Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R No. 187167

August 16, 2011

PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY-LIST REP. RISA HONTIVEROS,

PROF. HARRY C. ROQUE, JR., AND UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF
LAW STUDENTS, ALITHEA BARBARA ACAS, VOLTAIRE ALFERES, CZARINA MAY
ALTEZ, FRANCIS ALVIN ASILO, SHERYL BALOT, RUBY AMOR BARRACA, JOSE JAVIER
BAUTISTA, ROMINA BERNARDO, VALERIE PAGASA BUENAVENTURA, EDAN MARRI
CAETE, VANN ALLEN DELA CRUZ, RENE DELORINO, PAULYN MAY DUMAN, SHARON
ESCOTO, RODRIGO FAJARDO III, GIRLIE FERRER, RAOULLE OSEN FERRER, CARLA
REGINA GREPO, ANNA MARIE CECILIA GO, IRISH KAY KALAW, MARY ANN JOY LEE,
MARIA LUISA MANALAYSAY, MIGUEL RAFAEL MUSNGI, MICHAEL OCAMPO, JAKLYN
HANNA PINEDA, WILLIAM RAGAMAT, MARICAR RAMOS, ENRIK FORT REVILLAS,
JAMES MARK TERRY RIDON, JOHANN FRANTZ RIVERA IV, CHRISTIAN RIVERO,
DIANNE MARIE ROA, NICHOLAS SANTIZO, MELISSA CHRISTINA SANTOS, CRISTINE
MAE TABING, VANESSA ANNE TORNO, MARIA ESTER VANGUARDIA, and MARCELINO
VELOSO III, Petitioners,
vs.
HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON.
ALBERTO ROMULO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, HON. DIONY VENTURA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL MAPPING & RESOURCE
INFORMATION AUTHORITY, and HON. HILARIO DAVIDE, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITED NATIONS,Respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the constitutionality of
Republic Act No. 95221(RA 9522) adjusting the countrys archipelagic baselines and classifying
the baseline regime of nearby territories.
The Antecedents
In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046)2 demarcating the maritime
baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic State.3 This law followed the framing of the
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1958 (UNCLOS I),4 codifying,
among others, the sovereign right of States parties over their "territorial sea," the breadth of
which, however, was left undetermined. Attempts to fill this void during the second round of
negotiations in Geneva in 1960 (UNCLOS II) proved futile. Thus, domestically, RA 3046

remained unchanged for nearly five decades, save for legislation passed in 1968 (Republic Act
No. 5446 [RA 5446]) correcting typographical errors and reserving the drawing of baselines
around Sabah in North Borneo.
In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522, the statute now under
scrutiny. The change was prompted by the need to make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III),5 which the Philippines
ratified on 27 February 1984.6 Among others, UNCLOS III prescribes the water-land ratio,
length, and contour of baselines of archipelagic States like the Philippines7 and sets the
deadline for the filing of application for the extended continental shelf.8 Complying with these
requirements, RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints
around the Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan
Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as "regimes of islands" whose islands generate
their own applicable maritime zones.
Petitioners, professors of law, law students and a legislator, in their respective capacities as
"citizens, taxpayers or x x x legislators,"9 as the case may be, assail the constitutionality of RA
9522 on two principal grounds, namely: (1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and
logically, the reach of the Philippine states sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987
Constitution,10 embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris11 and ancillary treaties,12 and (2) RA
9522 opens the countrys waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels
and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the
countrys nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant
constitutional provisions.13
In addition, petitioners contend that RA 9522s treatment of the KIG as "regime of islands" not
only results in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence
fishermen.14 To buttress their argument of territorial diminution, petitioners facially attack RA
9522 for what it excluded and included its failure to reference either the Treaty of Paris or
Sabah and its use of UNCLOS IIIs framework of regime of islands to determine the maritime
zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal.
Commenting on the petition, respondent officials raised threshold issues questioning (1) the
petitions compliance with the case or controversy requirement for judicial review grounded on
petitioners alleged lack of locus standi and (2) the propriety of the writs of certiorari and
prohibition to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522. On the merits, respondents defended RA
9522 as the countrys compliance with the terms of UNCLOS III, preserving Philippine territory
over the KIG or Scarborough Shoal. Respondents add that RA 9522 does not undermine the
countrys security, environment and economic interests or relinquish the Philippines claim over
Sabah.
Respondents also question the normative force, under international law, of petitioners assertion
that what Spain ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Paris were the islands and all
the waters found within the boundaries of the rectangular area drawn under the Treaty of Paris.
We left unacted petitioners prayer for an injunctive writ.
The Issues
The petition raises the following issues:

1. Preliminarily
1. Whether petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit; and
2. Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail
the constitutionality of RA 9522.
2. On the merits, whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.
The Ruling of the Court
On the threshold issues, we hold that (1) petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit as
citizens and (2) the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to test the
constitutionality of RA 9522. On the merits, we find no basis to declare RA 9522
unconstitutional.
On the Threshold Issues
Petitioners Possess Locus
Standi as Citizens
Petitioners themselves undermine their assertion of locus standi as legislators and taxpayers
because the petition alleges neither infringement of legislative prerogative15 nor misuse of public
funds,16 occasioned by the passage and implementation of RA 9522. Nonetheless, we
recognize petitioners locus standi as citizens with constitutionally sufficient interest in the
resolution of the merits of the case which undoubtedly raises issues of national significance
necessitating urgent resolution. Indeed, owing to the peculiar nature of RA 9522, it is
understandably difficult to find other litigants possessing "a more direct and specific interest" to
bring the suit, thus satisfying one of the requirements for granting citizenship standing.17
The Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition
Are Proper Remedies to Test
the Constitutionality of Statutes
In praying for the dismissal of the petition on preliminary grounds, respondents seek a strict
observance of the offices of the writs of certiorari and prohibition, noting that the writs cannot
issue absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial
or ministerial powers on the part of respondents and resulting prejudice on the part of
petitioners.18
Respondents submission holds true in ordinary civil proceedings. When this Court exercises its
constitutional power of judicial review, however, we have, by tradition, viewed the writs of
certiorari and prohibition as proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of
statutes,19 and indeed, of acts of other branches of government.20 Issues of constitutional import
are sometimes crafted out of statutes which, while having no bearing on the personal interests
of the petitioners, carry such relevance in the life of this nation that the Court inevitably finds
itself constrained to take cognizance of the case and pass upon the issues raised, noncompliance with the letter of procedural rules notwithstanding. The statute sought to be
reviewed here is one such law.

RA 9522 is Not Unconstitutional

RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool
to Demarcate the Countrys
Maritime Zones and Continental
Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to
Delineate Philippine Territory
Petitioners submit that RA 9522 "dismembers a large portion of the national territory"21 because
it discards the pre-UNCLOS III demarcation of Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and
related treaties, successively encoded in the definition of national territory under the 1935, 1973
and 1987 Constitutions. Petitioners theorize that this constitutional definition trumps any treaty
or statutory provision denying the Philippines sovereign control over waters, beyond the
territorial sea recognized at the time of the Treaty of Paris, that Spain supposedly ceded to the
United States. Petitioners argue that from the Treaty of Paris technical description, Philippine
sovereignty over territorial waters extends hundreds of nautical miles around the Philippine
archipelago, embracing the rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris.22
Petitioners theory fails to persuade us.
UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral treaty
regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12
nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines],
exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and continental shelves that
UNCLOS III delimits.23 UNCLOS III was the culmination of decades-long negotiations among
United Nations members to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the worlds oceans
and submarine areas, recognizing coastal and archipelagic States graduated authority over a
limited span of waters and submarine lands along their coasts.
On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parties
to mark-out specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, either
straight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the
maritime zones and continental shelf. Article 48 of UNCLOS III on archipelagic States like ours
could not be any clearer:
Article 48. Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive
economic zone and the continental shelf. The breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous
zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measured from
archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to
delimit with precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. In turn, this
gives notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of the maritime space and
submarine areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights, namely, the exercise
of sovereignty over territorial waters (Article 2), the jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal,
immigration, and sanitation laws in the contiguous zone (Article 33), and the right to exploit the
living and non-living resources in the exclusive economic zone (Article 56) and continental shelf
(Article 77).
Even under petitioners theory that the Philippine territory embraces the islands and all the
waters within the rectangular area delimited in the Treaty of Paris, the baselines of the

Philippines would still have to be drawn in accordance with RA 9522 because this is the only
way to draw the baselines in conformity with UNCLOS III. The baselines cannot be drawn from
the boundaries or other portions of the rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris, but
from the "outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago."24
UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition, enlargement or, as
petitioners claim, diminution of territory. Under traditional international law typology, States
acquire (or conversely, lose) territory through occupation, accretion, cession and
prescription,25 not by executing multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or
enacting statutes to comply with the treatys terms to delimit maritime zones and continental
shelves. Territorial claims to land features are outside UNCLOS III, and are instead governed by
the rules on general international law.26
RA 9522s Use of the Framework
of Regime of Islands to Determine the
Maritime Zones of the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal, not Inconsistent
with the Philippines Claim of Sovereignty
Over these Areas
Petitioners next submit that RA 9522s use of UNCLOS IIIs regime of islands framework to
draw the baselines, and to measure the breadth of the applicable maritime zones of the KIG,
"weakens our territorial claim" over that area.27Petitioners add that the KIGs (and Scarborough
Shoals) exclusion from the Philippine archipelagic baselines results in the loss of "about 15,000
square nautical miles of territorial waters," prejudicing the livelihood of subsistence
fishermen.28 A comparison of the configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA
9522 and the extent of maritime space encompassed by each law, coupled with a reading of the
text of RA 9522 and its congressional deliberations, vis--vis the Philippines obligations under
UNCLOS III, belie this view.1avvphi1
The configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 shows that RA 9522
merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046, save for at least nine basepoints that RA
9522 skipped to optimize the location of basepoints and adjust the length of one baseline (and
thus comply with UNCLOS IIIs limitation on the maximum length of baselines). Under RA 3046,
as under RA 9522, the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal lie outside of the baselines drawn
around the Philippine archipelago. This undeniable cartographic fact takes the wind out of
petitioners argument branding RA 9522 as a statutory renunciation of the Philippines claim
over the KIG, assuming that baselines are relevant for this purpose.
Petitioners assertion of loss of "about 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters" under
RA 9522 is similarly unfounded both in fact and law. On the contrary, RA 9522, by optimizing
the location of basepoints, increased the Philippines total maritime space (covering its internal
waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zone) by 145,216 square nautical miles, as
shown in the table below:29
Extent of maritime area
using RA 3046, as
amended, taking into
account the Treaty of

Extent of maritime area

using RA 9522, taking into
account UNCLOS III (in
square nautical miles)

Paris delimitation (in

square nautical miles)
Internal or
archipelagic waters

166,858

171,435

Territorial Sea

274,136

32,106

Exclusive Economic
Zone
TOTAL

382,669
440,994

586,210

Thus, as the map below shows, the reach of the exclusive economic zone drawn under RA
9522 even extends way beyond the waters covered by the rectangular demarcation under the
Treaty of Paris. Of course, where there are overlapping exclusive economic zones of opposite
or adjacent States, there will have to be a delineation of maritime boundaries in accordance with
UNCLOS III.30

Further, petitioners argument that the KIG now lies outside Philippine territory because the
baselines that RA 9522 draws do not enclose the KIG is negated by RA 9522 itself. Section 2 of
the law commits to text the Philippines continued claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the
KIG and the Scarborough Shoal:
SEC. 2. The baselines in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises
sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of Islands" under the Republic of
the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS):
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596 and
b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal. (Emphasis supplied)
Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as part of the
Philippine archipelago, adverse legal effects would have ensued. The Philippines would have
committed a breach of two provisions of UNCLOS III. First, Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III requires
that "[t]he drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general
configuration of the archipelago." Second, Article 47 (2) of UNCLOS III requires that "the length
of the baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles," save for three per cent (3%) of the total
number of baselines which can reach up to 125 nautical miles.31
Although the Philippines has consistently claimed sovereignty over the KIG32 and the
Scarborough Shoal for several decades, these outlying areas are located at an appreciable
distance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago,33 such that any straight
baseline loped around them from the nearest basepoint will inevitably "depart to an appreciable
extent from the general configuration of the archipelago."

The principal sponsor of RA 9522 in the Senate, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, took pains
to emphasize the foregoing during the Senate deliberations:
What we call the Kalayaan Island Group or what the rest of the world call[] the Spratlys and the
Scarborough Shoal are outside our archipelagic baseline because if we put them inside our
baselines we might be accused of violating the provision of international law which states: "The
drawing of such baseline shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general
configuration of the archipelago." So sa loob ng ating baseline, dapat magkalapit ang mga
islands. Dahil malayo ang Scarborough Shoal, hindi natin masasabing malapit sila sa atin
although we are still allowed by international law to claim them as our own.
This is called contested islands outside our configuration. We see that our archipelago is
defined by the orange line which [we] call[] archipelagic baseline. Ngayon, tingnan ninyo ang
maliit na circle doon sa itaas, that is Scarborough Shoal, itong malaking circle sa ibaba, that is
Kalayaan Group or the Spratlys. Malayo na sila sa ating archipelago kaya kung ilihis pa natin
ang dating archipelagic baselines para lamang masama itong dalawang circles, hindi na sila
magkalapit at baka hindi na tatanggapin ng United Nations because of the rule that it should
follow the natural configuration of the archipelago.34 (Emphasis supplied)
Similarly, the length of one baseline that RA 3046 drew exceeded UNCLOS IIIs
limits.1avvphi1 The need to shorten this baseline, and in addition, to optimize the location of
basepoints using current maps, became imperative as discussed by respondents:
[T]he amendment of the baselines law was necessary to enable the Philippines to draw the
outer limits of its maritime zones including the extended continental shelf in the manner
provided by Article 47 of [UNCLOS III]. As defined by R.A. 3046, as amended by R.A. 5446, the
baselines suffer from some technical deficiencies, to wit:
1. The length of the baseline across Moro Gulf (from Middle of 3 Rock Awash to
Tongquil Point) is 140.06 nautical miles x x x. This exceeds the maximum length allowed
under Article 47(2) of the [UNCLOS III], which states that "The length of such baselines
shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of
baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of
125 nautical miles."
2. The selection of basepoints is not optimal. At least 9 basepoints can be skipped or
deleted from the baselines system. This will enclose an additional 2,195 nautical miles of
water.
3. Finally, the basepoints were drawn from maps existing in 1968, and not established
by geodetic survey methods. Accordingly, some of the points, particularly along the west
coasts of Luzon down to Palawan were later found to be located either inland or on
water, not on low-water line and drying reefs as prescribed by Article 47.35
Hence, far from surrendering the Philippines claim over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal,
Congress decision to classify the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as "Regime[s] of Islands
under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121"36 of UNCLOS III manifests the
Philippine States responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS
III. Under Article 121 of UNCLOS III, any "naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water,

which is above water at high tide," such as portions of the KIG, qualifies under the category of
"regime of islands," whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.37
Statutory Claim Over Sabah under
RA 5446 Retained
Petitioners argument for the invalidity of RA 9522 for its failure to textualize the Philippines
claim over Sabah in North Borneo is also untenable. Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did
not repeal, keeps open the door for drawing the baselines of Sabah:
Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as
provided in this Act is without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial
sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of
the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty. (Emphasis supplied)
UNCLOS III and RA 9522 not
Incompatible with the Constitutions
Delineation of Internal Waters
As their final argument against the validity of RA 9522, petitioners contend that the law
unconstitutionally "converts" internal waters into archipelagic waters, hence subjecting these
waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage under UNCLOS III, including overflight.
Petitioners extrapolate that these passage rights indubitably expose Philippine internal waters to
nuclear and maritime pollution hazards, in violation of the Constitution.38
Whether referred to as Philippine "internal waters" under Article I of the Constitution39 or as
"archipelagic waters" under UNCLOS III (Article 49 [1]), the Philippines exercises sovereignty
over the body of water lying landward of the baselines, including the air space over it and the
submarine areas underneath. UNCLOS III affirms this:
Article 49. Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over archipelagic waters and of
their bed and subsoil.
1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by the
archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47, described as archipelagic
waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.
2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters, as well
as to their bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.
xxxx
4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part shall not in
other respects affect the status of the archipelagic waters, including the sea
lanes, or the exercise by the archipelagic State of its sovereignty over such waters
and their air space, bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.
(Emphasis supplied)

The fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the operation of municipal and international
law norms subjecting the territorial sea or archipelagic waters to necessary, if not marginal,
burdens in the interest of maintaining unimpeded, expeditious international navigation,
consistent with the international law principle of freedom of navigation. Thus, domestically, the
political branches of the Philippine government, in the competent discharge of their
constitutional powers, may pass legislation designating routes within the archipelagic waters to
regulate innocent and sea lanes passage.40 Indeed, bills drawing nautical highways for sea
lanes passage are now pending in Congress.41
In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms, now codified in UNCLOS III,
operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters, subject
to the treatys limitations and conditions for their exercise.42 Significantly, the right of innocent
passage is a customary international law,43 thus automatically incorporated in the corpus of
Philippine law.44 No modern State can validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent
passage that is exercised in accordance with customary international law without risking
retaliatory measures from the international community.
The fact that for archipelagic States, their archipelagic waters are subject to both the right of
innocent passage and sea lanes passage45 does not place them in lesser footing vis-vis continental coastal States which are subject, in their territorial sea, to the right of innocent
passage and the right of transit passage through international straits. The imposition of these
passage rights through archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III was a concession by archipelagic
States, in exchange for their right to claim all the waters landward of their baselines, regardless
of their depth or distance from the coast, as archipelagic waters subject to their territorial
sovereignty. More importantly, the recognition of archipelagic States archipelago and the
waters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the treatment of their islands
as separate islands under UNCLOS III.46 Separate islands generate their own maritime zones,
placing the waters between islands separated by more than 24 nautical miles beyond the
States territorial sovereignty, subjecting these waters to the rights of other States under
UNCLOS III.47
Petitioners invocation of non-executory constitutional provisions in Article II (Declaration of
Principles and State Policies)48 must also fail. Our present state of jurisprudence considers the
provisions in Article II as mere legislative guides, which, absent enabling legislation, "do not
embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights x x x."49 Article II provisions serve as guides
in formulating and interpreting implementing legislation, as well as in interpreting executory
provisions of the Constitution. Although Oposa v. Factoran50 treated the right to a healthful and
balanced ecology under Section 16 of Article II as an exception, the present petition lacks
factual basis to substantiate the claimed constitutional violation. The other provisions petitioners
cite, relating to the protection of marine wealth (Article XII, Section 2, paragraph 251 ) and
subsistence fishermen (Article XIII, Section 752 ), are not violated by RA 9522.
In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit its exclusive
economic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all living and non-living
resources within such zone. Such a maritime delineation binds the international community
since the delineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS III. If the maritime delineation is
contrary to UNCLOS III, the international community will of course reject it and will refuse to be
bound by it.

