law on this matter, as follows;

!3oreshore lands are lands of public dominionintended for public use. =o too are landsreclaimed by the government by dredging,filling, or other means. Act 84 mandatedthat the control and disposition of theforeshore and lands under water remained inthe national government. =aid law allowed

only the #leasing# of reclaimed land. ThePublic >and Acts of // and /1 alsodeclared that the foreshore and landsreclaimed by the government were to be!disposed of to private parties by lease onlyand not otherwise.! &efore leasing, however,the Fovernor$Feneral, upon recommendationof the =ecretary of Agriculture and +atural(esources, had first to determine that theland reclaimed was not necessary for thepublic service. This re6uisite must have beenmet before the land could be disposed of.!ut even then the foreshore and landsunder water were not to be alienated and

sold to private parties. #he disposition of the reclaimed land was only by lease. #heland remained property of the &tate.!Emphasis supplied"

As observed by ustice Puno in his concurring opinion,!%ommonwealth Act +o. 4 has remained in effect atpresent.!

The =tate policy prohibiting the sale to private partiesof government reclaimed, foreshore and marshyalienable lands of the public domain, first implementedin /-0 was thus reaffirmed in %A +o. 4 after the/18 %onstitution took effect. The prohibition on the

sale of foreshore lands, however, became aconstitutional edict under the /18 %onstitution.3oreshore lands became inalienable as naturalresources of the =tate, unless reclaimed by thegovernment and classified as agricultural landsof the public domain, in which case they wouldfall under the classification of governmentreclaimed lands.

After the effectivity of the /18 %onstitution,government reclaimed and marshy disposablelands of the public domain continued to be onlyleased and not sold to private parties. 8 Theselands remained sui generis, as the onlyalienable or disposable lands of the publicdomain the government could not sell to privateparties.

=ince then and until now, the only way thegovernment can sell to private partiesgovernment reclaimed and marshy disposable

lands of the public domain is for the legislatureto pass a law authoriBing such sale. %A +o. 4does not authoriBe the President to reclassifygovernment reclaimed and marshy lands intoother non$agricultural lands under =ection 8/d". >ands classified under =ection 8/ d" arethe only alienable or disposable lands for non$agricultural purposes that the government couldsell to private parties.

Moreover, =ection - of %A +o. 4 e'pressly re6uires congressional authority before landsunder =ection 8/ that the governmentpreviously transferred to government units or entities could be sold to private parties. =ection- of %A +o. 4 declares that N

!=ec. -. 7 7 7 The area so leased or sold shall be such as shall, in the judgment of the =ecretary of Agriculture and +atural (esources, bereasonably necessary for the purposesfor which such sale or lease isre6uested, and shall not e7ceed onehundred and forty$four hectares;Provided, however, That this limitationshall not apply to grants, donations, or transfers made to a province,

municipality or branch or subdivision of theFovernment for the purposes deemed bysaid entities conducive to the public interestGbut the land so granted donated or transferred to a province municipality or branch or subdivision of the -overnment shall not be alienated encumbered or otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting its title e'cept when authori,ed

by +ongress; 7 7 7.! Emphasis supplied"

The congressional authority re6uired in =ection - of %A +o. 4 mirrors the legislative authority re6uired in=ection 8 of Act +o. 504.

*ne reason for the congressional authority is that=ection - of %A +o. 4 e7empted government unitsand entities from the ma7imum area of public landsthat could be ac6uired from the =tate. Thesegovernment units and entities should not just turnaround and sell these lands to private parties in

violation of constitutional or statutory limitations.*therwise, the transfer of lands for non$agriculturalpurposes to government units and entities could beused to circumvent constitutional limitations onownership of alienable or disposable lands of thepublic domain. )n the same manner, such transferscould also be used to evade the statutory prohibition in%A +o. 4 on the sale of government reclaimed andmarshy lands of the public domain to private parties.=ection - of %A +o. 4 constitutes by operation of law a lien on these lands.80

)n case of sale or lease of disposable lands of thepublic domain falling under =ection 8/ of %A +o. 4,=ections 1 and 0 re6uire a public bidding. =ections1 and 0 of %A +o. 4 provide as follows;

!=ec. 1. ?henever it is decided that landscovered by this chapter are not needed for public purposes, the 'irector of >ands shallask the =ecretary of Agriculture and%ommerce now the =ecretary of +atural(esources" for authority to dispose of thesame. @pon receipt of such authority, the'irector of >ands shall give notice by publicadvertisement in the same manner as in thecase of leases or sales of agricultural publicland, 7 7 7.


