ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
ON-LINE
Sponsored by: The ChanRobles LawNet
Search www.chanrobles.com
.
Republic of the
Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
.
| Please click here to read full text of the following: |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
133250
November 11, 2003
PUBLIC ESTATES
AUTHORITY
AND AMARI COASTAL
BAY
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
Respondents.
SEPARATE OPINION
QUISUMBING, J.:
Considering the crucial significance of the action to be taken by the Court on the PEA motion, I vote to allow a final reconsideration of the controversy.
Two points, in my view, require painstaking elucidation and clarification:
(1) How should the parcels of land now above water[*] - regardless of actual size in hectares - but conveyed already to private entities by PEA and/or its partner in the joint venture, Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation, be treated as a consequence of the Court's decision?chan robles virtual law libraryI find the cited cases in Justice Bellosillo's separate opinion, L-21870 Ponce v. Hon. A. Gomez (Res. of Feb. 3, 1965) and L-22669 (Res. of June 24, 1966) acceptable and instructive for the resolution of the instant controversy before us. That the submerged lands, under the sea or below baywater, should belong to the National Government need not be debatable. Nor would the proposition that their ownership should pass to the municipal corporation when the city had successfully conducted the reclamation project, through private initiative and financial assistance, be a conceptual barrier to uphold probable rights of the initiator and the financier that made the projects not only feasible but indeed successful. This much at this time I would concede: state ownership of submerged land. But after reclamation, I could not concede total nullity of private efforts and resources spent pursuant to prior law and executive policy. Nor would I neglect to appreciate Justice Vitug's reference to De Castro v. Tan, 129 SCRA 85, for an equitable approach to what appears now a constitutional conundrum.chan robles virtual law library(2) May the Court at this time outlaw the long standing practice of the executive department to pay the private individual or corporate reclaimer/developer by means of using a proportionate share in the reclaimed land itself? If so, shouldn't the Court's action be prospective in nature, with adequate regard to rights and expectations of the private parties?chan robles virtual law library
Subject to further reflection, it does not appear to me pertinent to apply Sec. 79 on disposal or sale of unserviceable property, contained in P.D. No. 1445, the General Auditing Code, or Sec. 379 of the Local Government Code. The requirement of bidding in regard to corporate projects of PEA is obviously distinguishable, if not outright distinct, from disposal of surplus/junk property. The reclamation projects like those contemplated in the PEA-AMARI joint venture call for a greater public appreciation of equitable investment regimes by policy-makers and private entrepreneurs alike as they impact hugely on the economic development concerns of the nation. Thus, we are of the view that of more pertinence in this regard are the BOT (Build, Operate, and Transfer) Law, R.A. 6957 as amended and the Charter of PEA (P.D. No. 1084) and P.D. No. 1085 concerning reclaimed lands along Manila Bay.chan robles virtual law library
Lastly, we are informed
that the possible criminal responsibility, if any, of certain officers
of PEA are allegedly now before the Sandiganbayan. Be that as it may,
the
merit of the question before us regarding the validity of the PEA-AMARI
joint venture is not necessarily foreclosed by cases before the
Sandiganbayan
which of necessity require the highest quantum of proof, beyond
reasonable
doubt. Here we are not so constrained. For our principal concern now is
a thorough review of legal issues that might have previously eluded
close
scrutiny. Hence the need to grant leave for a second reconsideration.chan
robles virtual law library
Endnotes:
[*]
It would appear from the ponencia (page 9 of the Resolution) that some
167.85 hectares out of 750 hectares have already been reclaimed.chan
robles virtual law library
chan
robles virtual law library
Back to Top - Back to Main Index - Back to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions - Back to Home
|
|