UNCLOS III favors States with a long coastline like the Philippines. UNCLOS III creates a sui
generis maritime space the exclusive economic zone in waters previously part of the high
seas. UNCLOS III grants new rights to coastal States to exclusively exploit the resources found
within this zone up to 200 nautical miles.53 UNCLOS III, however, preserves the traditional
freedom of navigation of other States that attached to this zone beyond the territorial sea before
UNCLOS III.
RA 9522 and the Philippines Maritime Zones
Petitioners hold the view that, based on the permissive text of UNCLOS III, Congress was not
bound to pass RA 9522.54 We have looked at the relevant provision of UNCLOS III55 and we
find petitioners reading plausible. Nevertheless, the prerogative of choosing this option belongs
to Congress, not to this Court. Moreover, the luxury of choosing this option comes at a very
steep price. Absent an UNCLOS III compliant baselines law, an archipelagic State like the
Philippines will find itself devoid of internationally acceptable baselines from where the breadth
of its maritime zones and continental shelf is measured. This is recipe for a two-fronted
disaster: first, it sends an open invitation to the seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the
resources in the waters and submarine areas around our archipelago; and second, it weakens
the countrys case in any international dispute over Philippine maritime space. These are
consequences Congress wisely avoided.
The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and
adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of
the breadth of the Philippines maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 9522 is therefore a
most vital step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent with
the Constitution and our national interest.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition.
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 158290

October 23, 2006

HILARION M. HENARES, JR., VICTOR C. AGUSTIN, ALFREDO L. HENARES, DANIEL L.

HENARES, ENRIQUE BELO HENARES, and CRISTINA BELO HENARES, petitioners,
vs.
LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD and
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, respondents.

RESOLUTION

QUISUMBING, J.:
Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents Land
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Department of
Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to require public utility vehicles (PUVs) to use
compressed natural gas (CNG) as alternative fuel.
Citing statistics from the Metro Manila Transportation and Traffic Situation Study of 1996,1 the
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the National Capital Region,2 a study of the Asian
Development Bank,3 the Manila Observatory4 and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources5 (DENR) on the high growth and low turnover in vehicle ownership in the Philippines,
including diesel-powered vehicles, two-stroke engine powered motorcycles and their
concomitant emission of air pollutants, petitioners attempt to present a compelling case for
judicial action against the bane of air pollution and related environmental hazards.
Petitioners allege that the particulate matters (PM) complex mixtures of dust, dirt, smoke, and
liquid droplets, varying in sizes and compositions emitted into the air from various engine
combustions have caused detrimental effects on health, productivity, infrastructure and the
overall quality of life. Petitioners particularly cite the effects of certain fuel emissions from engine
combustion when these react to other pollutants. For instance, petitioners aver, with
hydrocarbons, oxide of nitrogen (NOx) creates smog; with sulfur dioxide, it creates acid rain; and
with ammonia, moisture and other compounds, it reacts to form nitric acid and harmful nitrates.
Fuel emissions also cause retardation and leaf bleaching in plants. According to petitioner,
another emission, carbon monoxide (CO), when not completely burned but emitted into the
atmosphere and then inhaled can disrupt the necessary oxygen in blood. With prolonged
exposure, CO affects the nervous system and can be lethal to people with weak hearts.6
Petitioners add that although much of the new power generated in the country will use natural
gas while a number of oil and coal-fired fuel stations are being phased-out, still with the
projected doubling of power generation over the next 10 years, and with the continuing high
demand for motor vehicles, the energy and transport sectors are likely to remain the major
sources of harmful emissions. Petitioners refer us to the study of the Philippine Environment
Monitor 20027, stating that in four of the country's major cities, Metro Manila, Davao, Cebu and
Baguio, the exposure to PM10, a finer PM which can penetrate deep into the lungs causing
serious health problems, is estimated at over US$430 million.8 The study also reports that the
emissions of PMs have caused the following:
Over 2,000 people die prematurely. This loss is valued at about US$140 million.
Over 9,000 people suffer from chronic bronchitis, which is valued at about US$120
million.
Nearly 51 million cases of respiratory symptom days in Metro Manila (averaging twice a
year in Davao and Cebu, and five to six times in Metro Manila and Baguio), costs about
US$170 million. This is a 70 percent increase, over a decade, when compared with the
findings of a similar study done in 1992 for Metro Manila, which reported 33 million
cases.9

Petitioners likewise cite the University of the Philippines' studies in 1990-91 and 1994 showing
that vehicular emissions in Metro Manila have resulted to the prevalence of chronic obstructive
pulmonary diseases (COPD); that pulmonary tuberculosis is highest among jeepney drivers;
and there is a 4.8 to 27.5 percent prevalence of respiratory symptoms among school children
and 15.8 to 40.6 percent among child vendors. The studies also revealed that the children in
Metro Manila showed more compromised pulmonary function than their rural counterparts.
Petitioners infer that these are mostly due to the emissions of PUVs.
To counter the aforementioned detrimental effects of emissions from PUVs, petitioners propose
the use of CNG. According to petitioners, CNG is a natural gas comprised mostly of methane
which although containing small amounts of propane and butane,10 is colorless and odorless
and considered the cleanest fossil fuel because it produces much less pollutants than coal and
petroleum; produces up to 90 percent less CO compared to gasoline and diesel fuel; reduces
NOx emissions by 50 percent and cuts hydrocarbon emissions by half; emits 60 percent less
PMs; and releases virtually no sulfur dioxide. Although, according to petitioners, the only
drawback of CNG is that it produces more methane, one of the gases blamed for global
warming.11
Asserting their right to clean air, petitioners contend that the bases for their petition for a writ of
mandamus to order the LTFRB to require PUVs to use CNG as an alternative fuel, lie in Section
16,12 Article II of the 1987 Constitution, our ruling in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,13 and Section 414 of
Republic Act No. 8749 otherwise known as the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999."
Meantime, following a subsequent motion, the Court granted petitioners' motion to implead the
Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) as additional respondent.
In his Comment for respondents LTFRB and DOTC, the Solicitor General, cites Section 3, Rule
65 of the Revised Rules of Court and explains that the writ of mandamus is not the correct
remedy since the writ may be issued only to command a tribunal, corporation, board or person
to do an act that is required to be done, when he or it unlawfully neglects the performance of an
act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or
unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other
is entitled, there being no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.15 Further citing existing jurisprudence, the Solicitor General explains that in contrast to a
discretionary act, a ministerial act, which a mandamus is, is one in which an officer or tribunal
performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to a mandate of legal
authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or
impropriety of an act done.
The Solicitor General also notes that nothing in Rep. Act No. 8749 that petitioners invoke,
prohibits the use of gasoline and diesel by owners of motor vehicles. Sadly too, according to the
Solicitor General, Rep. Act No. 8749 does not even mention the existence of CNG as alternative
fuel and avers that unless this law is amended to provide CNG as alternative fuel for PUVs, the
respondents cannot propose that PUVs use CNG as alternative fuel.
The Solicitor General also adds that it is the DENR that is tasked to implement Rep. Act No.
8749 and not the LTFRB nor the DOTC. Moreover, he says, it is the Department of Energy
(DOE), under Section 2616 of Rep. Act No. 8749, that is required to set the specifications for all
types of fuel and fuel-related products to improve fuel compositions for improved efficiency and
reduced emissions. He adds that under Section 2117 of the cited Republic Act, the DOTC is

limited to implementing the emission standards for motor vehicles, and the herein respondents
cannot alter, change or modify the emission standards. The Solicitor General opines that the
Court should declare the instant petition for mandamus without merit.
Petitioners, in their Reply, insist that the respondents possess the administrative and regulatory
powers to implement measures in accordance with the policies and principles mandated by
Rep. Act No. 8749, specifically Section 218 and Section 21.19 Petitioners state that under these
laws and with all the available information provided by the DOE on the benefits of CNG,
respondents cannot ignore the existence of CNG, and their failure to recognize CNG and
compel its use by PUVs as alternative fuel while air pollution brought about by the emissions of
gasoline and diesel endanger the environment and the people, is tantamount to neglect in the
performance of a duty which the law enjoins.
Lastly, petitioners aver that other than the writ applied for, they have no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioners insist that the writ in fact should be
issued pursuant to the very same Section 3, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court that the
Solicitor General invokes.
In their Memorandum, petitioners phrase the issues before us as follows:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS HAVE THE PERSONALITY TO BRING THE
PRESENT ACTION
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESENT ACTION IS SUPPORTED BY LAW
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE TO
IMPLEMENT THE SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE OF REQUIRING PUBLIC UTILITY
VEHICLES TO USE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG)
IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT CAN BE COMPELLED TO REQUIRE
PUBLIC UTILITY VEHICLES TO USE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS THROUGH A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS20
Briefly put, the issues are two-fold. First, Do petitioners have legal personality to bring this
petition before us? Second, Should mandamus issue against respondents to compel PUVs to
use CNG as alternative fuel?
According to petitioners, Section 16,21 Article II of the 1987 Constitution is the policy statement
that bestows on the people the right to breathe clean air in a healthy environment. This policy is
enunciated in Oposa.22 The implementation of this policy is articulated in Rep. Act No. 8749.
These, according to petitioners, are the bases for their standing to file the instant petition. They
aver that when there is an omission by the government to safeguard a right, in this case their
right to clean air, then, the citizens can resort to and exhaust all remedies to challenge this
omission by the government. This, they say, is embodied in Section 423 of Rep. Act No. 8749.
Petitioners insist that since it is the LTFRB and the DOTC that are the government agencies
clothed with power to regulate and control motor vehicles, particularly PUVs, and with the same
agencies' awareness and knowledge that the PUVs emit dangerous levels of air pollutants,
then, the responsibility to see that these are curbed falls under respondents' functions and a writ
of mandamus should issue against them.

The Solicitor General, for his part, reiterates his position that the respondent government
agencies, the DOTC and the LTFRB, are not in a position to compel the PUVs to use CNG as
alternative fuel. The Solicitor General explains that the function of the DOTC is limited to
implementing the emission standards set forth in Rep. Act No. 8749 and the said law only goes
as far as setting the maximum limit for the emission of vehicles, but it does not recognize CNG
as alternative engine fuel. The Solicitor General avers that the petition should be addressed to
Congress for it to come up with a policy that would compel the use of CNG as alternative fuel.
Patently, this Court is being asked to resolve issues that are not only procedural. Petitioners
challenge this Court to decide if what petitioners propose could be done through a less
circuitous, speedy and unchartered course in an issue that Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in
his ponencia in the Oposa case,24 describes as "inter-generational responsibility" and "intergenerational justice."
Now, as to petitioners' standing. There is no dispute that petitioners have standing to bring their
case before this Court. Even respondents do not question their standing. This petition focuses
on one fundamental legal right of petitioners, their right to clean air. Moreover, as held
previously, a party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which may, in the
exercise of the Court's discretion, be set aside in view of the importance of the issue raised. We
brush aside this issue of technicality under the principle of the transcendental importance to the
public, especially so if these cases demand that they be settled promptly.
Undeniably, the right to clean air not only is an issue of paramount importance to petitioners for
it concerns the air they breathe, but it is also impressed with public interest. The consequences
of the counter-productive and retrogressive effects of a neglected environment due to emissions
of motor vehicles immeasurably affect the well-being of petitioners. On these considerations, the
legal standing of the petitioners deserves recognition.
Our next concern is whether the writ of mandamus is the proper remedy, and if the writ could
issue against respondents.
Under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, mandamus lies under any of the following
cases: (1) against any tribunal which unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the
law specifically enjoins as a duty; (2) in case any corporation, board or person unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
trust, or station; and (3) in case any tribunal, corporation, board or person unlawfully excludes
another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is legally entitled;
and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
In University of San Agustin, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,25 we said,
It is settled that mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when
refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its main objective. It does not lie to
require anyone to fulfill contractual obligations or to compel a course of conduct,
nor to control or review the exercise of discretion. On the part of the petitioner, it
is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that he should have a clear
legal right to the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the
respondent to perform the act required. It never issues in doubtful cases. While it
may not be necessary that the duty be absolutely expressed, it must however, be
clear. The writ will not issue to compel an official to do anything which is not his

duty to do or which is his duty not to do, or give to the applicant anything to which
he is not entitled by law.The writ neither confers powers nor imposes duties. It is
simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty
already imposed. (Emphasis supplied.)
In this petition the legal right which is sought to be recognized and enforced hinges on a
constitutional and a statutory policy already articulated in operational terms, e.g. in Rep. Act No.
8749, the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999. Paragraph (a), Section 21 of the Act specifically
provides that when PUVs are concerned, the responsibility of implementing the policy falls on
respondent DOTC. It provides as follows:
SEC 21. Pollution from Motor Vehicles. - a) The DOTC shall implement the emission
standards for motor vehicles set pursuant to and as provided in this Act. To further
improve the emission standards, the Department [DENR] shall review, revise and
publish the standards every two (2) years, or as the need arises. It shall consider the
maximum limits for all major pollutants to ensure substantial improvement in air quality
for the health, safety and welfare of the general public.
Paragraph (b) states:
b) The Department [DENR] in collaboration with the DOTC, DTI and LGUs,
shall develop an action plan for the control and management of air pollution from
motor vehicles consistent with the Integrated Air Quality Framework . . . . (Emphasis
supplied.)
There is no dispute that under the Clean Air Act it is the DENR that is tasked to set the emission
standards for fuel use and the task of developing an action plan. As far as motor vehicles are
concerned, it devolves upon the DOTC and the line agency whose mandate is to oversee that
motor vehicles prepare an action plan and implement the emission standards for motor vehicles,
namely the LTFRB.
In Oposa26 we said, the right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative
duty to refrain from impairing the environment. We also said, it is clearly the duty of the
responsible government agencies to advance the said right.
Petitioners invoke the provisions of the Constitution and the Clean Air Act in their prayer for
issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to require PUVs to use CNG as
an alternative fuel. Although both are general mandates that do not specifically enjoin the use of
any kind of fuel, particularly the use of CNG, there is an executive order implementing a
program on the use of CNG by public vehicles. Executive Order No. 290, entitledImplementing
the Natural Gas Vehicle Program for Public Transport (NGVPPT), took effect on February 24,
2004. The program recognized, among others, natural gas as a clean burning alternative fuel for
vehicle which has the potential to produce substantially lower pollutants; and the Malampaya
Gas-to-Power Project as representing the beginning of the natural gas industry of the
Philippines. Paragraph 1.2, Section 1 of E.O. No. 290 cites as one of its objectives, the use of
CNG as a clean alternative fuel for transport. Furthermore, one of the components of the
program is the development of CNG refueling stations and all related facilities in strategic
locations in the country to serve the needs of CNG-powered PUVs. Section 3 of E.O. No. 290,
consistent with E.O. No. 66, series of 2002, designated the DOE as the lead agency (a) in
developing the natural gas industry of the country with the DENR, through the EMB and (b) in

formulating emission standards for CNG. Most significantly, par. 4.5, Section 4 tasks the DOTC,
working with the DOE, to develop an implementation plan for "a gradual shift to CNG fuel
utilization in PUVs and promote NGVs [natural gas vehicles] in Metro Manila and Luzon through
the issuance of directives/orders providing preferential franchises in present day major routes
and exclusive franchises to NGVs in newly opened routes" A thorough reading of the
executive order assures us that implementation for a cleaner environment is being addressed.
To a certain extent, the instant petition had been mooted by the issuance of E.O. No. 290.
Regrettably, however, the plain, speedy and adequate remedy herein sought by petitioners, i.e.,
a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to require PUVs to use CNG, is unavailing.
Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty.
Here, there is no law that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order owners of
motor vehicles to use CNG. At most the LTFRB has been tasked by E.O. No. 290 in par. 4.5 (ii),
Section 4 "to grant preferential and exclusive Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) or
franchises to operators of NGVs based on the results of the DOTC surveys."
Further, mandamus will not generally lie from one branch of government to a coordinate branch,
for the obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other.27 The need for future changes in both
legislation and its implementation cannot be preempted by orders from this Court, especially
when what is prayed for is procedurally infirm. Besides, comity with and courtesy to a coequal
branch dictate that we give sufficient time and leeway for the coequal branches to address by
themselves the environmental problems raised in this petition.
In the same manner that we have associated the fundamental right to a balanced and healthful
ecology with the twin concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational
justice" in Oposa,28 where we upheld the right of future Filipinos to prevent the destruction of the
rainforests, so do we recognize, in this petition, the right of petitioners and the future generation
to clean air. In Oposa we said that if the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is now
explicitly found in the Constitution even if the right is "assumed to exist from the inception of
humankind, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers [of the Constitution] that
unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state
policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing
upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the
day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also
for those to come. . ."29
It is the firm belief of this Court that in this case, it is timely to reaffirm the premium we have
placed on the protection of the environment in the landmark case of Oposa. Yet, as serious as
the statistics are on air pollution, with the present fuels deemed toxic as they are to the
environment, as fatal as these pollutants are to the health of the citizens, and urgently requiring
resort to drastic measures to reduce air pollutants emitted by motor vehicles, we must admit in
particular that petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that imposes an indubitable legal duty
on respondents that will justify a grant of the writ of mandamus compelling the use of CNG for
public utility vehicles. It appears to us that more properly, the legislature should provide first the
specific statutory remedy to the complex environmental problems bared by herein petitioners
before any judicial recourse by mandamus is taken.
WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED for lack of
merit.

SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Morales, Tinga, and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993

JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamed OPOSA, minors,
and represented by their parents ANTONIO and RIZALINA OPOSA, ROBERTA NICOLE
SADIUA, minor, represented by her parents CALVIN and ROBERTA SADIUA, CARLO,
AMANDA SALUD and PATRISHA, all surnamed FLORES, minors and represented by their
parents ENRICO and NIDA FLORES, GIANINA DITA R. FORTUN, minor, represented by
her parents SIGRID and DOLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II and MA. CONCEPCION, all
surnamed MISA, minors and represented by their parents GEORGE and MYRA MISA,
BENJAMIN ALAN V. PESIGAN, minor, represented by his parents ANTONIO and ALICE
PESIGAN, JOVIE MARIE ALFARO, minor, represented by her parents JOSE and MARIA
VIOLETA ALFARO, MARIA CONCEPCION T. CASTRO, minor, represented by her parents
FREDENIL and JANE CASTRO, JOHANNA DESAMPARADO,
minor, represented by her parents JOSE and ANGELA DESAMPRADO, CARLO JOAQUIN
T. NARVASA, minor, represented by his parents GREGORIO II and CRISTINE CHARITY
NARVASA, MA. MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO, MA. ANGELA and MARIE GABRIELLE, all
surnamed SAENZ, minors, represented by their parents ROBERTO and AURORA SAENZ,
KRISTINE, MARY ELLEN, MAY, GOLDA MARTHE and DAVID IAN, all surnamed KING,
minors, represented by their parents MARIO and HAYDEE KING, DAVID, FRANCISCO and
THERESE VICTORIA, all surnamed ENDRIGA, minors, represented by their parents
BALTAZAR and TERESITA ENDRIGA, JOSE MA. and REGINA MA., all surnamed ABAYA,
minors, represented by their parents ANTONIO and MARICA ABAYA, MARILIN, MARIO,
JR. and MARIETTE, all surnamed CARDAMA, minors, represented by their parents
MARIO and LINA CARDAMA, CLARISSA, ANN MARIE, NAGEL, and IMEE LYN, all
surnamed OPOSA, minors and represented by their parents RICARDO and MARISSA
OPOSA, PHILIP JOSEPH, STEPHEN JOHN and ISAIAH JAMES, all surnamed QUIPIT,
minors, represented by their parents JOSE MAX and VILMI QUIPIT, BUGHAW CIELO,
CRISANTO, ANNA, DANIEL and FRANCISCO, all surnamed BIBAL, minors, represented
by their parents FRANCISCO, JR. and MILAGROS BIBAL, and THE PHILIPPINE
ECOLOGICAL NETWORK, INC., petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as the Secretary of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and THE HONORABLE
ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66, respondents.
Oposa Law Office for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful
ecology which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of "inter-generational
responsibility" and "inter-generational justice." Specifically, it touches on the issue of whether
the said petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of
Philippine rainforests and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support
systems and continued rape of Mother Earth."
The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-77 which was filed before Branch 66
(Makati, Metro Manila) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region. The
principal plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners, are all minors duly represented and
joined by their respective parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine
Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for
the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our
environment and natural resources. The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S.
Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
His substitution in this petition by the new Secretary, the Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was
subsequently ordered upon proper motion by the petitioners. 1 The complaint 2 was instituted as
a taxpayers' class suit 3 and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the
Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource
treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests." The same was filed for themselves and
others who are equally concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so numerous
that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court." The minors further asseverate that
they "represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn." 4 Consequently, it is prayed
for that judgment be rendered:
. . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in
his behalf to
(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;
(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or
approving new timber license agreements.
and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises." 5
The complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine archipelago of 7,100
islands has a land area of thirty million (30,000,000) hectares and is endowed with rich, lush
and verdant rainforests in which varied, rare and unique species of flora and fauna may be
found; these rainforests contain a genetic, biological and chemical pool which is irreplaceable;
they are also the habitat of indigenous Philippine cultures which have existed, endured and
flourished since time immemorial; scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a
balanced and healthful ecology, the country's land area should be utilized on the basis of a ratio
of fifty-four per cent (54%) for forest cover and forty-six per cent (46%) for agricultural,
residential, industrial, commercial and other uses; the distortion and disturbance of this balance
as a consequence of deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies, such as
(a) water shortages resulting from drying up of the water table, otherwise known as the

"aquifer," as well as of rivers, brooks and streams, (b) salinization of the water table as a result
of the intrusion therein of salt water, incontrovertible examples of which may be found in the
island of Cebu and the Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite, (c) massive erosion and the
consequential loss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, with the volume of soil eroded
estimated at one billion (1,000,000,000) cubic meters per annum approximately the size of
the entire island of Catanduanes, (d) the endangering and extinction of the country's unique,
rare and varied flora and fauna, (e) the disturbance and dislocation of cultural communities,
including the disappearance of the Filipino's indigenous cultures, (f) the siltation of rivers and
seabeds and consequential destruction of corals and other aquatic life leading to a critical
reduction in marine resource productivity, (g) recurrent spells of drought as is presently
experienced by the entire country, (h) increasing velocity of typhoon winds which result from the
absence of windbreakers, (i) the floodings of lowlands and agricultural plains arising from the
absence of the absorbent mechanism of forests, (j) the siltation and shortening of the lifespan of
multi-billion peso dams constructed and operated for the purpose of supplying water for
domestic uses, irrigation and the generation of electric power, and (k) the reduction of the
earth's capacity to process carbon dioxide gases which has led to perplexing and catastrophic
climatic changes such as the phenomenon of global warming, otherwise known as the
"greenhouse effect."
Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and
deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted
as a matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding, they expressed their intention to present
expert witnesses as well as documentary, photographic and film evidence in the course of the
trial.
As their cause of action, they specifically allege that:
CAUSE OF ACTION
7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.
8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had some sixteen (16) million
hectares of rainforests constituting roughly 53% of the country's land mass.
9. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there remained no more than 1.2
million hectares of said rainforests or four per cent (4.0%) of the country's land
area.
10. More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000 hectares of virgin old-growth
rainforests are left, barely 2.8% of the entire land mass of the Philippine
archipelago and about 3.0 million hectares of immature and uneconomical
secondary growth forests.
11. Public records reveal that the defendant's, predecessors have granted timber
license agreements ('TLA's') to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of
3.89 million hectares for commercial logging purposes.
A copy of the TLA holders and the corresponding areas covered is hereto
attached as Annex "A".

12. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 hectares per annum or
25 hectares per hour nighttime, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays included
the Philippines will be bereft of forest resources after the end of this ensuing
decade, if not earlier.
13. The adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury and irreparable
damage of this continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff minor's generation
and to generations yet unborn are evident and incontrovertible. As a matter of
fact, the environmental damages enumerated in paragraph 6 hereof are already
being felt, experienced and suffered by the generation of plaintiff adults.
14. The continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders to cut and deforest the
remaining forest stands will work great damage and irreparable injury to plaintiffs
especially plaintiff minors and their successors who may never see, use,
benefit from and enjoy this rare and unique natural resource treasure.
This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the
natural resource property he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors and
succeeding generations.
15. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as the parens
patriae.
16. Plaintiff have exhausted all administrative remedies with the defendant's
office. On March 2, 1990, plaintiffs served upon defendant a final demand to
cancel all logging permits in the country.
A copy of the plaintiffs' letter dated March 1, 1990 is hereto attached as Annex
"B".
17. Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing TLA's to the
continuing serious damage and extreme prejudice of plaintiffs.
18. The continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel the TLA's is an act
violative of the rights of plaintiffs, especially plaintiff minors who may be left with
a country that is desertified (sic), bare, barren and devoid of the wonderful flora,
fauna and indigenous cultures which the Philippines had been abundantly
blessed with.
19. Defendant's refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is manifestly contrary
to the public policy enunciated in the Philippine Environmental Policy which, in
pertinent part, states that it is the policy of the State
(a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and
nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with each other;
(b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future
generations of Filipinos and;

(c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conductive to a life

of dignity and well-being. (P.D. 1151, 6 June 1977)
20. Furthermore, defendant's continued refusal to cancel the aforementioned
TLA's is contradictory to the Constitutional policy of the State to
a. effect "a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth" and
"make full and efficient use of natural resources (sic)." (Section 1, Article XII of
the Constitution);
b. "protect the nation's marine wealth." (Section 2, ibid);
c. "conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage and resources (sic)"
(Section 14, Article XIV,id.);
d. "protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature." (Section 16, Article
II, id.)
21. Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the highest law of humankind the
natural law and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and
perpetuation.
22. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law other than the
instant action to arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support
systems and continued rape of Mother Earth. 6
On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against
him and (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the
legislative or executive branches of Government. In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion,
the petitioners maintain that (1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action,
(2) the motion is dilatory and (3) the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the
defendant's abuse of discretion.
On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to
dismiss. 7 In the said order, not only was the defendant's claim that the complaint states no
cause of action against him and that it raises a political question sustained, the respondent
Judge further ruled that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of
contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.
Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Court and ask this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground
that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action. Again, the
parents of the plaintiffs-minors not only represent their children, but have also joined the latter in
this case. 8
On 14 May 1992, We resolved to give due course to the petition and required the parties to
submit their respective Memoranda after the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a
Comment in behalf of the respondents and the petitioners filed a reply thereto.

Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of action as it
contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on Articles
19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code (Human Relations), Section 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192
creating the DENR, Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental
Policy), Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide in Criminal Law and the
concept of man's inalienable right to self-preservation and self-perpetuation embodied in natural
law. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlative obligation per Section 4 of E.O. No.
192, to safeguard the people's right to a healthful environment.
It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's alleged grave abuse of
discretion in granting Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas for logging than
what is available involves a judicial question.
Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution's non-impairment clause,
petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this case because TLAs are not contracts.
They likewise submit that even if TLAs may be considered protected by the said clause, it is well
settled that they may still be revoked by the State when the public interest so requires.
On the other hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a
specific legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by law.
They see nothing in the complaint but vague and nebulous allegations concerning an
"environmental right" which supposedly entitles the petitioners to the "protection by the state in
its capacity as parens patriae." Such allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause
of action. They then reiterate the theory that the question of whether logging should be
permitted in the country is a political question which should be properly addressed to the
executive or legislative branches of Government. They therefore assert that the petitioners'
resources is not to file an action to court, but to lobby before Congress for the passage of a bill
that would ban logging totally.
As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, respondents submit that the same cannot be
done by the State without due process of law. Once issued, a TLA remains effective for a
certain period of time usually for twenty-five (25) years. During its effectivity, the same can
neither be revised nor cancelled unless the holder has been found, after due notice and hearing,
to have violated the terms of the agreement or other forestry laws and regulations. Petitioners'
proposition to have all the TLAs indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would
be violative of the requirements of due process.
Before going any further, We must first focus on some procedural matters. Petitioners instituted
Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. The original defendant and the present respondents did
not take issue with this matter. Nevertheless, We hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a
class suit. The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to
several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous,
it, becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. We
likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure
the full protection of all concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid class
suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil
case and in the instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the former.

This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert that they
represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that
they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a
class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on
the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers
the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its entirety. 9 Such
rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,
management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries,
wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration,
development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future
generations. 10 Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve
that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little
differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same
time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations
to come.
The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been addressed, We shall now proceed to the
merits of the petition.
After a careful perusal of the complaint in question and a meticulous consideration and
evaluation of the issues raised and arguments adduced by the parties, We do not hesitate to
find for the petitioners and rule against the respondent Judge's challenged order for having
been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The pertinent
portions of the said order reads as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the Complaint, the Court cannot
help but agree with the defendant. For although we believe that plaintiffs have
but the noblest of all intentions, it (sic) fell short of alleging, with sufficient
definiteness, a specific legal right they are seeking to enforce and protect, or a
specific legal wrong they are seeking to prevent and redress (Sec. 1, Rule 2,
RRC). Furthermore, the Court notes that the Complaint is replete with vague
assumptions and vague conclusions based on unverified data. In fine, plaintiffs
fail to state a cause of action in its Complaint against the herein defendant.
Furthermore, the Court firmly believes that the matter before it, being impressed
with political color and involving a matter of public policy, may not be taken
cognizance of by this Court without doing violence to the sacred principle of
"Separation of Powers" of the three (3) co-equal branches of the Government.
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch
our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all
existing timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from
receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license
agreements. For to do otherwise would amount to "impairment of contracts"
abhored (sic) by the fundamental law. 11

We do not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient
definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong committed, and that the
complaint is replete with vague assumptions and conclusions based on unverified data. A
reading of the complaint itself belies these conclusions.
The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is solemnly
incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly
provides:
Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding
section of the same article:
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and
instill health consciousness among them.
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less
important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs
to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and
self-perpetuation aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners the advancement of which
may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic
rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the
inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is
because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful
ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby
highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to
preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all
else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come generations
which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment. During the debates on this right in one of the plenary sessions of the
1986 Constitutional Commission, the following exchange transpired between Commissioner
Wilfrido Villacorta and Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna who sponsored the section in question:
MR. VILLACORTA:
Does this section mandate the State to provide sanctions against
all forms of pollution air, water and noise pollution?
MR. AZCUNA:
Yes, Madam President. The right to healthful (sic) environment
necessarily carries with it the correlative duty of not impairing the
same and, therefore, sanctions may be provided for impairment of
environmental balance. 12

The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious management and conservation of
the country's forests.
Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance would be irreversiby
disrupted.
Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the right to
health, as well as the other related provisions of the Constitution concerning the conservation,
development and utilization of the country's natural resources, 13 then President Corazon C.
Aquino promulgated on 10 June 1987 E.O. No. 192, 14 Section 4 of which expressly mandates
that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources "shall be the primary government
agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the
country's environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral,
resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain,
as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in
order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present
and future generations of Filipinos." Section 3 thereof makes the following statement of policy:
Sec. 3. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to
ensure the sustainable use, development, management, renewal, and
conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, off-shore areas and other
natural resources, including the protection and enhancement of the quality of the
environment, and equitable access of the different segments of the population to
the development and the use of the country's natural resources, not only for the
present generation but for future generations as well. It is also the policy of the
state to recognize and apply a true value system including social and
environmental cost implications relative to their utilization, development and
conservation of our natural resources.
This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code
of 1987, 15specifically in Section 1 thereof which reads:
Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. (1) The State shall ensure, for the benefit of the
Filipino people, the full exploration and development as well as the judicious
disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's
forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural
resources, consistent with the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological
balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment and the
objective of making the exploration, development and utilization of such natural
resources equitably accessible to the different segments of the present as well as
future generations.
(2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true value system that takes
into account social and environmental cost implications relative to the utilization,
development and conservation of our natural resources.
The above provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and
protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment." Section 2 of the same Title, on the
other hand, specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR; however, it makes particular

reference to the fact of the agency's being subject to law and higher authority. Said section
provides:
Sec. 2. Mandate. (1) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources
shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of the foregoing policy.
(2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge of carrying out the
State's constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration,
development, utilization, and conservation of the country's natural resources.
Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve
as the bases for policy formulation, and have defined the powers and functions of the DENR.
It may, however, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, specific
statutes already paid special attention to the "environmental right" of the present and future
generations. On 6 June 1977, P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) and P.D. No.
1152 (Philippine Environment Code) were issued. The former "declared a continuing policy of
the State (a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature
can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to fulfill the social, economic
and other requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos, and (c) to insure the
attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well-being." 16 As
its goal, it speaks of the "responsibilities of each generation as trustee and guardian of the
environment for succeeding generations." 17 The latter statute, on the other hand, gave flesh to
the said policy.
Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful
ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and
functions under E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and advance
the said right.
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the corelative duty or obligation to respect
or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the
TLAs, which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a
balanced and healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs
should be renewed or granted.
A cause of action is defined as:
. . . an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of the
other; and its essential elements are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative
obligation of the defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in violation of
said legal right. 18
It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the complaint
fails to state a cause of action, 19 the question submitted to the court for resolution involves the
sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint itself. No other matter should be considered;
furthermore, the truth of falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof is
deemed hypothetically admitted. The only issue to be resolved in such a case is: admitting such
alleged facts to be true, may the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in
the complaint? 20 In Militante vs. Edrosolano, 21 this Court laid down the rule that the judiciary

should "exercise the utmost care and circumspection in passing upon a motion to dismiss on
the ground of the absence thereof [cause of action] lest, by its failure to manifest a correct
appreciation of the facts alleged and deemed hypothetically admitted, what the law grants or
recognizes is effectively nullified. If that happens, there is a blot on the legal order. The law itself
stands in disrepute."
After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, We find the statements under the
introductory affirmative allegations, as well as the specific averments under the sub-heading
CAUSE OF ACTION, to be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their
rights. On the basis thereof, they may thus be granted, wholly or partly, the reliefs prayed for. It
bears stressing, however, that insofar as the cancellation of the TLAs is concerned, there is the
need to implead, as party defendants, the grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties.
The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 be said to raise a political question. Policy
formulation or determination by the executive or legislative branches of Government is not
squarely put in issue. What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies
already formulated and expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the
political question doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial
power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial
inquiry or review. The second paragraph of section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that:
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine Political Law, 22 Mr. Justice Isagani A.
Cruz, a distinguished member of this Court, says:
The first part of the authority represents the traditional concept of judicial power,
involving the settlement of conflicting rights as conferred as law. The second part
of the authority represents a broadening of judicial power to enable the courts of
justice to review what was before forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion of the
political departments of the government.
As worded, the new provision vests in the judiciary, and particularly the Supreme
Court, the power to rule upon even the wisdom of the decisions of the executive
and the legislature and to declare their acts invalid for lack or excess of
jurisdiction because tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The catch, of course,
is the meaning of "grave abuse of discretion," which is a very elastic phrase that
can expand or contract according to the disposition of the judiciary.
In Daza vs. Singson, 23 Mr. Justice Cruz, now speaking for this Court, noted:
In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even less tenable
and decisive. The reason is that, even if we were to assume that the issue
presented before us was political in nature, we would still not be precluded from
revolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in

proper cases, even the political question. Article VII, Section 1, of the
Constitution clearly provides: . . .
The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is the non-impairment of
contracts clause found in the Constitution. The court a quo declared that:
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch
our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all
existing timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from
receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license
agreements. For to do otherwise would amount to "impairment of contracts"
abhored (sic) by the fundamental law. 24
We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, We are amazed, if not shocked, by such a
sweeping pronouncement. In the first place, the respondent Secretary did not, for obvious
reasons, even invoke in his motion to dismiss the non-impairment clause. If he had done so, he
would have acted with utmost infidelity to the Government by providing undue and unwarranted
benefits and advantages to the timber license holders because he would have forever bound
the Government to strictly respect the said licenses according to their terms and conditions
regardless of changes in policy and the demands of public interest and welfare. He was aware
that as correctly pointed out by the petitioners, into every timber license must be read Section
20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705) which provides:
. . . Provided, That when the national interest so requires, the President may
amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession, permit, licenses or
any other form of privilege granted herein . . .
Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is
not a contract, property or a property right protested by the due process clause of the
Constitution. In Tan vs. Director of Forestry, 25 this Court held:
. . . A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates the utilization
and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. A
timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause; it is
only a license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by
public interest or public welfare as in this case.
A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful,
and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or municipal, granting
it and the person to whom it is granted; neither is it property or a property right,
nor does it create a vested right; nor is it taxation (37 C.J. 168). Thus, this Court
held that the granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it
property or property rights (People vs. Ong Tin, 54 O.G. 7576).
We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy Executive
Secretary: 26
. . . Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal
instruments by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest
resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. And it can hardly be

gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted by the State to qualified
entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the
particular concession area and the forest products therein. They may be validly
amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when national
interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed contracts within the purview of
the due process of law clause [See Sections 3(ee) and 20 of Pres. Decree No.
705, as amended. Also, Tan v. Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-24548, October
27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302].
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause, which reads:
Sec. 10. No law impairing, the obligation of contracts shall be passed. 27
cannot be invoked.
In the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the instant case
does not involve a law or even an executive issuance declaring the cancellation or modification
of existing timber licenses. Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked.
Nevertheless, granting further that a law has actually been passed mandating cancellations or
modifications, the same cannot still be stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause.
This is because by its very nature and purpose, such as law could have only been passed in the
exercise of the police power of the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology, promoting their health and enhancing the general welfare.
In Abe vs. Foster Wheeler
Corp. 28 this Court stated:
The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not meant to be
absolute. The same is understood to be subject to reasonable legislative
regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, safety and welfare. In
other words, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of
contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest
of public health, safety, moral and general welfare.
The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. New York, 29 quoted in Philippine
American Life Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General, 30 to wit:
Under our form of government the use of property and the making of contracts
are normally matters of private and not of public concern. The general rule is that
both shall be free of governmental interference. But neither property rights nor
contract rights are absolute; for government cannot exist if the citizen may at will
use his property to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of
contract to work them harm. Equally fundamental with the private right is that of
the public to regulate it in the common interest.
In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state. 31
Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-impairment clause could apply
with respect to the prayer to enjoin the respondent Secretary from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or approving new timber licenses for, save in cases of renewal, no

contract would have as of yet existed in the other instances. Moreover, with respect to renewal,
the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right.
WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the
challenged Order of respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is
hereby set aside. The petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants
the holders or grantees of the questioned timber license agreements.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason,
JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J., Puno and Vitug, JJ., took no part.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 133250