12/25

=ec. 0. #he lease or sale shall be madeby oral bidding@ and ad"udication shall bemade to the highest bidder . 7 7 7.!Emphasis supplied"

Thus, %A +o. 4 mandates the Fovernment to put topublic auction all leases or sales of alienable or disposable lands of the public domain.85

>ike Act +o. 84 and Act +o. 504 before it, %A +o.4 did not repeal =ection 8 of the =panish >aw of ?aters of 5. Private parties could still reclaimportions of the sea with government permission.2owever, the reclaimed land could become privateland only if classified as alienable agricultural land of the public domain open to disposition under %A+o. 4. The /18 %onstitution prohibited thealienation of all natural resources e7cept publicagricultural lands.

#he +ivil +ode of 85A

The %ivil %ode of /8- readopted substantially thedefinition of property of public dominion found in the%ivil %ode of 55/. Articles 4- and 4 of the %ivil%ode of /8- state that N

!Art. 4-. The following things are property of public dominion;

" Those intended for public use, such asroads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports andbridges constructed by the =tate, banks,shores, roadsteads, and others of similar characterG

" Those which belong to the =tate, withoutbeing for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth.

7 7 7.

Art. 4. Property of public dominion, whenno longer intended for public use or for publicservice, shall form part of the patrimonial

property of the =tate.!

Again, the government must formally declarethat the property of public dominion is no longer needed for public use or public service, beforethe same could be classified as patrimonialproperty of the =tate.8/ )n the case of government reclaimed and marshy lands of thepublic domain, the declaration of their beingdisposable, as well as the manner of their disposition, is governed by the applicable

provisions of %A +o. 4.

>ike the %ivil %ode of 55/, the %ivil %ode of /8- included as property of public dominionthose properties of the =tate which, withoutbeing for public use, are intended for publicservice or the !development of the national wealth.! Thus, government reclaimed andmarshy lands of the =tate, even if not employedfor public use or public service, if developed toenhance the national wealth, are classified asproperty of public dominion.

ispositions under the 873 +onstitution

The /01 %onstitution, which took effect onanuary 0, /01, likewise adopted the(egalian doctrine. =ection 5, Article K)D of the/01 %onstitution stated that N

!=ec. 5. All lands of the public domain,waters, minerals, coal, petroleum andother mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, andother natural resources of the

Philippines belong to the =tate. iththe e'ception of agriculturalindustrial or commercialresidential and resettlement landsof the public domain natural resources shall not be alienated ,and no license, concession, or leasefor the e7ploration, development,e7ploitation, or utiliBation of any of thenatural resources shall be granted for a period e7ceeding twenty$five years,renewable for not more than twenty$five years, e7cept as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the

development of water power, in which cases,beneficial use may be the measure and thelimit of the grant.! Emphasis supplied"

The /01 %onstitution prohibited the alienation of allnatural resources with the e7ception of !agricultural,industrial or commercial, residential, and resettlementlands of the public domain.! )n contrast, the /18

%onstitution barred the alienation of all naturalresources e7cept !public agricultural lands.! 2owever,the term !public agricultural lands! in the /18%onstitution encompassed industrial, commercial,residential and resettlement lands of the publicdomain.- )f the land of public domain were neither timber nor mineral land, it would fall under theclassification of agricultural land of the public domain.!oth the 835 and 873 +onstitutions therefore prohibited the alienation of all natural resourcese'cept agricultural lands of the public domain.