July 9, 2002

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, petitioner,

vs.
PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY and AMARI COASTAL BAY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, respondents.
CARPIO, J.:
This is an original Petition for Mandamus with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and a
temporary restraining order. The petition seeks to compel the Public Estates Authority ("PEA"
for brevity) to disclose all facts on PEA's then on-going renegotiations with Amari Coastal Bay
and Development Corporation ("AMARI" for brevity) to reclaim portions of Manila Bay. The
petition further seeks to enjoin PEA from signing a new agreement with AMARI involving such
reclamation.
The Facts
On November 20, 1973, the government, through the Commissioner of Public Highways, signed
a contract with the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines ("CDCP" for
brevity) to reclaim certain foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay. The contract also
included the construction of Phases I and II of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road. CDCP obligated
itself to carry out all the works in consideration of fifty percent of the total reclaimed land.
On February 4, 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1084
creating PEA. PD No. 1084 tasked PEA "to reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged

areas," and "to develop, improve, acquire, x x x lease and sell any and all kinds of lands."1 On
the same date, then President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1085 transferring to PEA
the "lands reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore of the Manila Bay"2 under the Manila-Cavite
Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP).
On December 29, 1981, then President Marcos issued a memorandum directing PEA to amend
its contract with CDCP, so that "[A]ll future works in MCCRRP x x x shall be funded and owned
by PEA." Accordingly, PEA and CDCP executed a Memorandum of Agreement dated
December 29, 1981, which stated:
"(i) CDCP shall undertake all reclamation, construction, and such other works in the
MCCRRP as may be agreed upon by the parties, to be paid according to progress of
works on a unit price/lump sum basis for items of work to be agreed upon, subject to
price escalation, retention and other terms and conditions provided for in Presidential
Decree No. 1594. All the financing required for such works shall be provided by PEA.
xxx
(iii) x x x CDCP shall give up all its development rights and hereby agrees to cede and
transfer in favor of PEA, all of the rights, title, interest and participation of CDCP in and
to all the areas of land reclaimed by CDCP in the MCCRRP as of December 30, 1981
which have not yet been sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of by CDCP as of said
date, which areas consist of approximately Ninety-Nine Thousand Four Hundred
Seventy Three (99,473) square meters in the Financial Center Area covered by land
pledge No. 5 and approximately Three Million Three Hundred Eighty Two Thousand
Eight Hundred Eighty Eight (3,382,888) square meters of reclaimed areas at varying
elevations above Mean Low Water Level located outside the Financial Center Area and
the First Neighborhood Unit."3
On January 19, 1988, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517,
granting and transferring to PEA "the parcels of land so reclaimed under the Manila-Cavite
Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP) containing a total area of one million nine
hundred fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety four (1,915,894) square meters." Subsequently,
on April 9, 1988, the Register of Deeds of the Municipality of Paraaque issued Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. 7309, 7311, and 7312, in the name of PEA, covering the three
reclaimed islands known as the "Freedom Islands" located at the southern portion of the ManilaCavite Coastal Road, Paraaque City. The Freedom Islands have a total land area of One
Million Five Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Forty One (1,578,441) square
meters or 157.841 hectares.
On April 25, 1995, PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement ("JVA" for brevity) with AMARI,
a private corporation, to develop the Freedom Islands. The JVA also required the reclamation of
an additional 250 hectares of submerged areas surrounding these islands to complete the
configuration in the Master Development Plan of the Southern Reclamation Project-MCCRRP.
PEA and AMARI entered into the JVA through negotiation without public bidding.4 On April 28,
1995, the Board of Directors of PEA, in its Resolution No. 1245, confirmed the JVA.5 On June 8,
1995, then President Fidel V. Ramos, through then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres,
approved the JVA.6

On November 29, 1996, then Senate President Ernesto Maceda delivered a privilege speech in
the Senate and denounced the JVA as the "grandmother of all scams." As a result, the Senate
Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises, and the Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, conducted a joint investigation. The Senate
Committees reported the results of their investigation in Senate Committee Report No. 560
dated September 16, 1997.7 Among the conclusions of their report are: (1) the reclaimed lands
PEA seeks to transfer to AMARI under the JVA are lands of the public domain which the
government has not classified as alienable lands and therefore PEA cannot alienate these
lands; (2) the certificates of title covering the Freedom Islands are thus void, and (3) the JVA
itself is illegal.
On December 5, 1997, then President Fidel V. Ramos issued Presidential Administrative Order
No. 365 creating a Legal Task Force to conduct a study on the legality of the JVA in view of
Senate Committee Report No. 560. The members of the Legal Task Force were the Secretary
of Justice,8 the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel,9 and the Government Corporate
Counsel.10 The Legal Task Force upheld the legality of the JVA, contrary to the conclusions
reached by the Senate Committees.11
On April 4 and 5, 1998, the Philippine Daily Inquirer and Today published reports that there
were on-going renegotiations between PEA and AMARI under an order issued by then
President Fidel V. Ramos. According to these reports, PEA Director Nestor Kalaw, PEA
Chairman Arsenio Yulo and retired Navy Officer Sergio Cruz composed the negotiating panel of
PEA.
On April 13, 1998, Antonio M. Zulueta filed before the Court a Petition for Prohibition with
Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction docketed as G.R. No. 132994 seeking to nullify the JVA. The Court dismissed the
petition "for unwarranted disregard of judicial hierarchy, without prejudice to the refiling of the
case before the proper court."12
On April 27, 1998, petitioner Frank I. Chavez ("Petitioner" for brevity) as a taxpayer, filed the
instant Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
and Temporary Restraining Order. Petitioner contends the government stands to lose billions of
pesos in the sale by PEA of the reclaimed lands to AMARI. Petitioner prays that PEA publicly
disclose the terms of any renegotiation of the JVA, invoking Section 28, Article II, and Section 7,
Article III, of the 1987 Constitution on the right of the people to information on matters of public
concern. Petitioner assails the sale to AMARI of lands of the public domain as a blatant violation
of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting the sale of alienable lands of the
public domain to private corporations. Finally, petitioner asserts that he seeks to enjoin the loss
of billions of pesos in properties of the State that are of public dominion.
After several motions for extension of time,13 PEA and AMARI filed their Comments on October
19, 1998 and June 25, 1998, respectively. Meanwhile, on December 28, 1998, petitioner filed an
Omnibus Motion: (a) to require PEA to submit the terms of the renegotiated PEA-AMARI
contract; (b) for issuance of a temporary restraining order; and (c) to set the case for hearing on
oral argument. Petitioner filed a Reiterative Motion for Issuance of a TRO dated May 26, 1999,
which the Court denied in a Resolution dated June 22, 1999.
In a Resolution dated March 23, 1999, the Court gave due course to the petition and required
the parties to file their respective memoranda.

On March 30, 1999, PEA and AMARI signed the Amended Joint Venture Agreement
("Amended JVA," for brevity). On May 28, 1999, the Office of the President under the
administration of then President Joseph E. Estrada approved the Amended JVA.
Due to the approval of the Amended JVA by the Office of the President, petitioner now prays
that on "constitutional and statutory grounds the renegotiated contract be declared null and
void."14
The Issues
The issues raised by petitioner, PEA15 and AMARI16 are as follows:
I. WHETHER THE PRINCIPAL RELIEFS PRAYED FOR IN THE PETITION ARE MOOT
AND ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS;
II. WHETHER THE PETITION MERITS DISMISSAL FOR FAILING TO OBSERVE THE
PRINCIPLE GOVERNING THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS;
III. WHETHER THE PETITION MERITS DISMISSAL FOR NON-EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES;
IV. WHETHER PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO BRING THIS SUIT;
V. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO INFORMATION INCLUDES
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ON ON-GOING NEGOTIATIONS BEFORE A FINAL
AGREEMENT;
VI. WHETHER THE STIPULATIONS IN THE AMENDED JOINT VENTURE
AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANSFER TO AMARI OF CERTAIN LANDS, RECLAIMED
AND STILL TO BE RECLAIMED, VIOLATE THE 1987 CONSTITUTION; AND
VII. WHETHER THE COURT IS THE PROPER FORUM FOR RAISING THE ISSUE OF
WHETHER THE AMENDED JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT IS GROSSLY
DISADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT.
The Court's Ruling
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 Court enjoin PEA from
"privately entering into, perfecting and/or executing any new agreement with AMARI."
PEA and AMARI claim the petition is now moot and academic because AMARI furnished
petitioner on June 21, 1999 a copy of the signed Amended JVA containing the terms and
conditions agreed upon in the renegotiations. Thus, PEA has satisfied petitioner's prayer for a
public disclosure of the renegotiations. Likewise, petitioner's prayer to enjoin the signing of the
Amended JVA is now moot because PEA and AMARI have already signed the Amended JVA

on March 30, 1999. Moreover, the Office of the President has approved the Amended JVA on
May 28, 1999.
Petitioner counters that PEA and AMARI cannot avoid the constitutional issue by simply fasttracking the signing and approval of the Amended JVA before the Court could act on the issue.
Presidential approval does not resolve the constitutional issue or remove it from the ambit of
judicial review.
We rule that the signing of the Amended JVA by PEA and AMARI and its approval by the
President cannot operate to moot the petition and divest the Court of its jurisdiction. PEA and
AMARI have still to implement the Amended JVA. The prayer to enjoin the signing of the
Amended JVA on constitutional grounds necessarily includes preventing its implementation if in
the meantime PEA and AMARI have signed one in violation of the Constitution. Petitioner's
principal basis in assailing the renegotiation of the JVA is its violation of Section 3, Article XII of
the Constitution, which prohibits the government from alienating lands of the public domain to
private corporations. If the Amended JVA indeed violates the Constitution, it is the duty of the
Court to enjoin its implementation, and if already implemented, to annul the effects of such
unconstitutional contract.
The Amended JVA is not an ordinary commercial contract but one which seeks to transfer title
and ownership to 367.5 hectares of reclaimed lands and submerged areas of Manila Bay
to a single private corporation. It now becomes more compelling for the Court to resolve the
issue to insure the government itself does not violate a provision of the Constitution intended to
safeguard the national patrimony. Supervening events, whether intended or accidental, cannot
prevent the Court from rendering a decision if there is a grave violation of the Constitution. In
the instant case, if the Amended JVA runs counter to the Constitution, the Court can still prevent
the transfer of title and ownership of alienable lands of the public domain in the name of AMARI.
Even in cases where supervening events had made the cases moot, the Court did not hesitate
to resolve the legal or constitutional issues raised to formulate controlling principles to guide the
bench, bar, and the public.17
Also, the instant petition is a case of first impression. All previous decisions of the Court
involving Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, or its counterpart provision in the 1973
Constitution,18 covered agricultural lands sold to private corporations which acquired the lands
from private parties. The transferors of the private corporations claimed or could claim the right
to judicial confirmation of their imperfect titles19 under Title II of Commonwealth Act. 141
("CA No. 141" for brevity). In the instant case, AMARI seeks to acquire from PEA, a public
corporation, reclaimed lands and submerged areas for non-agricultural purposes
by purchase under PD No. 1084 (charter of PEA) and Title III of CA No. 141. Certain
undertakings by AMARI under the Amended JVA constitute the consideration for the purchase.
Neither AMARI nor PEA can claim judicial confirmation of their titles because the lands covered
by the Amended JVA are newly reclaimed or still to be reclaimed. Judicial confirmation of
imperfect title requires open, continuous, exclusive and notorious occupation of agricultural
lands of the public domain for at least thirty years since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Besides, the
deadline for filing applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect title expired on December 31,
1987.20
Lastly, there is a need to resolve immediately the constitutional issue raised in this petition
because of the possible transfer at any time by PEA to AMARI of title and ownership to portions
of the reclaimed lands. Under the Amended JVA, PEA is obligated to transfer to AMARI the

latter's seventy percent proportionate share in the reclaimed areas as the reclamation
progresses. The Amended JVA even allows AMARI to mortgage at any time
the entire reclaimed area to raise financing for the reclamation project.21
Second issue: whether the petition merits dismissal for failing to observe the principle
governing the hierarchy of courts.
PEA and AMARI claim petitioner ignored the judicial hierarchy by seeking relief directly from the
Court. The principle of hierarchy of courts applies generally to cases involving factual questions.
As it is not a trier of facts, the Court cannot entertain cases involving factual issues. The instant
case, however, raises constitutional issues of transcendental importance to the public.22 The
Court can resolve this case without determining any factual issue related to the case. Also, the
instant case is a petition for mandamus which falls under the original jurisdiction of the Court
under Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution. We resolve to exercise primary jurisdiction over
the instant case.
Third issue: whether the petition merits dismissal for non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
PEA faults petitioner for seeking judicial intervention in compelling PEA to disclose publicly
certain information without first asking PEA the needed information. PEA claims petitioner's
direct resort to the Court violates the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. It also
violates the rule that mandamus may issue only if there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.
PEA distinguishes the instant case from Taada v. Tuvera23 where the Court granted the
petition for mandamus even if the petitioners there did not initially demand from the Office of the
President the publication of the presidential decrees. PEA points out that in Taada, the
Executive Department had an affirmative statutory duty under Article 2 of the Civil Code24 and
Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63825 to publish the presidential decrees. There was,
therefore, no need for the petitioners in Taada to make an initial demand from the Office of the
President. In the instant case, PEA claims it has no affirmative statutory duty to disclose publicly
information about its renegotiation of the JVA. Thus, PEA asserts that the Court must apply the
principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies to the instant case in view of the failure of
petitioner here to demand initially from PEA the needed information.
The original JVA sought to dispose to AMARI public lands held by PEA, a government
corporation. Under Section 79 of the Government Auditing Code,26 the disposition of
government lands to private parties requires public bidding. PEA was under a positive legal
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 even without demand from petitioner or from
anyone. PEA failed to make this public disclosure because the original JVA, like the Amended
JVA, was the result of a negotiated contract, not of a public bidding. Considering that PEA had
an affirmative statutory duty to make the public disclosure, and was even in breach of this legal
duty, petitioner had the right to seek direct judicial intervention.
Moreover, and this alone is determinative of this issue, the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies does not apply when the issue involved is a purely legal or
constitutional question.27 The principal issue in the instant case is the capacity of AMARI to
acquire lands held by PEA in view of the constitutional ban prohibiting the alienation of lands of

the public domain to private corporations. We rule that the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies does not apply in the instant case.
Fourth issue: whether petitioner has locus standi to bring this suit
PEA argues that petitioner has no standing to institute mandamus proceedings to enforce his
constitutional right to information without a showing that PEA refused to perform an affirmative
duty imposed on PEA by the Constitution. PEA also claims that petitioner has not shown that he
will suffer any concrete injury because of the signing or implementation of the Amended JVA.
Thus, there is no actual controversy requiring the exercise of the power of judicial review.
The petitioner has standing to bring this taxpayer's suit because the petition seeks to compel
PEA to comply with its constitutional duties. There are two constitutional issues involved here.
First is the right of citizens to information on matters of public concern. Second is the application
of a constitutional provision intended to insure the equitable distribution of alienable lands of the
public domain among Filipino citizens. The thrust of the first issue is to compel PEA to disclose
publicly information on the sale of government lands worth billions of pesos, information which
the Constitution and statutory law mandate PEA to disclose. The thrust of the second issue is to
prevent PEA from alienating hundreds of hectares of alienable lands of the public domain in
violation of the Constitution, compelling PEA to comply with a constitutional duty to the nation.
Moreover, the petition raises matters of transcendental importance to the public. In Chavez v.
PCGG,28 the Court upheld the right of a citizen to bring a taxpayer's suit on matters of
transcendental importance to the public, thus "Besides, petitioner emphasizes, the matter of recovering the ill-gotten wealth of the
Marcoses is an issue of 'transcendental importance to the public.' He asserts that
ordinary taxpayers have a right to initiate and prosecute actions questioning the validity
of acts or orders of government agencies or instrumentalities, if the issues raised are of
'paramount public interest,' and if they 'immediately affect the social, economic and
moral well being of the people.'
Moreover, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest,
when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, such as in this case. He
invokes several decisions of this Court which have set aside the procedural matter
of locus standi, when the subject of the case involved public interest.
xxx
In Taada v. Tuvera, the Court asserted that when the issue concerns a public right and
the object of mandamus is to obtain the enforcement of a public duty, the people are
regarded as the real parties in interest; and because it is sufficient that petitioner is a
citizen and as such is interested in the execution of the laws, he need not show that he
has any legal or special interest in the result of the action. In the aforesaid case, the
petitioners sought to enforce their right to be informed on matters of public concern, a
right then recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, in connection with
the rule that laws in order to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official
Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated. In ruling for the petitioners' legal standing,
the Court declared that the right they sought to be enforced 'is a public right recognized
by no less than the fundamental law of the land.'

Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, while reiterating Taada, further declared that
'when a mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the requirement
of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that petitioner is a citizen and, therefore,
part of the general 'public' which possesses the right.'
Further, in Albano v. Reyes, we said that while expenditure of public funds may not have
been involved under the questioned contract for the development, management and
operation of the Manila International Container Terminal, 'public interest [was] definitely
involved considering the important role [of the subject contract] . . . in the economic
development of the country and the magnitude of the financial consideration involved.'
We concluded that, as a consequence, the disclosure provision in the Constitution would
constitute sufficient authority for upholding the petitioner's standing.
Similarly, the instant petition is anchored on the right of the people to information and
access to official records, documents and papers a right guaranteed under Section 7,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner, a former solicitor general, is a Filipino
citizen. Because of the satisfaction of the two basic requisites laid down by decisional
law to sustain petitioner's legal standing, i.e. (1) the enforcement of a public right (2)
espoused by a Filipino citizen, we rule that the petition at bar should be allowed."
We rule that since the instant petition, brought by a citizen, involves the enforcement of
constitutional rights - to information and to the equitable diffusion of natural resources - matters
of transcendental public importance, the petitioner has the requisite locus standi.
Fifth issue: whether the constitutional right to information includes official information
on on-going negotiations before a final agreement.
Section 7, Article III of the Constitution explains the people's right to information on matters of
public concern in this manner:
"Sec. 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." (Emphasis supplied)
The State policy of full transparency in all transactions involving public interest reinforces the
people's right to information on matters of public concern. This State policy is expressed in
Section 28, Article II of the Constitution, thus:
"Sec. 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." (Emphasis supplied)
These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in
the operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to
exercise effectively other constitutional rights. These twin provisions are essential to the
exercise of freedom of expression. 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. These twin provisions are also essential to

hold public officials "at all times x x x accountable to the people,"29 for unless citizens have the
proper information, they cannot hold public officials accountable for anything. Armed with the
right information, citizens can participate in public discussions leading to the formulation of
government policies and their effective implementation. An informed citizenry is essential to the
existence and proper functioning of any democracy. As explained by the Court in Valmonte v.
Belmonte, Jr.30
"An essential element of these freedoms is to keep open a continuing dialogue or
process of communication between the government and the people. It is in the interest
of the State that the channels for free political discussion be maintained to the end that
the government may perceive and be responsive to the people's will. Yet, this open
dialogue can be effective only to the extent that the citizenry is informed and thus able to
formulate its will intelligently. Only when the participants in the discussion are aware of
the issues and have access to information relating thereto can such bear fruit."
PEA asserts, citing Chavez v. PCGG,31 that in cases of on-going negotiations the right to
information is limited to "definite propositions of the government." PEA maintains the right does
not include access to "intra-agency or inter-agency recommendations or communications during
the stage when common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the
'exploratory stage'."
Also, AMARI contends that petitioner cannot invoke the right at the pre-decisional stage or
before the closing of the transaction. To support its contention, AMARI cites the following
discussion in the 1986 Constitutional Commission:
"Mr. Suarez. And when we say 'transactions' which should be distinguished from
contracts, agreements, or treaties or whatever, does the Gentleman refer to the steps
leading to the consummation of the contract, or does he refer to the contract itself?
Mr. Ople: The 'transactions' used here, I suppose is generic and therefore, it can
cover both steps leading to a contract and already a consummated contract, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
Mr. Suarez: This contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the
consummation of the transaction.
Mr. Ople: Yes, subject only to reasonable safeguards on the national interest.
Mr. Suarez: Thank you."32 (Emphasis supplied)
AMARI argues there must first be a consummated contract before petitioner can invoke the
right. Requiring government officials to reveal their deliberations at the pre-decisional stage will
degrade the quality of decision-making in government agencies. Government officials will
hesitate to express their real sentiments during deliberations if there is immediate public
dissemination of their discussions, putting them under all kinds of pressure before they decide.
We must first distinguish between information the law on public bidding requires PEA to disclose
publicly, and information the constitutional right to information requires PEA to release to the
public. Before the consummation of the contract, PEA must, on its own and without demand
from anyone, disclose to the public matters relating to the disposition of its property. These

include the size, location, technical description and nature of the property being disposed of, the
terms and conditions of the disposition, the parties qualified to bid, the minimum price and
similar information. PEA must prepare all these data and disclose them to the public at the start
of the disposition process, long before the consummation of the contract, because the
Government Auditing Code requires public bidding. If PEA fails to make this disclosure, any
citizen can demand from PEA this information at any time during the bidding process.
Information, however, on on-going evaluation or review of bids or proposals being undertaken
by the bidding or review committee is not immediately accessible under the right to information.
While the evaluation or review is still on-going, there are no "official acts, transactions, or
decisions" on the bids or proposals. However, once the committee makes its official
recommendation, there arises a "definite proposition" on the part of the government. From
this moment, the public's right to information attaches, and any citizen can access all the nonproprietary information leading to such definite proposition. In Chavez v. PCGG,33 the Court
ruled as follows:
"Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution, we believe that it is incumbent
upon the PCGG and its officers, as well as other government representatives, to
disclose sufficient public information on any proposed settlement they have decided to
take up with the ostensible owners and holders of ill-gotten wealth. Such information,
though, must pertain to definite propositions of the government, not necessarily to
intra-agency or inter-agency recommendations or communications during the stage
when common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the
"exploratory" stage. There is need, of course, to observe the same restrictions on
disclosure of information in general, as discussed earlier such as on matters involving
national security, diplomatic or foreign relations, intelligence and other classified
information." (Emphasis supplied)
Contrary to AMARI's contention, the commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional Commission
understood that the right to information "contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to
the consummation of the transaction."Certainly, a consummated contract is not a
requirement for the exercise of the right to information. Otherwise, the people can never
exercise the right if no contract is consummated, and if one is consummated, it may be too late
for the public to expose its defects.1wphi1.nt
Requiring a consummated contract will keep the public in the dark until the contract, which may
be grossly disadvantageous to the government or even illegal, becomes a fait accompli. This
negates the State policy of full transparency on matters of public concern, a situation which the
framers of the Constitution could not have intended. Such a requirement will prevent the
citizenry from participating in the public discussion of any proposed contract, effectively
truncating a basic right enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We can allow neither an emasculation of
a constitutional right, nor a retreat by the State of its avowed "policy of full disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest."
The right covers three categories of information which are "matters of public concern," namely:
(1) official records; (2) documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions and
decisions; and (3) government research data used in formulating policies. The first category
refers to any document that is part of the public records in the custody of government agencies
or officials. The second category refers to documents and papers recording, evidencing,
establishing, confirming, supporting, justifying or explaining official acts, transactions or

decisions of government agencies or officials. The third category refers to research data,
whether raw, collated or processed, owned by the government and used in formulating
government policies.
The information that petitioner may access on the renegotiation of the JVA includes evaluation
reports, recommendations, legal and expert opinions, minutes of meetings, terms of reference
and other documents attached to such reports or minutes, all relating to the JVA. However, the
right to information does not compel PEA to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like
relating to the renegotiation of the JVA.34 The right only affords access to records, documents
and papers, which means the opportunity to inspect and copy them. One who exercises the
right must copy the records, documents and papers at his expense. The exercise of the right is
also subject to reasonable regulations to protect the integrity of the public records and to
minimize disruption to government operations, like rules specifying when and how to conduct
the inspection and copying.35
The right to information, however, does not extend to matters recognized as privileged
information under the separation of powers.36 The right does not also apply to information on
military and diplomatic secrets, information affecting national security, and information on
investigations of crimes by law enforcement agencies before the prosecution of the accused,
which courts have long recognized as confidential.37 The right may also be subject to other
limitations that Congress may impose by law.
There is no claim by PEA that the information demanded by petitioner is privileged information
rooted in the separation of powers. The information does not cover Presidential conversations,
correspondences, or discussions during closed-door Cabinet meetings which, like internal
deliberations of the Supreme Court and other collegiate courts, or executive sessions of either
house of Congress,38 are recognized as confidential. This kind of information cannot be pried
open by a co-equal branch of government. A frank exchange of exploratory ideas and
assessments, free from the glare of publicity and pressure by interested parties, is essential to
protect the independence of decision-making of those tasked to exercise Presidential,
Legislative and Judicial power.39 This is not the situation in the instant case.
We rule, therefore, that the constitutional right to information includes official information on ongoing negotiationsbefore 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 and similar matters affecting national security and
public order.40 Congress has also prescribed other limitations on the right to information in
several legislations.41
Sixth issue: whether stipulations in the Amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of lands,
reclaimed or to be reclaimed, violate the Constitution.
The Regalian Doctrine
The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is rooted in the
Regalian doctrine which holds that the State owns all lands and waters of the public domain.
Upon the Spanish conquest of the Philippines, ownership of all "lands, territories and
possessions" in the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown.42 The King, as the sovereign ruler
and representative of the people, acquired and owned all lands and territories in the Philippines
except those he disposed of by grant or sale to private individuals.

The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions adopted the Regalian doctrine substituting, however,
the State, in lieu of the King, as the owner of all lands and waters of the public domain. The
Regalian doctrine is the foundation of the time-honored principle of land ownership that "all
lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the
public domain."43 Article 339 of the Civil Code of 1889, which is now Article 420 of the Civil
Code of 1950, incorporated the Regalian doctrine.
Ownership and Disposition of Reclaimed Lands
The Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 was the first statutory law governing the ownership and
disposition of reclaimed lands in the Philippines. On May 18, 1907, the Philippine Commission
enacted Act No. 1654 which provided for the lease, but not the sale, of reclaimed lands of
the government to corporations and individuals. Later, on November 29, 1919, the
Philippine Legislature approved Act No. 2874, the Public Land Act, which authorized the lease,
but not the sale, of reclaimed lands of the government to corporations and individuals.
On November 7, 1936, the National Assembly passed Commonwealth Act No. 141, also known
as the Public Land Act, whichauthorized the lease, but not the sale, of reclaimed lands of
the government to corporations and individuals. CA No. 141 continues to this day as the
general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain.
The Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 and the Civil Code of 1889
Under the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, the shores, bays, coves, inlets and all waters within
the maritime zone of the Spanish territory belonged to the public domain for public use.44 The
Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 allowed the reclamation of the sea under Article 5, which
provided as follows:
"Article 5. Lands reclaimed from the sea in consequence of works constructed by the
State, or by the provinces, pueblos or private persons, with proper permission, shall
become the property of the party constructing such works, unless otherwise provided by
the terms of the grant of authority."
Under the Spanish Law of Waters, land reclaimed from the sea belonged to the party
undertaking the reclamation, provided the government issued the necessary permit and did not
reserve ownership of the reclaimed land to the State.
Article 339 of the Civil Code of 1889 defined property of public dominion as follows:
"Art. 339. Property of public dominion is
1. That devoted to public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges
constructed by the State, riverbanks, shores, roadsteads, and that of a similar character;
2. That belonging exclusively to the State which, without being of general public use, is
employed in some public service, or in the development of the national wealth, such as
walls, fortresses, and other works for the defense of the territory, and mines, until
granted to private individuals."

Property devoted to public use referred to property open for use by the public. In contrast,
property devoted to public service referred to property used for some specific public service and
open only to those authorized to use the property.
Property of public dominion referred not only to property devoted to public use, but also to
property not so used but employed to develop the national wealth. This class of property
constituted property of public dominion although employed for some economic or commercial
activity to increase the national wealth.
Article 341 of the Civil Code of 1889 governed the re-classification of property of public
dominion into private property, to wit:
"Art. 341. Property of public dominion, when no longer devoted to public use or to the
defense of the territory, shall become a part of the private property of the State."
This provision, however, was not self-executing. The legislature, or the executive department
pursuant to law, must declare the property no longer needed for public use or territorial defense
before the government could lease or alienate the property to private parties.45
Act No. 1654 of the Philippine Commission
On May 8, 1907, the Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 1654 which regulated the lease of
reclaimed and foreshore lands. The salient provisions of this law were as follows:
"Section 1. The control and disposition of the foreshore as defined in existing law,
and the title to all Government or public lands made or reclaimed by the
Government by dredging or filling or otherwise throughout the Philippine
Islands, shall be retained by the Government without prejudice to vested rights and
without prejudice to rights conceded to the City of Manila in the Luneta Extension.
Section 2. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall cause all Government or public lands
made or reclaimed by the Government by dredging or filling or otherwise to be divided
into lots or blocks, with the necessary streets and alleyways located thereon, and shall
cause plats and plans of such surveys to be prepared and filed with the Bureau of
Lands.
(b) Upon completion of such plats and plans the Governor-General shall give notice
to the public that such parts of the lands so made or reclaimed as are not needed
for public purposes will be leased for commercial and business purposes, x x x.
xxx
(e) The leases above provided for shall be disposed of to the highest and best
bidder therefore, subject to such regulations and safeguards as the Governor-General
may by executive order prescribe." (Emphasis supplied)
Act No. 1654 mandated that the government should retain title to all lands reclaimed by the
government. The Act also vested in the government control and disposition of foreshore lands.
Private parties could lease lands reclaimed by the government only if these lands were no

longer needed for public purpose. Act No. 1654 mandatedpublic bidding in the lease of
government reclaimed lands. Act No. 1654 made government reclaimed lands sui generis in
that unlike other public lands which the government could sell to private parties, these reclaimed
lands were available only for lease to private parties.
Act No. 1654, however, did not repeal Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. Act No.
1654 did not prohibit private parties from reclaiming parts of the sea under Section 5 of the
Spanish Law of Waters. Lands reclaimed from the sea by private parties with government
permission remained private lands.
Act No. 2874 of the Philippine Legislature
On November 29, 1919, the Philippine Legislature enacted Act No. 2874, the Public Land
Act.46 The salient provisions of Act No. 2874, on reclaimed lands, were as follows:
"Sec. 6. The Governor-General, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall from time to time classify the lands of
the public domain into
(a) Alienable or disposable,
(b) Timber, and
(c) Mineral lands, x x x.
Sec. 7. For the purposes of the government and disposition of alienable or disposable
public lands, the Governor-General, upon recommendation by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall from time to time declare what lands are
open to disposition or concession under this Act."
Sec. 8. Only those lands shall be declared open to disposition or concession
which have been officially delimited or classified x x x.
xxx
Sec. 55. Any tract of land of the public domain which, being neither timber nor mineral
land, shall be classified as suitable for residential purposes or for commercial,
industrial, or other productive purposes other than agricultural purposes, and shall
be open to disposition or concession, shall be disposed of under the provisions of this
chapter, and not otherwise.
Sec. 56. The lands disposable under this title shall be classified as follows:
(a) Lands reclaimed by the Government by dredging, filling, or other
means;
(b) Foreshore;

(c) Marshy lands or lands covered with water bordering upon the shores or
banks of navigable lakes or rivers;
(d) Lands not included in any of the foregoing classes.
x x x.
Sec. 58. The lands comprised in classes (a), (b), and (c) of section fifty-six shall be
disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise, as soon as the
Governor-General, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, shall declare that the same are not necessary for the public
service and are open to disposition under this chapter. The lands included in class
(d) may be disposed of by sale or lease under the provisions of this Act."
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 6 of Act No. 2874 authorized the Governor-General to "classify lands of the public
domain into x x x alienable or disposable"47 lands. Section 7 of the Act empowered the
Governor-General to "declare what lands are open to disposition or concession." Section 8 of
the Act limited alienable or disposable lands only to those lands which have been "officially
delimited and classified."
Section 56 of Act No. 2874 stated that lands "disposable under this title48 shall be classified" as
government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands, as well as other lands. All these lands,
however, must be suitable for residential, commercial, industrial or other productive nonagricultural purposes. These provisions vested upon the Governor-General the power to
classify inalienable lands of the public domain into disposable lands of the public domain. These
provisions also empowered the Governor-General to classify further such disposable lands of
the public domain into government reclaimed, foreshore or marshy lands of the public domain,
as well as other non-agricultural lands.
Section 58 of Act No. 2874 categorically mandated that disposable lands of the public domain
classified as government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands "shall be disposed of to
private parties by lease only and not otherwise." The Governor-General, before allowing the
lease of these lands to private parties, must formally declare that the lands were "not necessary
for the public service." Act No. 2874 reiterated the State policy to lease and not to sell
government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands of the public domain, a policy first
enunciated in 1907 in Act No. 1654. Government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands
remained sui generis, as the only alienable or disposable lands of the public domain that the
government could not sell to private parties.
The rationale behind this State policy is obvious. Government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy
public lands for non-agricultural purposes retain their inherent potential as areas for public
service. This is the reason the government prohibited the sale, and only allowed the lease, of
these lands to private parties. The State always reserved these lands for some future public
service.
Act No. 2874 did not authorize the reclassification of government reclaimed, foreshore and
marshy lands into other non-agricultural lands under Section 56 (d). Lands falling under Section
56 (d) were the only lands for non-agricultural purposes the government could sell to private
parties. Thus, under Act No. 2874, the government could not sell government reclaimed,

foreshore and marshy lands to private parties, unless the legislature passed a law allowing
their sale.49
Act No. 2874 did not prohibit private parties from reclaiming parts of the sea pursuant to Section
5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. Lands reclaimed from the sea by private parties with
government permission remained private lands.
Dispositions under the 1935 Constitution
On May 14, 1935, the 1935 Constitution took effect upon its ratification by the Filipino people.
The 1935 Constitution, in adopting the Regalian doctrine, declared in Section 1, Article XIII, that

"Section 1. All agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy and other
natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition,
exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by
such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the
inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution. Natural resources,
with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license,
concession, or lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural
resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for
another twenty-five years, except 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 limit of the grant." (Emphasis supplied)
The 1935 Constitution barred the alienation of all natural resources except public agricultural
lands, which were the only natural resources the State could alienate. Thus, foreshore lands,
considered part of the State's natural resources, became inalienable by constitutional fiat,
available only for lease for 25 years, renewable for another 25 years. The government could
alienate foreshore lands only after these lands were reclaimed and classified as alienable
agricultural lands of the public domain. Government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public
domain, being neither timber nor mineral lands, fell under the classification of public agricultural
lands.50 However, government reclaimed and marshy lands, although subject to classification as
disposable public agricultural lands, could only be leased and not sold to private parties
because of Act No. 2874.
The prohibition on private parties from acquiring ownership of government reclaimed and
marshy lands of the public domain was only a statutory prohibition and the legislature could
therefore remove such prohibition. The 1935 Constitution did not prohibit individuals and
corporations from acquiring government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain that
were classified as agricultural lands under existing public land laws. Section 2, Article XIII of the
1935 Constitution provided as follows:
"Section 2. No private corporation or association may acquire, lease, or hold public
agricultural lands in excess of one thousand and twenty four hectares, nor may
any individual acquire such lands by purchase in excess of one hundred and forty
hectares, or by lease in excess of one thousand and twenty-four hectares, or by
homestead in excess of twenty-four hectares. Lands adapted to grazing, not exceeding

two thousand hectares, may be leased to an individual, private corporation, or

association." (Emphasis supplied)
Still, after the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution, the legislature did not repeal Section 58 of Act
No. 2874 to open for sale to private parties government reclaimed and marshy lands of the
public domain. On the contrary, the legislature continued the long established State policy of
retaining for the government title and ownership of government reclaimed and marshy lands of
the public domain.
Commonwealth Act No. 141 of the Philippine National Assembly
On November 7, 1936, the National Assembly approved Commonwealth Act No. 141, also
known as the Public Land Act, which compiled the then existing laws on lands of the public
domain. CA No. 141, as amended, remains to this day the existing general law governing the
classification and disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber and mineral
lands.51
Section 6 of CA No. 141 empowers the President to classify lands of the public domain into
"alienable or disposable"52 lands of the public domain, which prior to such classification are
inalienable and outside the commerce of man. Section 7 of CA No. 141 authorizes the President
to "declare what lands are open to disposition or concession." Section 8 of CA No. 141 states
that the government can declare open for disposition or concession only lands that are "officially
delimited and classified." Sections 6, 7 and 8 of CA No. 141 read as follows:
"Sec. 6. The President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture
and Commerce, shall from time to time classify the lands of the public domain
into
(a) Alienable or disposable,
(b) Timber, and
(c) Mineral lands,
and may at any time and in like manner transfer such lands from one class to
another,53 for the purpose of their administration and disposition.
Sec. 7. For the purposes of the administration and disposition of alienable or disposable
public lands, the President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture
and Commerce, shall from time to time declare what lands are open to disposition
or concession under this Act.
Sec. 8. Only those lands shall be declared open to disposition or concession
which have been officially delimited and classified and, when practicable,
surveyed, and which have not been reserved for public or quasi-public uses, nor
appropriated by the Government, nor in any manner become private property, nor those
on which a private right authorized and recognized by this Act or any other valid law may
be claimed, or which, having been reserved or appropriated, have ceased to be so. x x
x."

Thus, before the government could alienate or dispose of lands of the public domain, the
President must first officially classify these lands as alienable or disposable, and then declare
them open to disposition or concession. There must be no law reserving these lands for public
or quasi-public uses.
The salient provisions of CA No. 141, on government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands of
the public domain, are as follows:
"Sec. 58. Any tract of land of the public domain which, being neither timber nor
mineral land, is intended to be used for residential purposes or for commercial,
industrial, or other productive purposes other than agricultural, and is open to
disposition or concession, shall be disposed of under the provisions of this
chapter and not otherwise.
Sec. 59. The lands disposable under this title shall be classified as follows:
(a) Lands reclaimed by the Government by dredging, filling, or other
means;
(b) Foreshore;
(c) Marshy lands or lands covered with water bordering upon the shores or
banks of navigable lakes or rivers;
(d) Lands not included in any of the foregoing classes.
Sec. 60. Any tract of land comprised under this title may be leased or sold, as the case
may be, to any person, corporation, or association authorized to purchase or lease
public lands for agricultural purposes. x x x.
Sec. 61. The lands comprised in classes (a), (b), and (c) of section fifty-nine shall
be disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise, as soon as the
President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture, shall declare that
the same are not necessary for the public service and are open to disposition under
this chapter. The lands included in class (d) may be disposed of by sale or lease
under the provisions of this Act." (Emphasis supplied)
Section 61 of CA No. 141 readopted, after the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution, Section 58 of
Act No. 2874 prohibiting the sale of government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy disposable
lands of the public domain. All these lands are intended for residential, commercial, industrial or
other non-agricultural purposes. As before, Section 61 allowed only the lease of such lands to
private parties. The government could sell to private parties only lands falling under Section 59
(d) of CA No. 141, or those lands for non-agricultural purposes not classified as government
reclaimed, foreshore and marshy disposable lands of the public domain. Foreshore lands,
however, became inalienable under the 1935 Constitution which only allowed the lease of these
lands to qualified private parties.
Section 58 of CA No. 141 expressly states that disposable lands of the public domain intended
for residential, commercial, industrial or other productive purposes other than agricultural "shall
be disposed of under the provisions of this chapter and not otherwise." Under Section 10

of CA No. 141, the term "disposition" includes lease of the land. Any disposition of government
reclaimed, foreshore and marshy disposable lands for non-agricultural purposes must comply
with Chapter IX, Title III of CA No. 141,54 unless a subsequent law amended or repealed these
provisions.
In his concurring opinion in the landmark case of Republic Real Estate Corporation v. Court
of Appeals,55Justice Reynato S. Puno summarized succinctly the law on this matter, as follows:
"Foreshore lands are lands of public dominion intended for public use. So too are lands
reclaimed by the government by dredging, filling, or other means. Act 1654 mandated
that the control and disposition of the foreshore and lands under water remained in the
national government. Said law allowed only the 'leasing' of reclaimed land. The Public
Land Acts of 1919 and 1936 also declared that the foreshore and lands reclaimed by the
government were to be "disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise."
Before leasing, however, the Governor-General, upon recommendation of the Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources, had first to determine that the land reclaimed was
not necessary for the public service. This requisite must have been met before the land
could be disposed of. But even then, the foreshore and lands under water were not
to be alienated and sold to private parties. The disposition of the reclaimed land
was only by lease. The land remained property of the State." (Emphasis supplied)
As observed by Justice Puno in his concurring opinion, "Commonwealth Act No. 141 has
remained in effect at present."
The State policy prohibiting the sale to private parties of government reclaimed, foreshore and
marshy alienable lands of the public domain, first implemented in 1907 was thus reaffirmed in
CA No. 141 after the 1935 Constitution took effect. The prohibition on the sale of foreshore
lands, however, became a constitutional edict under the 1935 Constitution. Foreshore lands
became inalienable as natural resources of the State, unless reclaimed by the government and
classified as agricultural lands of the public domain, in which case they would fall under the
classification of government reclaimed lands.
After the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution, government reclaimed and marshy disposable
lands of the public domain continued to be only leased and not sold to private parties.56 These
lands remained sui generis, as the only alienable or disposable lands of the public domain the
government could not sell to private parties.
Since then and until now, the only way the government can sell to private parties government
reclaimed and marshy disposable lands of the public domain is for the legislature to pass a law
authorizing such sale. CA No. 141 does not authorize the President to reclassify government
reclaimed and marshy lands into other non-agricultural lands under Section 59 (d). Lands
classified under Section 59 (d) are the only alienable or disposable lands for non-agricultural
purposes that the government could sell to private parties.
Moreover, Section 60 of CA No. 141 expressly requires congressional authority before lands
under Section 59 that the government previously transferred to government units or entities
could be sold to private parties. Section 60 of CA No. 141 declares that
"Sec. 60. x x x The area so leased or sold shall be such as shall, in the judgment of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, be reasonably necessary for the

purposes for which such sale or lease is requested, and shall not exceed one hundred
and forty-four hectares: Provided, however, That this limitation shall not apply to grants,
donations, or transfers made to a province, municipality or branch or subdivision of the
Government for the purposes deemed by said entities conducive to the public
interest; but the land so granted, donated, or transferred to a province,
municipality or branch or subdivision of the Government shall not be alienated,
encumbered, or otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting its title, except when
authorized by Congress: x x x." (Emphasis supplied)
The congressional authority required in Section 60 of CA No. 141 mirrors the legislative
authority required in Section 56 of Act No. 2874.
One reason for the congressional authority is that Section 60 of CA No. 141 exempted
government units and entities from the maximum area of public lands that could be acquired
from the State. These government units and entities should not just turn around and sell these
lands to private parties in violation of constitutional or statutory limitations. Otherwise, the
transfer of lands for non-agricultural purposes to government units and entities could be used to
circumvent constitutional limitations on ownership of alienable or disposable lands of the public
domain. In the same manner, such transfers could also be used to evade the statutory
prohibition in CA No. 141 on the sale of government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public
domain to private parties. Section 60 of CA No. 141 constitutes by operation of law a lien on
these lands.57
In case of sale or lease of disposable lands of the public domain falling under Section 59 of CA
No. 141, Sections 63 and 67 require a public bidding. Sections 63 and 67 of CA No. 141 provide
as follows:
"Sec. 63. Whenever it is decided that lands covered by this chapter are not needed for
public purposes, the Director of Lands shall ask the Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce (now the Secretary of Natural Resources) for authority to dispose of the
same. Upon receipt of such authority, the Director of Lands shall give notice by public
advertisement in the same manner as in the case of leases or sales of agricultural public
land, x x x.
Sec. 67. The lease or sale shall be made by oral bidding; and adjudication shall be
made to the highest bidder. x x x." (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, CA No. 141 mandates the Government to put to public auction all leases or sales of
alienable or disposable lands of the public domain.58
Like Act No. 1654 and Act No. 2874 before it, CA No. 141 did not repeal Section 5 of the
Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. Private parties could still reclaim portions of the sea with
government permission. However, the reclaimed land could become private land only if
classified as alienable agricultural land of the public domain open to disposition under CA
No. 141. The 1935 Constitution prohibited the alienation of all natural resources except public
agricultural lands.
The Civil Code of 1950

The Civil Code of 1950 readopted substantially the definition of property of public dominion
found in the Civil Code of 1889. Articles 420 and 422 of the Civil Code of 1950 state that
"Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion:
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and
bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar
character;
(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for
some public service or for the development of the national wealth.
x x x.
Art. 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for
public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State."
Again, the government must formally declare that the property of public dominion is no longer
needed for public use or public service, before the same could be classified as patrimonial
property of the State.59 In the case of government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public
domain, the declaration of their being disposable, as well as the manner of their disposition, is
governed by the applicable provisions of CA No. 141.
Like the Civil Code of 1889, the Civil Code of 1950 included as property of public dominion
those properties of the State which, without being for public use, are intended for public service
or the "development of the national wealth." Thus, government reclaimed and marshy lands
of the State, even if not employed for public use or public service, if developed to enhance the
national wealth, are classified as property of public dominion.
Dispositions under the 1973 Constitution
The 1973 Constitution, which took effect on January 17, 1973, likewise adopted the Regalian
doctrine. Section 8, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution stated that
"Sec. 8. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources
of the Philippines belong to the State. With the exception of agricultural, industrial or
commercial, residential, and resettlement lands of the public domain, natural
resources shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the
exploration, development, exploitation, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall
be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, except 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 the limit of the grant." (Emphasis supplied)
The 1973 Constitution prohibited the alienation of all natural resources with the exception of
"agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, and resettlement lands of the public domain."
In contrast, the 1935 Constitution barred the alienation of all natural resources except "public
agricultural lands." However, the term "public agricultural lands" in the 1935 Constitution
encompassed industrial, commercial, residential and resettlement lands of the public

domain.60 If the land of public domain were neither timber nor mineral land, it would fall under
the classification of agricultural land of the public domain. Both the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions, therefore, prohibited the alienation of all natural resources except
agricultural lands of the public domain.
The 1973 Constitution, however, limited the alienation of lands of the public domain to
individuals who were citizens of the Philippines. Private corporations, even if wholly owned by
Philippine citizens, were no longer allowed to acquire alienable lands of the public domain unlike
in the 1935 Constitution. Section 11, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution declared that
"Sec. 11. The Batasang Pambansa, taking into account conservation, ecological, and
development requirements of the natural resources, shall determine by law the size of
land of the public domain which may be developed, held or acquired by, or leased to,
any qualified individual, corporation, or association, and the conditions therefor. No
private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public domain
except by lease not to exceed one thousand hectares in area nor may any citizen hold
such lands by lease in excess of five hundred hectares or acquire by purchase,
homestead or grant, in excess of twenty-four hectares. No private corporation or
association may hold by lease, concession, license or permit, timber or forest lands and
other timber or forest resources in excess of one hundred thousand hectares. However,
such area may be increased by the Batasang Pambansa upon recommendation of the
National Economic and Development Authority." (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, under the 1973 Constitution, private corporations could hold alienable lands of the public
domain only through lease. Only individuals could now acquire alienable lands of the public
domain, and private corporations became absolutely barred from acquiring any kind of
alienable land of the public domain. The constitutional ban extended to all kinds of alienable
lands of the public domain, while the statutory ban under CA No. 141 applied only to
government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy alienable lands of the public domain.
PD No. 1084 Creating the Public Estates Authority
On February 4, 1977, then President Ferdinand Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1084
creating PEA, a wholly government owned and controlled corporation with a special charter.
Sections 4 and 8 of PD No. 1084, vests PEA with the following purposes and powers:
"Sec. 4. Purpose. The Authority is hereby created for the following purposes:
(a) To reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged areas, by dredging, filling
or other means, or to acquire reclaimed land;
(b) To develop, improve, acquire, administer, deal in, subdivide, dispose, lease and sell
any and all kinds of lands, buildings, estates and other forms of real property, owned,
managed, controlled and/or operated by the government;
(c) To provide for, operate or administer such service as may be necessary for the
efficient, economical and beneficial utilization of the above properties.
Sec. 5. Powers and functions of the Authority. The Authority shall, in carrying out the
purposes for which it is created, have the following powers and functions:

(a)To prescribe its by-laws.

xxx
(i) To hold lands of the public domain in excess of the area permitted to private
corporations by statute.
(j) To reclaim lands and to construct work across, or otherwise, any stream,
watercourse, canal, ditch, flume x x x.
xxx
(o) To perform such acts and exercise such functions as may be necessary for the
attainment of the purposes and objectives herein specified." (Emphasis supplied)
PD No. 1084 authorizes PEA to reclaim both foreshore and submerged areas of the public
domain. Foreshore areas are those covered and uncovered by the ebb and flow of the
tide.61 Submerged areas are those permanently under water regardless of the ebb and flow of
the tide.62 Foreshore and submerged areas indisputably belong to the public domain63 and are
inalienable unless reclaimed, classified as alienable lands open to disposition, and further
declared no longer needed for public service.
The ban in the 1973 Constitution on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the
public domain did not apply to PEA since it was then, and until today, a fully owned government
corporation. The constitutional ban applied then, as it still applies now, only to "private
corporations and associations." PD No. 1084 expressly empowers PEA "to hold lands of the
public domain" even "in excess of the area permitted to private corporations by statute." Thus,
PEA can hold title to private lands, as well as title to lands of the public domain.
In order for PEA to sell its reclaimed foreshore and submerged alienable lands of the public
domain, there must be legislative authority empowering PEA to sell these lands. This legislative
authority is necessary in view of Section 60 of CA No.141, which states
"Sec. 60. x x x; but the land so granted, donated or transferred to a province,
municipality, or branch or subdivision of the Government shall not be alienated,
encumbered or otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting its title, except when
authorized by Congress; x x x." (Emphasis supplied)
Without such legislative authority, PEA could not sell but only lease its reclaimed foreshore and
submerged alienable lands of the public domain. Nevertheless, any legislative authority granted
to PEA to sell its reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain would be subject to the
constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain.
Hence, such legislative authority could only benefit private individuals.
Dispositions under the 1987 Constitution
The 1987 Constitution, like the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions before it, has adopted the Regalian
doctrine. The 1987 Constitution declares that all natural resources are "owned by the State,"

and except for alienable agricultural lands of the public domain, natural resources cannot be
alienated. Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution state that
"Section 2. 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 and
fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The
exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State. x x x.
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber,
mineral lands, and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further
classified by law according to the uses which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of
the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or
associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by
lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the
Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than
twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant.
Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and
subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the
size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased
and the conditions therefor." (Emphasis supplied)
The 1987 Constitution continues the State policy in the 1973 Constitution banning private
corporations fromacquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. Like the 1973
Constitution, the 1987 Constitution allows private corporations to hold alienable lands of the
public domain only through lease. As in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the general law
governing the lease to private corporations of reclaimed, foreshore and marshy alienable lands
of the public domain is still CA No. 141.
The Rationale behind the Constitutional Ban
The rationale behind the constitutional ban on corporations from acquiring, except through
lease, alienable lands of the public domain is not well understood. During the deliberations of
the 1986 Constitutional Commission, the commissioners probed the rationale behind this ban,
thus:
"FR. BERNAS: Mr. Vice-President, my questions have reference to page 3, line 5 which
says:
`No private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public domain
except by lease, not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.'
If we recall, this provision did not exist under the 1935 Constitution, but this was
introduced in the 1973 Constitution. In effect, it prohibits private corporations from
acquiring alienable public lands. But it has not been very clear in jurisprudence what
the reason for this is. In some of the cases decided in 1982 and 1983, it was

indicated that the purpose of this is to prevent large landholdings. Is that the intent
of this provision?
MR. VILLEGAS: I think that is the spirit of the provision.
FR. BERNAS: In existing decisions involving the Iglesia ni Cristo, there were instances
where the Iglesia ni Cristo was not allowed to acquire a mere 313-square meter land
where a chapel stood because the Supreme Court said it would be in violation of this."
(Emphasis supplied)
In Ayog v. Cusi,64 the Court explained the rationale behind this constitutional ban in this way:
"Indeed, one purpose of the constitutional prohibition against purchases of public
agricultural lands by private corporations is to equitably diffuse land ownership or to
encourage 'owner-cultivatorship and the economic family-size farm' and to prevent a
recurrence of cases like the instant case. Huge landholdings by corporations or private
persons had spawned social unrest."
However, if the constitutional intent is to prevent huge landholdings, the Constitution could have
simply limited the size of alienable lands of the public domain that corporations could acquire.
The Constitution could have followed the limitations on individuals, who could acquire not more
than 24 hectares of alienable lands of the public domain under the 1973 Constitution, and not
more than 12 hectares under the 1987 Constitution.
If the constitutional intent is to encourage economic family-size farms, placing the land in the
name of a corporation would be more effective in preventing the break-up of farmlands. If the
farmland is registered in the name of a corporation, upon the death of the owner, his heirs would
inherit shares in the corporation instead of subdivided parcels of the farmland. This would
prevent the continuing break-up of farmlands into smaller and smaller plots from one generation
to the next.
In actual practice, the constitutional ban strengthens the constitutional limitation on individuals
from acquiring more than the allowed area of alienable lands of the public domain. Without the
constitutional ban, individuals who already acquired the maximum area of alienable lands of the
public domain could easily set up corporations to acquire more alienable public lands. An
individual could own as many corporations as his means would allow him. An individual could
even hide his ownership of a corporation by putting his nominees as stockholders of the
corporation. The corporation is a convenient vehicle to circumvent the constitutional limitation on
acquisition by individuals of alienable lands of the public domain.
The constitutional intent, under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, is to transfer ownership of only
a limited area of alienable land of the public domain to a qualified individual. This constitutional
intent is safeguarded by the provision prohibiting corporations from acquiring alienable lands of
the public domain, since the vehicle to circumvent the constitutional intent is removed. The
available alienable public lands are gradually decreasing in the face of an ever-growing
population. The most effective way to insure faithful adherence to this constitutional intent is to
grant or sell alienable lands of the public domain only to individuals. This, it would seem, is the
practical benefit arising from the constitutional ban.
The Amended Joint Venture Agreement