The /01 %onstitution, however, limited the alienation

of lands of the public domain to individuals who werecitiBens of the Philippines. Private corporations, even if wholly owned by Philippine citiBens, were no longer allowed to ac6uire alienable lands of the public domainunlike in the /18 %onstitution. =ection , Article K)Dof the /01 %onstitution declared that N

!=ec. . The &atasang Pambansa, takinginto account conservation, ecological, anddevelopment re6uirements of the naturalresources, shall determine by law the siBe of land of the public domain which may bedeveloped, held or ac6uired by, or leased to,any 6ualified individual, corporation, or association, and the conditions therefor. ;o private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public domaine'cept by lease not to e7ceed one thousandhectares in area nor may any citiBen holdsuch lands by lease in e7cess of five hundredhectares or ac6uire by purchase, homesteador grant, in e7cess of twenty$four hectares.+o private corporation or association mayhold by lease, concession, license or permit,timber or forest lands and other timber or forest resources in e7cess of one hundredthousand hectares. 2owever, such area may

be increased by the &atasang Pambansa


13/25

upon recommendation of the +ationalEconomic and 'evelopment Authority.!Emphasis supplied"

Thus, under the /01 %onstitution, privatecorporations could hold alienable lands of the publicdomain only through lease. *nly individuals could nowac6uire alienable lands of the public domain, and

private corporations became absolutely barred from acquiring any Bind of alienable land of the public domain. The constitutional ban e7tended to allkinds of alienable lands of the public domain, while thestatutory ban under %A +o. 4 applied only togovernment reclaimed, foreshore and marshyalienable lands of the public domain.

( ;o. 8A9< +reating the (ublic )states *uthority

*n 3ebruary 4, /00, then President 3erdinandMarcos issued Presidential 'ecree +o. -54 creatingPEA, a wholly government owned and controlled

corporation with a special charter. =ections 4 and 5 of P' +o. -54, vests PEA with the following purposesand powers;

!=ec. 4. Purpose. The Authority is herebycreated for the following purposes;

a" #o reclaim land including foreshoreand submerged areas by dredging filling or other means or to acquire reclaimed land@

b" To develop, improve, ac6uire, administer,deal in, subdivide, dispose, lease and sell any and all Binds of lands, buildings,estates and other forms of real property,owned, managed, controlled and


14/25

natural resources shall be under the fullcontrol and supervision of the =tate. 7 7 7.

=ection 1. >ands of the public domain areclassified into agricultural, forest or timber,mineral lands, and national parks. Agriculturallands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses which

they may be devoted. *lienable lands of the public domain shall be limited toagricultural lands. (rivate corporations or associations may not hold such alienablelands of the public domain e'cept by lease for a period not e'ceeding twenty% five years renewable for not more thantwenty%five years and not to e'ceed onethousand hectares in area. %itiBens of thePhilippines may lease not more than fivehundred hectares, or ac6uire not more thantwelve hectares thereof by purchase,homestead, or grant.

Taking into account the re6uirements of conservation, ecology, and development, andsubject to the re6uirements of agrarianreform, the %ongress shall determine, by law,the siBe of lands of the public domain whichmay be ac6uired, developed, held, or leasedand the conditions therefor.! Emphasissupplied"

The /50 %onstitution continues the =tate policy in the/01 %onstitution banning private corporations fromacquiring any Bind of alienable land of the public domain. >ike the /01 %onstitution, the /50%onstitution allows private corporations to holdalienable lands of the public domain only throughlease. As in the /18 and /01 %onstitutions, thegeneral law governing the lease to private corporationsof reclaimed, foreshore and marshy alienable lands of the public domain is still %A +o. 4.