The subject matter of the Amended JVA, as stated in its second Whereas clause, consists of
three properties, namely:
1. "[T]hree partially reclaimed and substantially eroded islands along Emilio Aguinaldo
Boulevard in Paranaque and Las Pinas, Metro Manila, with a combined titled area of
1,578,441 square meters;"
2. "[A]nother area of 2,421,559 square meters contiguous to the three islands;" and
3. "[A]t AMARI's option as approved by PEA, an additional 350 hectares more or less to
regularize the configuration of the reclaimed area."65
PEA confirms that the Amended JVA involves "the development of the Freedom Islands and
further reclamation of about 250 hectares x x x," plus an option "granted to AMARI to
subsequently reclaim another 350 hectares x x x."66
In short, the Amended JVA covers a reclamation area of 750 hectares. Only 157.84 hectares
of the 750-hectare reclamation project have been reclaimed, and the rest of the 592.15
hectares are still submerged areas forming part of Manila Bay.
Under the Amended JVA, AMARI will reimburse PEA the sum of P1,894,129,200.00 for PEA's
"actual cost" in partially reclaiming the Freedom Islands. AMARI will also complete, at its own
expense, the reclamation of the Freedom Islands. AMARI will further shoulder all the
reclamation costs of all the other areas, totaling 592.15 hectares, still to be reclaimed. AMARI
and PEA will share, in the proportion of 70 percent and 30 percent, respectively, the total net
usable area which is defined in the Amended JVA as the total reclaimed area less 30 percent
earmarked for common areas. Title to AMARI's share in the net usable area, totaling 367.5
hectares, will be issued in the name of AMARI. Section 5.2 (c) of the Amended JVA provides
that
"x x x, PEA shall have the duty to execute without delay the necessary deed of transfer
or conveyance of the title pertaining to AMARI's Land share based on the Land
Allocation Plan. PEA, when requested in writing by AMARI, shall then cause the
issuance and delivery of the proper certificates of title covering AMARI's Land
Share in the name of AMARI, x x x; provided, that if more than seventy percent (70%)
of the titled area at any given time pertains to AMARI, PEA shall deliver to AMARI only
seventy percent (70%) of the titles pertaining to AMARI, until such time when a
corresponding proportionate area of additional land pertaining to PEA has been titled."
(Emphasis supplied)
Indisputably, under the Amended JVA AMARI will acquire and own a maximum of 367.5
hectares of reclaimed land which will be titled in its name.
To implement the Amended JVA, PEA delegated to the unincorporated PEA-AMARI joint
venture PEA's statutory authority, rights and privileges to reclaim foreshore and submerged
areas in Manila Bay. Section 3.2.a of the Amended JVA states that
"PEA hereby contributes to the joint venture its rights and privileges to perform Rawland
Reclamation and Horizontal Development as well as own the Reclamation Area, thereby

granting the Joint Venture the full and exclusive right, authority and privilege to
undertake the Project in accordance with the Master Development Plan."
The Amended JVA is the product of a renegotiation of the original JVA dated April 25, 1995 and
its supplemental agreement dated August 9, 1995.
The Threshold Issue
The threshold issue is whether AMARI, a private corporation, can acquire and own under the
Amended JVA 367.5 hectares of reclaimed foreshore and submerged areas in Manila Bay in
view of Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which state that:
"Section 2. 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 and
fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. x x x.
xxx
Section 3. x x x Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural
lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of
the public domain except by lease, x x x."(Emphasis supplied)
Classification of Reclaimed Foreshore and Submerged Areas
PEA readily concedes that lands reclaimed from foreshore or submerged areas of Manila Bay
are alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. In its Memorandum,67 PEA admits that
"Under the Public Land Act (CA 141, as amended), reclaimed lands are classified as
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain:
'Sec. 59. The lands disposable under this title shall be classified as follows:
(a) Lands reclaimed by the government by dredging, filling, or other means;
x x x.'" (Emphasis supplied)
Likewise, the Legal Task Force68 constituted under Presidential Administrative Order No. 365
admitted in its Report and Recommendation to then President Fidel V. Ramos, "[R]eclaimed
lands are classified as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain."69 The Legal
Task Force concluded that
"D. Conclusion
Reclaimed lands are lands of the public domain. However, by statutory authority, the
rights of ownership and disposition over reclaimed lands have been transferred to PEA,
by virtue of which PEA, as owner, may validly convey the same to any qualified person
without violating the Constitution or any statute.

The constitutional provision prohibiting private corporations from holding public land,
except by lease (Sec. 3, Art. XVII,70 1987 Constitution), does not apply to reclaimed
lands whose ownership has passed on to PEA by statutory grant."
Under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, the foreshore and submerged areas of
Manila Bay are part of the "lands of the public domain, waters x x x and other natural resources"
and consequently "owned by the State." As such, foreshore and submerged areas "shall not be
alienated," unless they are classified as "agricultural lands" of the public domain. The mere
reclamation of these areas by PEA does not convert these inalienable natural resources of the
State into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. There must be a law or
presidential proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable
and open to disposition or concession. Moreover, these reclaimed lands cannot be classified as
alienable or disposable if the law has reserved them for some public or quasi-public use.71
Section 8 of CA No. 141 provides that "only those lands shall be declared open to disposition or
concession which have been officially delimited and classified."72 The President has the
authority to classify inalienable lands of the public domain into alienable or disposable lands of
the public domain, pursuant to Section 6 of CA No. 141. In Laurel vs. Garcia,73 the Executive
Department attempted to sell the Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan, which was acquired by
the Philippine Government for use as the Chancery of the Philippine Embassy. Although the
Chancery had transferred to another location thirteen years earlier, the Court still ruled that,
under Article 42274 of the Civil Code, a property of public dominion retains such character until
formally declared otherwise. The Court ruled that
"The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy
service does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion
happens only if the property is withdrawn from public use (Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene
Co. v. Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481 [1975]. A property continues to be part of the public
domain, not available for private appropriation or ownership 'until there is a formal
declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it from being such' (Ignacio
v. Director of Lands, 108 Phil. 335 [1960]." (Emphasis supplied)
PD No. 1085, issued on February 4, 1977, authorized the issuance of special land patents for
lands reclaimed by PEA from the foreshore or submerged areas of Manila Bay. On January 19,
1988 then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517 in the name of PEA for
the 157.84 hectares comprising the partially reclaimed Freedom Islands. Subsequently, on April
9, 1999 the Register of Deeds of the Municipality of Paranaque issued TCT Nos. 7309, 7311
and 7312 in the name of PEA pursuant to Section 103 of PD No. 1529 authorizing the issuance
of certificates of title corresponding to land patents. To this day, these certificates of title are still
in the name of PEA.
PD No. 1085, coupled with President Aquino's actual issuance of a special patent covering the
Freedom Islands, is equivalent to an official proclamation classifying the Freedom Islands as
alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. PD No. 1085 and President Aquino's
issuance of a land patent also constitute a declaration that the Freedom Islands are no longer
needed for public service. The Freedom Islands are thus alienable or disposable lands of
the public domain, open to disposition or concession to qualified parties.
At the time then President Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517, PEA had already reclaimed
the Freedom Islands although subsequently there were partial erosions on some areas. The

government had also completed the necessary surveys on these islands. Thus, the Freedom
Islands were no longer part of Manila Bay but part of the land mass. Section 3, Article XII of the
1987 Constitution classifies lands of the public domain into "agricultural, forest or timber, mineral
lands, and national parks." Being neither timber, mineral, nor national park lands, the reclaimed
Freedom Islands necessarily fall under the classification of agricultural lands of the public
domain. Under the 1987 Constitution, agricultural lands of the public domain are the only natural
resources that the State may alienate to qualified private parties. All other natural resources,
such as the seas or bays, are "waters x x x owned by the State" forming part of the public
domain, and are inalienable pursuant to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
AMARI claims that the Freedom Islands are private lands because CDCP, then a private
corporation, reclaimed the islands under a contract dated November 20, 1973 with the
Commissioner of Public Highways. AMARI, citing Article 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of
1866, argues that "if the ownership of reclaimed lands may be given to the party constructing
the works, then it cannot be said that reclaimed lands are lands of the public domain which the
State may not alienate."75 Article 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters reads as follows:
"Article 5. Lands reclaimed from the sea in consequence of works constructed by the
State, or by the provinces, pueblos or private persons, with proper permission, shall
become the property of the party constructing such works, unless otherwise provided
by the terms of the grant of authority." (Emphasis supplied)
Under Article 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, private parties could reclaim from the sea
only with "proper permission" from the State. Private parties could own the reclaimed land only if
not "otherwise provided by the terms of the grant of authority." This clearly meant that no one
could reclaim from the sea without permission from the State because the sea is property of
public dominion. It also meant that the State could grant or withhold ownership of the reclaimed
land because any reclaimed land, like the sea from which it emerged, belonged to the State.
Thus, a private person reclaiming from the sea without permission from the State could not
acquire ownership of the reclaimed land which would remain property of public dominion like the
sea it replaced.76 Article 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 adopted the time-honored
principle of land ownership that "all lands that were not acquired from the government, either by
purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain."77
Article 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters must be read together with laws subsequently enacted
on the disposition of public lands. In particular, CA No. 141 requires that lands of the public
domain must first be classified as alienable or disposable before the government can alienate
them. These lands must not be reserved for public or quasi-public purposes.78 Moreover, the
contract between CDCP and the government was executed after the effectivity of the 1973
Constitution which barred private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the
public domain. This contract could not have converted the Freedom Islands into private lands of
a private corporation.
Presidential Decree No. 3-A, issued on January 11, 1973, revoked all laws authorizing the
reclamation of areas under water and revested solely in the National Government the power to
reclaim lands. Section 1 of PD No. 3-A declared that
"The provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding, the reclamation of areas
under water, whether foreshore or inland, shall be limited to the National Government
or any person authorized by it under a proper contract. (Emphasis supplied)

x x x."
PD No. 3-A repealed Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 because reclamation of
areas under water could now be undertaken only by the National Government or by a person
contracted by the National Government. Private parties may reclaim from the sea only under a
contract with the National Government, and no longer by grant or permission as provided in
Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866.
Executive Order No. 525, issued on February 14, 1979, designated PEA as the National
Government's implementing arm to undertake "all reclamation projects of the government,"
which "shall be undertaken by the PEA or through a proper contract executed by it with
any person or entity." Under such contract, a private party receives compensation for
reclamation services rendered to PEA. Payment to the contractor may be in cash, or in kind
consisting of portions of the reclaimed land, subject to the constitutional ban on private
corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain. The reclaimed land can be
used as payment in kind only if the reclaimed land is first classified as alienable or disposable
land open to disposition, and then declared no longer needed for public service.
The Amended JVA covers not only the Freedom Islands, but also an additional 592.15 hectares
which are still submerged and forming part of Manila Bay. There is no legislative or
Presidential act classifying these submerged areas as alienable or disposable lands of
the public domain open to disposition. These submerged areas are not covered by any
patent or certificate of title. There can be no dispute that these submerged areas form part of
the public domain, and in their present state are inalienable and outside the commerce of
man. Until reclaimed from the sea, these submerged areas are, under the Constitution, "waters
x x x owned by the State," forming part of the public domain and consequently inalienable. Only
when actually reclaimed from the sea can these submerged areas be classified as public
agricultural lands, which under the Constitution are the only natural resources that the State
may alienate. Once reclaimed and transformed into public agricultural lands, the government
may then officially classify these lands as alienable or disposable lands open to disposition.
Thereafter, the government may declare these lands no longer needed for public service. Only
then can these reclaimed lands be considered alienable or disposable lands of the public
domain and within the commerce of man.
The classification of PEA's reclaimed foreshore and submerged lands into alienable or
disposable lands open to disposition is necessary because PEA is tasked under its charter to
undertake public services that require the use of lands of the public domain. Under Section 5 of
PD No. 1084, the functions of PEA include the following: "[T]o own or operate railroads,
tramways and other kinds of land transportation, x x x; [T]o construct, maintain and operate
such systems of sanitary sewers as may be necessary; [T]o construct, maintain and operate
such storm drains as may be necessary." PEA is empowered to issue "rules and regulations as
may be necessary for the proper use by private parties of any or all of the highways, roads,
utilities, buildings and/or any of its properties and to impose or collect fees or tolls for their
use." Thus, part of the reclaimed foreshore and submerged lands held by the PEA would
actually be needed for public use or service since many of the functions imposed on PEA by its
charter constitute essential public services.
Moreover, Section 1 of Executive Order No. 525 provides that PEA "shall be primarily
responsible for integrating, directing, and coordinating all reclamation projects for and on behalf
of the National Government." The same section also states that "[A]ll reclamation projects shall

be approved by the President upon recommendation of the PEA, and shall be undertaken by
the PEA or through a proper contract executed by it with any person or entity; x x x." Thus,
under EO No. 525, in relation to PD No. 3-A and PD No.1084, PEA became the primary
implementing agency of the National Government to reclaim foreshore and submerged lands of
the public domain. EO No. 525 recognized PEA as the government entity "to undertake the
reclamation of lands and ensure their maximum utilization inpromoting public welfare and
interests."79 Since large portions of these reclaimed lands would obviously be needed for public
service, there must be a formal declaration segregating reclaimed lands no longer needed for
public service from those still needed for public service.1wphi1.nt
Section 3 of EO No. 525, by declaring that all lands reclaimed by PEA "shall belong to or be
owned by the PEA," could not automatically operate to classify inalienable lands into alienable
or disposable lands of the public domain. Otherwise, reclaimed foreshore and submerged lands
of the public domain would automatically become alienable once reclaimed by PEA, whether or
not classified as alienable or disposable.
The Revised Administrative Code of 1987, a later law than either PD No. 1084 or EO No. 525,
vests in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("DENR" for brevity) the
following powers and functions:
"Sec. 4. Powers and Functions. The Department shall:
(1) x x x
xxx
(4) Exercise supervision and control over forest lands, alienable and disposable
public lands, mineral resources and, in the process of exercising such control, impose
appropriate taxes, fees, charges, rentals and any such form of levy and collect such
revenues for the exploration, development, utilization or gathering of such resources;
xxx
(14) Promulgate rules, regulations and guidelines on the issuance of licenses,
permits, concessions, lease agreements and such other privileges concerning the
development, exploration and utilization of the country's marine, freshwater, and
brackish water and over all aquatic resources of the country and shall continue to
oversee, supervise and police our natural resources; cancel or cause to cancel such
privileges upon failure, non-compliance or violations of any regulation, order, and for all
other causes which are in furtherance of the conservation of natural resources and
supportive of the national interest;
(15) Exercise exclusive jurisdiction on the management and disposition of all
lands of the public domain and serve as the sole agency responsible for
classification, sub-classification, surveying and titling of lands in consultation with
appropriate agencies."80 (Emphasis supplied)
As manager, conservator and overseer of the natural resources of the State, DENR exercises
"supervision and control over alienable and disposable public lands." DENR also exercises
"exclusive jurisdiction on the management and disposition of all lands of the public domain."

Thus, DENR decides whether areas under water, like foreshore or submerged areas of Manila
Bay, should be reclaimed or not. This means that PEA needs authorization from DENR before
PEA can undertake reclamation projects in Manila Bay, or in any part of the country.
DENR also exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the disposition of all lands of the public domain.
Hence, DENR decides whether reclaimed lands of PEA should be classified as alienable under
Sections 681 and 782 of CA No. 141. Once DENR decides that the reclaimed lands should be so
classified, it then recommends to the President the issuance of a proclamation classifying the
lands as alienable or disposable lands of the public domain open to disposition. We note that
then DENR Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. countersigned Special Patent No. 3517 in
compliance with the Revised Administrative Code and Sections 6 and 7 of CA No. 141.
In short, DENR is vested with the power to authorize the reclamation of areas under water,
while PEA is vested with the power to undertake the physical reclamation of areas under water,
whether directly or through private contractors. DENR is also empowered to classify lands of the
public domain into alienable or disposable lands subject to the approval of the President. On the
other hand, PEA is tasked to develop, sell or lease the reclaimed alienable lands of the public
domain.
Clearly, the mere physical act of reclamation by PEA of foreshore or submerged areas does not
make the reclaimed lands alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, much less
patrimonial lands of PEA. Likewise, the mere transfer by the National Government of lands of
the public domain to PEA does not make the lands alienable or disposable lands of the public
domain, much less patrimonial lands of PEA.
Absent two official acts a classification that these lands are alienable or disposable and open
to disposition and a declaration that these lands are not needed for public service, lands
reclaimed by PEA remain inalienable lands of the public domain. Only such an official
classification and formal declaration can convert reclaimed lands into alienable or disposable
lands of the public domain, open to disposition under the Constitution, Title I and Title III83 of CA
No. 141 and other applicable laws.84
PEA's Authority to Sell Reclaimed Lands
PEA, like the Legal Task Force, argues that as alienable or disposable lands of the public
domain, the reclaimed lands shall be disposed of in accordance with CA No. 141, the Public
Land Act. PEA, citing Section 60 of CA No. 141, admits that reclaimed lands transferred to a
branch or subdivision of the government "shall not be alienated, encumbered, or otherwise
disposed of in a manner affecting its title, except when authorized by Congress: x x
x."85 (Emphasis by PEA)
In Laurel vs. Garcia,86 the Court cited Section 48 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987,
which states that
"Sec. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real Property. Whenever real property of the
Government is authorized by law to be conveyed, the deed of conveyance shall be
executed in behalf of the government by the following: x x x."
Thus, the Court concluded that a law is needed to convey any real property belonging to the
Government. The Court declared that -