#he 4ationale behind the +onstitutional !an

The rationale behind the constitutional ban oncorporations from ac6uiring, e7cept through lease,alienable lands of the public domain is not well

understood. 'uring the deliberations of the /5

%onstitutional %ommission, the commissionersprobed the rationale behind this ban, thus;

!3(. &E(+A=; Mr. Dice$President, my6uestions have reference to page 1,line 8 which says;

+o private corporation or association

may hold alienable lands of the publicdomain e7cept by lease, not to e7ceedone thousand hectares in area.#

)f we recall, this provision did not e7istunder the /18 %onstitution, but thiswas int roduced in the /01%onstitution. )n effect, it prohibitsprivate corporations from ac6uiringalienable public lands. !ut it has not been very clear in "urisprudencewhat the reason for this is. )n someof the cases decided in /5 and

/51, it was indicated that the purpose of this is to prevent largelandholdings. )s that the intent of thisprovisionO

M(. D)>>EFA=; ) think that is the spirit of theprovision.

3(. &E(+A=; )n e7isting decisionsinvolving the )glesia ni %risto, therewere instances where the )glesia ni%risto was not allowed to ac6uire amere 11$s6uare meter land where a

chapel stood because the =upreme%ourt said it would be in violation of this.! Emphasis supplied"

)n *yog v. +usi ,4 the %ourt e7plained therationale behind this constitutional ban in thisway;

!)ndeed, one purpose of theconstitutional prohibition againstpurchases of public agricultural landsby private corporations is to e6uitablydiffuse land ownership or to encourage

#owner$cultivatorship and the economicfamily$siBe farm# and to prevent a recurrenceof cases l ike the instant case. 2ugelandholdings by corporations or privatepersons had spawned social unrest.!

2owever, if the constitutional intent is to prevent hugelandholdings, the %onstitution could have simply

limited the siBe of alienable lands of the public domainthat corporations could ac6uire. The %onstitution couldhave followed the limitations on individuals, who couldac6uire not more than 4 hectares of alienable landsof the public domain under the /01 %onstitution, andnot more than hectares under the /50%onstitution.

)f the constitutional intent is to encourage economicfamily$siBe farms, placing the land in the name of acorporation would be more effective in preventing thebreak$up of farmlands. )f the farmland is registered inthe name of a corporation, upon the death of theowner, his heirs would inherit shares in the corporationinstead of subdivided parcels of the farmland. Thiswould prevent the continuing break$up of farmlandsinto smaller and smaller plots from one generation tothe ne7t.

)n actual practice, the constitutional ban strengthensthe constitutional limitation on individuals fromac6uiring more than the allowed area of alienablelands of the public domain. ?ithout the constitutionalban, individuals who already ac6uired the ma7imumarea of alienable lands of the public domain couldeasily set up corporations to ac6uire more alienablepublic lands. An individual could own as manycorporations as his means would allow him. Anindividual could even hide his ownership of acorporation by putting his nominees as stockholders of the corporation. The corporation is a convenientvehicle to circumvent the constitutional limitation onac6uisition by individuals of alienable lands of thepublic domain.

The constitutional intent, under the /01 and /50%onstitutions, is to transfer ownership of only a limitedarea of alienable land of the public domain to a6ualified individual. This constitutional intent issafeguarded by the provision prohibiting corporationsfrom ac6uiring alienable lands of the public domain,


15/25

since the vehicle to circumvent the constitutional intentis removed. The available alienable public lands aregradually decreasing in the face of an ever$growingpopulation. The most effective way to insure faithfuladherence to this constitutional intent is to grant or sellalienable lands of the public domain only toindividuals. This, it would seem, is the practical benefitarising from the constitutional ban.

#he *mended Joint /enture *greement

The subject matter of the Amended DA, as stated inits second ?hereas clause, consists of threeproperties, namely;

. !9T:hree partial ly reclaimed andsubstantially eroded islands along Emilio Aguinaldo &oulevard in Parana6ue and >asPinas, Metro Manila, with a combined titledarea of ,805,44 s6uare metersG!

. !9A:nother area of ,4,88/ s6uare meterscontiguous to the three islandsG! and

1. !9A:t AMA()#s option as approved by PEA,an additional 18- hectares more or less toregulariBe the configuration of the reclaimedarea.!8

PEA confirms that the Amended DA involves !thedevelopment of the 3reedom )slands and further reclamation of about 8- hectares 7 7 7,! plus anoption !granted to AMA() to subse6uently reclaimanother 18- hectares 7 7 7.!

)n short, the Amended DA covers a reclamation areaof 08- hectares. 1nly 857.9< hectares of the 75A% hectare reclamation pro"ect have been reclaimedand the rest of the 5=.85 hectares are still submerged areas forming part of anila !ay .

@nder the Amended DA, AMA() will reimburse PEAthe sum of P,5/4,/,--.-- for PEA#s !actual cost!in partially reclaiming the 3reedom )slands. AMA() willalso complete, at its own e7pense, the reclamation of the 3reedom )slands. AMA() will further shoulder all

the reclamation costs of all the other areas, totaling

8/.8 hectares, still to be reclaimed. AMA()and PEA will share, in the proportion of 0-percent and 1- percent, respectively, the totalnet usable area which is defined in the Amended DA as the total reclaimed area less1- percent earmarked for common areas. Titleto AMA()#s share in the net usable area,totaling 10.8 hectares, will be issued in thename of AMA(). =ection 8. c" of the Amended

DA provides that N

!7 7 7, PEA shall have the duty toe7ecute without delay the necessarydeed of transfer or conveyance of thetitle pertaining to AMA()#s >and sharebased on the >and Allocation Plan.()* when requested in writing by **4$ shall then cause theissuance and delivery of the proper certificates of title covering **4$0s and &hare in the name of **4$ , 7 7 7G provided, that if more

than seventy percent 0-Q" of thetitled area at any given time pertains to AMA(), PEA shall deliver to AMA()only seventy percent 0-Q" of the titlespertaining to AMA(), until such timewhen a corresponding proportionatearea of additional land pertaining toPEA has been titled.! Emphasissupplied"

$ndisputably under the *mended J/* **4$ will acquire and own a ma'imum of 367.5 hectares of reclaimed land which will

be titled in its name.

To implement the Amended DA, PEAdelegated to the unincorporated PEA$AMA() joint venture PEA#s statutory authority, rightsand privileges to reclaim foreshore andsubmerged areas in Manila &ay. =ection 1..aof the Amended DA states that N

!PEA hereby contributes to the jointventure its rights and privileges toperform (awland (eclamation and2oriBontal 'evelopment as well asown the (eclamation Area, thereby

granting the oint Denture the full ande7clusive right, authority and privilege toundertake the Project in accordance with theMaster 'evelopment Plan.!

The Amended DA is the product of a renegotiation of the original DA dated April 8, //8 and itssupplemental agreement dated August /, //8.

#he #hreshold $ssue

The threshold issue is whether AMA(), a privatecorporation, can ac6uire and own under the AmendedDA 10.8 hectares of reclaimed foreshore andsubmerged areas in Manila &ay in view of =ections and 1, Article K)) of the /50 %onstitution which statethat;

!=ection . All lands of the public domain,waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,

fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora andfauna, and other natural resources are ownedby the =tate. ith the e'ception of agricultural lands all other natural resources shall not be alienated . 7 7 7.

7 7 7

=ection 1. 7 7 7 Alienable lands of the publicdomain shall be limited to agricultural lands.(rivate corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain e'cept by lease, 7 7 7.!Emphasissupplied"

+lassification of 4eclaimed Foreshore and &ubmerged *reas

PEA readily concedes that lands reclaimed fromforeshore or submerged areas of Manila &ay arealienable or disposable lands of the public domain. )nits Memorandum,0 PEA admits that N

!@nder the Public >and Act %A 4, asamended", reclaimed lands are classified


16/25

as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain;

#=ec. 8/. The lands disposableunder this title shall be classified asfollows;

a" >ands reclaimed by the

government by dredging, filling, or other meansG

7 7 7.#! Emphasis supplied"

>ikewise, the >egal Task 3orce5 constituted under Presidential Administrative *rder +o. 18 admitted inits (eport and (ecommendation to then President3idel D. (amos, C4Declaimed lands are classified as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.!/ The >egal Task 3orce concluded that N

!'. %onclusion

(eclaimed lands are lands of the publicdomain. 2owever, by statutory authority, therights of ownership and disposition over reclaimed lands have been transferred toPEA, by virtue of which PEA, as owner, mayvalidly convey the same to any 6ualifiedperson without violating the %onstitution or any statute.

The constitutional provision prohibiting privatecorporations from holding public land, e7cept

by lease =ec. 1, Art. KD)),0-

/50%onstitution", does not apply to reclaimedlands whose ownership has passed on toPEA by statutory grant.!

@nder =ection , Article K)) of the /50 %onstitution,the foreshore and submerged areas of Manila &ay arepart of the !lands of the public domain, waters 7 7 7and other natural resources! and conse6uently !ownedby the =tate.! As such, foreshore and submergedareas !shall not be alienated,! unless they areclassified as !agricultural lands! of the public domain.The mere reclamation of these areas by PEA does not

convert these inalienable natural resources of the

=tate into alienable or disposable lands of thepublic domain. There must be a law or presidential proclamation officially classifyingthese reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable and open to disposition or concession. Moreover, these reclaimed landscannot be classified as alienable or disposableif the law has reserved them for some public or 6uasi$public use.0

=ection 5 of %A +o. 4 provides that !onlythose lands shall be declared open todisposition or concession which have beenofficially delimited and classified .!0 ThePresident has the authority to classifyinalienable lands of the public domain intoalienable or disposable lands of the publicdomain, pursuant to =ection of %A +o. 4. )n>aurel vs. Farcia,01 the E7ecutive 'epartmentattempted to sell the (oppongi property inTokyo, apan, which was ac6uired by thePhilippine Fovernment for use as the %hancery

of the Philippine Embassy. Although the%hancery had transferred to another locationthirteen years earlier, the %ourt still ruled that,under Article 404 of the %ivil %ode, a propertyof public dominion retains such character untilformally declared otherwise. The %ourt ruledthat N

!The fact that the (oppongi site hasnot been used for a long time for actual Embassy service does notautomatically convert it to patrimonialproperty. Any such conversion

happens only if the property iswithdrawn from public use %ebu*7ygen and Acetylene %o. v. &ercilles, =%(A 45 9/08:. * property continues to be part of the public domain not available for privateappropriation or ownership 0until there is a formal declaration on the part of the government to withdraw i t from being such0 )gnacio v.'irector of >ands, -5 Phil. 1189/-:.! Emphasis supplied"

P' +o. -58, issued on 3ebruary 4, /00, authoriBedthe issuance of special land patents for landsreclaimed by PEA from the foreshore or submergedareas of Manila &ay. *n anuary /, /55 thenPresident %oraBon %. A6uino issued =pecial Patent+o. 180 in the name of PEA for the 80.54 hectarescomprising the partially reclaimed 3reedom )slands.=ubse6uently, on April /, /// the (egister of 'eedsof the Municipality of Parana6ue issued T%T +os.

01-/, 01 and 01 in the name of PEA pursuant to=ection -1 of P' +o. 8/ authoriBing the issuanceof certificates of title corresponding to land patents. Tothis day, these certificates of title are still in the nameof PEA.

P' +o. -58, coupled with President A6uino#s actual issuance of a special patent covering the 3reedom)slands, is e6uivalent to an official proclamationclassifying the 3reedom )slands as alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. P' +o. -58and President A6uino#s issuance of a land patent alsoconstitute a declaration that the 3reedom )slands are

no longer needed for public service. #he Freedom$slands are thus alienable or disposable lands of the public domain open to disposition or concession to qualified parties.

At the time then President A6uino issued =pecialPatent +o. 180, PEA had already reclaimed the3reedom )slands although subse6uently there werepartial erosions on some areas. The government hadalso completed the necessary surveys on theseislands. Thus, the 3reedom )slands were no longer part of Manila &ay but part of the land mass. =ection1, Article K)) of the /50 %onstitution classifies lands of

the public domain into !agricultural, forest or timber,mineral lands, and national parks.! &eing neither timber, mineral, nor national park lands, the reclaimed3reedom )slands necessari ly fal l under theclassification of agricultural lands of the public domain.@nder the /50 %onstitution, agricultural lands of thepublic domain are the only natural resources that the=tate may alienate to 6ualified private parties. All other natural resources, such as the seas or bays, are!waters 7 7 7 owned by the =tate! forming part of thepublic domain, and are inalienable pursuant to =ection, Article K)) of the /50 %onstitution.


17/25

AMA() claims that the 3reedom )slands are privatelands because %'%P, then a private corporation,reclaimed the islands under a contract dated+ovember -, /01 with the %ommissioner of Public2ighways. AMA(), citing Article 8 of the =panish >awof ?aters of 5, argues that !if the ownership of reclaimed lands may be given to the party constructingthe works, then it cannot be said that reclaimed landsare lands of the public domain which the =tate may not

alienate.!08 Article 8 of the =panish >aw of ?atersreads as follows;

!Article 8. >ands reclaimed from the sea inconse6uence of works constructed by the=tate, or by the provinces, pueblos or privatepersons, with proper permission, shallbecome the property of the party constructingsuch works, unless otherwise provided by the terms of the grant of authority .!Emphasis supplied"

@nder Article 8 of the =panish >aw of ?aters of 5,private parties could reclaim from the sea only with!proper permission! from the =tate. Private partiescould own the reclaimed land only if not !otherwiseprovided by the terms of the grant of authority.! Thisclearly meant that no one could reclaim from the seawithout permission from the =tate because the sea isproperty of public dominion. )t also meant that the=tate could grant or withhold ownership of thereclaimed land because any reclaimed land, like thesea from which it emerged, belonged to the =tate.Thus, a private person reclaiming from the sea withoutpermission from the =tate could not ac6uire ownershipof the reclaimed land which would remain property of

public dominion like the sea it replaced. 0 Article 8 of the =panish >aw of ?aters of 5 adopted the time$honored principle of land ownership that !all lands thatwere not ac6uired from the government, either bypurchase or by grant, belong to the public domain.!00

Article 8 of the =panish >aw of ?aters must be readtogether with laws subse6uently enacted on thedisposition of public lands. )n particular, %A +o. 4re6uires that lands of the public domain must first beclassified as alienable or disposable before thegovernment can alienate them. These lands must notbe reserved for public or 6uasi$public purposes.05

Moreover, the contract between %'%P and the

government was e7ecuted after the effectivity of the /01 %onstitution which barred privatecorporations from ac6uiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. Thiscontract could not have converted the 3reedom)slands into private lands of a privatecorporation.

Presidential 'ecree +o. 1$A, issued on anuary, /01, revoked all laws authoriBing thereclamation of areas under water and revestedsolely in the +ational Fovernment the power toreclaim lands. =ection of P' +o. 1$A declaredthat N

!#he provisions of any law to thecontrary notwithstanding , thereclamation of areas under water,whether foreshore or inland, shall belimited to the ;ational -overnment or any person authori,ed by it under a proper contract . Emphasissupplied"

7 7 7.!

P' +o. 1$A repealed =ection 8 of the =panish>aw of ?aters of 5 because reclamation of areas under water could now be undertakenonly by the +ational Fovernment or by a personcontracted by the +ational Fovernment. Privateparties may reclaim from the sea only under acontract with the +ational Fovernment, and nolonger by grant or permission as provided in

=ection 8 of the =panish >aw of ?aters of 5.

E7ecutive *rder +o. 88, issued on 3ebruary4, /0/, designated PEA as the +ationalFovernm

Date post:	01-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rafael-soro
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Chaves vs PEA and Amari Coastal Bay Development Co, July 9, 2002

Documents