"It is not for the President to convey real property of the government on his or her own
sole will. Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law enacted
by the Congress. It requires executive and legislative concurrence." (Emphasis
supplied)
PEA contends that PD No. 1085 and EO No. 525 constitute the legislative authority allowing
PEA to sell its reclaimed lands. PD No. 1085, issued on February 4, 1977, provides that
"The land reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore area of Manila Bay pursuant to
the contract for the reclamation and construction of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road
Project between the Republic of the Philippines and the Construction and Development
Corporation of the Philippines dated November 20, 1973 and/or any other contract or
reclamation covering the same area is hereby transferred, conveyed and assigned to
the ownership and administration of the Public Estates Authority established
pursuant to PD No. 1084; Provided, however, That the rights and interests of the
Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines pursuant to the aforesaid
contract shall be recognized and respected.
Henceforth, the Public Estates Authority shall exercise the rights and assume the
obligations of the Republic of the Philippines (Department of Public Highways) arising
from, or incident to, the aforesaid contract between the Republic of the Philippines and
the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines.
In consideration of the foregoing transfer and assignment, the Public Estates Authority
shall issue in favor of the Republic of the Philippines the corresponding shares of stock
in said entity with an issued value of said shares of stock (which) shall be deemed fully
paid and non-assessable.
The Secretary of Public Highways and the General Manager of the Public Estates
Authority shall execute such contracts or agreements, including appropriate agreements
with the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines, as may be
necessary to implement the above.
Special land patent/patents shall be issued by the Secretary of Natural Resources
in favor of the Public Estates Authority without prejudice to the subsequent
transfer to the contractor or his assignees of such portion or portions of the land
reclaimed or to be reclaimed as provided for in the above-mentioned contract. On
the basis of such patents, the Land Registration Commission shall issue the
corresponding certificate of title." (Emphasis supplied)
On the other hand, Section 3 of EO No. 525, issued on February 14, 1979, provides that "Sec. 3. All lands reclaimed by PEA shall belong to or be owned by the PEA which
shall be responsible for its administration, development, utilization or disposition in
accordance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1084. Any and all income that
the PEA may derive from the sale, lease or use of reclaimed lands shall be used in
accordance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1084."
There is no express authority under either PD No. 1085 or EO No. 525 for PEA to sell its
reclaimed lands. PD No. 1085 merely transferred "ownership and administration" of lands

reclaimed from Manila Bay to PEA, while EO No. 525 declared that lands reclaimed by PEA
"shall belong to or be owned by PEA." EO No. 525 expressly states that PEA should dispose of
its reclaimed lands "in accordance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1084," the
charter of PEA.
PEA's charter, however, expressly tasks PEA "to develop, improve, acquire, administer, deal in,
subdivide, dispose, lease and sell any and all kinds of lands x x x owned, managed,
controlled and/or operated by the government."87(Emphasis supplied) There is, therefore,
legislative authority granted to PEA to sell its lands, whether patrimonial or alienable
lands of the public domain. PEA may sell to private parties its patrimonial propertiesin
accordance with the PEA charter free from constitutional limitations. The constitutional ban on
private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain does not apply to the
sale of PEA's patrimonial lands.
PEA may also sell its alienable or disposable lands of the public domain to private
individuals since, with the legislative authority, there is no longer any statutory prohibition
against such sales and the constitutional ban does not apply to individuals. PEA, however,
cannot sell any of its alienable or disposable lands of the public domain to private corporations
since Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution expressly prohibits such sales. The
legislative authority benefits only individuals. Private corporations remain barred from acquiring
any kind of alienable land of the public domain, including government reclaimed lands.
The provision in PD No. 1085 stating that portions of the reclaimed lands could be transferred
by PEA to the "contractor or his assignees" (Emphasis supplied) would not apply to private
corporations but only to individuals because of the constitutional ban. Otherwise, the provisions
of PD No. 1085 would violate both the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.
The requirement of public auction in the sale of reclaimed lands
Assuming the reclaimed lands of PEA are classified as alienable or disposable lands open to
disposition, and further declared no longer needed for public service, PEA would have to
conduct a public bidding in selling or leasing these lands. PEA must observe the provisions of
Sections 63 and 67 of CA No. 141 requiring public auction, in the absence of a law exempting
PEA from holding a public auction.88 Special Patent No. 3517 expressly states that the patent is
issued by authority of the Constitution and PD No. 1084, "supplemented by Commonwealth Act
No. 141, as amended." This is an acknowledgment that the provisions of CA No. 141 apply to
the disposition of reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain unless otherwise provided by
law. Executive Order No. 654,89 which authorizes PEA "to determine the kind and manner of
payment for the transfer" of its assets and properties, does not exempt PEA from the
requirement of public auction. EO No. 654 merely authorizes PEA to decide the mode of
payment, whether in kind and in installment, but does not authorize PEA to dispense with public
auction.
Moreover, under Section 79 of PD No. 1445, otherwise known as the Government Auditing
Code, the government is required to sell valuable government property through public bidding.
Section 79 of PD No. 1445 mandates that
"Section 79. When government property has become unserviceable for any cause, or
is no longer needed, it shall, upon application of the officer accountable therefor, be
inspected by the head of the agency or his duly authorized representative in the

presence of the auditor concerned and, if found to be valueless or unsaleable, it may be

destroyed in their presence. If found to be valuable, it may be sold at public auction
to the highest bidder under the supervision of the proper committee on award or
similar body in the presence of the auditor concerned or other authorized representative
of the Commission, after advertising by printed notice in the Official Gazette, or for
not less than three consecutive days in any newspaper of general circulation, or
where the value of the property does not warrant the expense of publication, by notices
posted for a like period in at least three public places in the locality where the property is
to be sold. In the event that the public auction fails, the property may be sold at a
private sale at such price as may be fixed by the same committee or body
concerned and approved by the Commission."
It is only when the public auction fails that a negotiated sale is allowed, in which case the
Commission on Audit must approve the selling price.90 The Commission on Audit implements
Section 79 of the Government Auditing Code through Circular No. 89-29691 dated January 27,
1989. This circular emphasizes that government assets must be disposed of only through public
auction, and a negotiated sale can be resorted to only in case of "failure of public auction."
At the public auction sale, only Philippine citizens are qualified to bid for PEA's reclaimed
foreshore and submerged alienable lands of the public domain. Private corporations are barred
from bidding at the auction sale of any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
PEA originally scheduled a public bidding for the Freedom Islands on December 10, 1991. PEA
imposed a condition that the winning bidder should reclaim another 250 hectares of submerged
areas to regularize the shape of the Freedom Islands, under a 60-40 sharing of the additional
reclaimed areas in favor of the winning bidder.92 No one, however, submitted a bid. On
December 23, 1994, the Government Corporate Counsel advised PEA it could sell the Freedom
Islands through negotiation, without need of another public bidding, because of the failure of the
public bidding on December 10, 1991.93
However, the original JVA dated April 25, 1995 covered not only the Freedom Islands and the
additional 250 hectares still to be reclaimed, it also granted an option to AMARI to reclaim
another 350 hectares. The original JVA, a negotiated contract, enlarged the reclamation area
to 750 hectares.94 The failure of public bidding on December 10, 1991, involving only 407.84
hectares,95 is not a valid justification for a negotiated sale of 750 hectares, almost double the
area publicly auctioned. Besides, the failure of public bidding happened on December 10, 1991,
more than three years before the signing of the original JVA on April 25, 1995. The economic
situation in the country had greatly improved during the intervening period.
Reclamation under the BOT Law and the Local Government Code
The constitutional prohibition in Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution is absolute and
clear: "Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public
domain except by lease, x x x." Even Republic Act No. 6957 ("BOT Law," for brevity), cited by
PEA and AMARI as legislative authority to sell reclaimed lands to private parties, recognizes the
constitutional ban. Section 6 of RA No. 6957 states
"Sec. 6. Repayment Scheme. - For the financing, construction, operation and
maintenance of any infrastructure projects undertaken through the build-operate-andtransfer arrangement or any of its variations pursuant to the provisions of this Act, the

project proponent x x x may likewise be repaid in the form of a share in the revenue of
the project or other non-monetary payments, such as, but not limited to, the grant of a
portion or percentage of the reclaimed land, subject to the constitutional
requirements with respect to the ownership of the land: x x x." (Emphasis supplied)
A private corporation, even one that undertakes the physical reclamation of a government BOT
project, cannot acquire reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain in view of the
constitutional ban.
Section 302 of the Local Government Code, also mentioned by PEA and AMARI, authorizes
local governments in land reclamation projects to pay the contractor or developer in kind
consisting of a percentage of the reclaimed land, to wit:
"Section 302. Financing, Construction, Maintenance, Operation, and Management of
Infrastructure Projects by the Private Sector. x x x
xxx
In case of land reclamation or construction of industrial estates, the repayment plan may
consist of the grant of a portion or percentage of the reclaimed land or the industrial
estate constructed."
Although Section 302 of the Local Government Code does not contain a proviso similar to that
of the BOT Law, the constitutional restrictions on land ownership automatically apply even
though not expressly mentioned in the Local Government Code.
Thus, under either the BOT Law or the Local Government Code, the contractor or developer, if
a corporate entity, can only be paid with leaseholds on portions of the reclaimed land. If the
contractor or developer is an individual, portions of the reclaimed land, not exceeding 12
hectares96 of non-agricultural lands, may be conveyed to him in ownership in view of the
legislative authority allowing such conveyance. This is the only way these provisions of the BOT
Law and the Local Government Code can avoid a direct collision with Section 3, Article XII of
the 1987 Constitution.
Registration of lands of the public domain
Finally, PEA theorizes that the "act of conveying the ownership of the reclaimed lands to public
respondent PEA transformed such lands of the public domain to private lands." This theory is
echoed by AMARI which maintains that the "issuance of the special patent leading to the
eventual issuance of title takes the subject land away from the land of public domain and
converts the property into patrimonial or private property." In short, PEA and AMARI contend
that with the issuance of Special Patent No. 3517 and the corresponding certificates of titles, the
157.84 hectares comprising the Freedom Islands have become private lands of PEA. In support
of their theory, PEA and AMARI cite the following rulings of the Court:
1. Sumail v. Judge of CFI of Cotabato,97 where the Court held
"Once the patent was granted and the corresponding certificate of title was issued, the
land ceased to be part of the public domain and became private property over which the
Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction."

2. Lee Hong Hok v. David,98 where the Court declared "After the registration and issuance of the certificate and duplicate certificate of title
based on a public land patent, the land covered thereby automatically comes under the
operation of Republic Act 496 subject to all the safeguards provided therein."3. Heirs of
Gregorio Tengco v. Heirs of Jose Aliwalas,99 where the Court ruled "While the Director of Lands has the power to review homestead patents, he may do so
only so long as the land remains part of the public domain and continues to be under his
exclusive control; but once the patent is registered and a certificate of title is issued, the
land ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property over which
the Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction."
4. Manalo v. Intermediate Appellate Court,100 where the Court held
"When the lots in dispute were certified as disposable on May 19, 1971, and free patents
were issued covering the same in favor of the private respondents, the said lots ceased
to be part of the public domain and, therefore, the Director of Lands lost jurisdiction over
the same."
5.Republic v. Court of Appeals,101 where the Court stated
"Proclamation No. 350, dated October 9, 1956, of President Magsaysay legally effected
a land grant to the Mindanao Medical Center, Bureau of Medical Services, Department
of Health, of the whole lot, validly sufficient for initial registration under the Land
Registration Act. Such land grant is constitutive of a 'fee simple' title or absolute title in
favor of petitioner Mindanao Medical Center. Thus, Section 122 of the Act, which
governs the registration of grants or patents involving public lands, provides that
'Whenever public lands in the Philippine Islands belonging to the Government of the
United States or to the Government of the Philippines are alienated, granted or
conveyed to persons or to public or private corporations, the same shall be brought
forthwith under the operation of this Act (Land Registration Act, Act 496) and shall
become registered lands.'"
The first four cases cited involve petitions to cancel the land patents and the corresponding
certificates of titlesissued to private parties. These four cases uniformly hold that the Director
of Lands has no jurisdiction over private lands or that upon issuance of the certificate of title the
land automatically comes under the Torrens System. The fifth case cited involves the
registration under the Torrens System of a 12.8-hectare public land granted by the National
Government to Mindanao Medical Center, a government unit under the Department of Health.
The National Government transferred the 12.8-hectare public land to serve as the site for the
hospital buildings and other facilities of Mindanao Medical Center, which performed a public
service. The Court affirmed the registration of the 12.8-hectare public land in the name of
Mindanao Medical Center under Section 122 of Act No. 496. This fifth case is an example of a
public land being registered under Act No. 496 without the land losing its character as a
property of public dominion.
In the instant case, the only patent and certificates of title issued are those in the name of PEA,
a wholly government owned corporation performing public as well as proprietary functions. No
patent or certificate of title has been issued to any private party. No one is asking the Director of

Lands to cancel PEA's patent or certificates of title. In fact, the thrust of the instant petition is
that PEA's certificates of title should remain with PEA, and the land covered by these
certificates, being alienable lands of the public domain, should not be sold to a private
corporation.
Registration of land under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529 does not vest in the registrant private or
public ownership of the land. Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership but is merely
evidence of ownership previously conferred by any of the recognized modes of acquiring
ownership. Registration does not give the registrant a better right than what the registrant had
prior to the registration.102 The registration of lands of the public domain under the Torrens
system, by itself, cannot convert public lands into private lands.103
Jurisprudence holding that upon the grant of the patent or issuance of the certificate of title the
alienable land of the public domain automatically becomes private land cannot apply to
government units and entities like PEA. The transfer of the Freedom Islands to PEA was made
subject to the provisions of CA No. 141 as expressly stated in Special Patent No. 3517 issued
by then President Aquino, to wit:
"NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW YE, that by authority of the Constitution of the Philippines
and in conformity with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1084, supplemented
by Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, there are hereby granted and conveyed
unto the Public Estates Authority the aforesaid tracts of land containing a total area of
one million nine hundred fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety four (1,915,894) square
meters; the technical description of which are hereto attached and made an integral part
hereof." (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the provisions of CA No. 141 apply to the Freedom Islands on matters not covered by PD
No. 1084. Section 60 of CA No. 141 prohibits, "except when authorized by Congress," the sale
of alienable lands of the public domain that are transferred to government units or entities.
Section 60 of CA No. 141 constitutes, under Section 44 of PD No. 1529, a "statutory lien
affecting title" of the registered land even if not annotated on the certificate of title.104Alienable
lands of the public domain held by government entities under Section 60 of CA No. 141 remain
public lands because they cannot be alienated or encumbered unless Congress passes a law
authorizing their disposition. Congress, however, cannot authorize the sale to private
corporations of reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain because of the constitutional
ban. Only individuals can benefit from such law.
The grant of legislative authority to sell public lands in accordance with Section 60 of CA No.
141 does not automatically convert alienable lands of the public domain into private or
patrimonial lands. The alienable lands of the public domain must be transferred to qualified
private parties, or to government entities not tasked to dispose of public lands, before these
lands can become private or patrimonial lands. Otherwise, the constitutional ban will become
illusory if Congress can declare lands of the public domain as private or patrimonial lands in the
hands of a government agency tasked to dispose of public lands. This will allow private
corporations to acquire directly from government agencies limitless areas of lands which, prior
to such law, are concededly public lands.
Under EO No. 525, PEA became the central implementing agency of the National
Government to reclaim foreshore and submerged areas of the public domain. Thus, EO No. 525
declares that

"EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 525

Designating the Public Estates Authority as the Agency Primarily Responsible for all
Reclamation Projects
Whereas, there are several reclamation projects which are ongoing or being proposed to
be undertaken in various parts of the country which need to be evaluated for consistency
with national programs;
Whereas, there is a need to give further institutional support to the Government's
declared policy to provide for a coordinated, economical and efficient reclamation of
lands;
Whereas, Presidential Decree No. 3-A requires that all reclamation of areas shall be
limited to the National Government or any person authorized by it under proper contract;
Whereas, a central authority is needed to act on behalf of the National
Government which shall ensure a coordinated and integrated approach in the
reclamation of lands;
Whereas, Presidential Decree No. 1084 creates the Public Estates Authority as a
government corporation to undertake reclamation of lands and ensure their
maximum utilization in promoting public welfare and interests; and
Whereas, Presidential Decree No. 1416 provides the President with continuing authority
to reorganize the national government including the transfer, abolition, or merger of
functions and offices.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by
virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and pursuant to Presidential
Decree No. 1416, do hereby order and direct the following:
Section 1. The Public Estates Authority (PEA) shall be primarily responsible for
integrating, directing, and coordinating all reclamation projects for and on behalf
of the National Government. All reclamation projects shall be approved by the
President upon recommendation of the PEA, and shall be undertaken by the PEA or
through a proper contract executed by it with any person or entity; Provided, that,
reclamation projects of any national government agency or entity authorized under its
charter shall be undertaken in consultation with the PEA upon approval of the President.
x x x ."
As the central implementing agency tasked to undertake reclamation projects nationwide, with
authority to sell reclaimed lands, PEA took the place of DENR as the government agency
charged with leasing or selling reclaimed lands of the public domain. The reclaimed lands being
leased or sold by PEA are not private lands, in the same manner that DENR, when it disposes
of other alienable lands, does not dispose of private lands but alienable lands of the public
domain. Only when qualified private parties acquire these lands will the lands become private
lands. In the hands of the government agency tasked and authorized to dispose of

alienable of disposable lands of the public domain, these lands are still public, not
private lands.
Furthermore, PEA's charter expressly states that PEA "shall hold lands of the public domain"
as well as "any and all kinds of lands." PEA can hold both lands of the public domain and
private lands. Thus, the mere fact that alienable lands of the public domain like the Freedom
Islands are transferred to PEA and issued land patents or certificates of title in PEA's name
does not automatically make such lands private.
To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be transferred to PEA as private
lands will sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on private corporations from
acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. PEA will simply turn around, as PEA
has now done under the Amended JVA, and transfer several hundreds of hectares of these
reclaimed and still to be reclaimed lands to a single private corporation in only one transaction.
This scheme will effectively nullify the constitutional ban in Section 3, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution which was intended to diffuse equitably the ownership of alienable lands of the
public domain among Filipinos, now numbering over 80 million strong.
This scheme, if allowed, can even be applied to alienable agricultural lands of the public domain
since PEA can "acquire x x x any and all kinds of lands." This will open the floodgates to
corporations and even individuals acquiring hundreds of hectares of alienable lands of the
public domain under the guise that in the hands of PEA these lands are private lands. This will
result in corporations amassing huge landholdings never before seen in this country - creating
the very evil that the constitutional ban was designed to prevent. This will completely reverse
the clear direction of constitutional development in this country. The 1935 Constitution allowed
private corporations to acquire not more than 1,024 hectares of public lands.105 The 1973
Constitution prohibited private corporations from acquiring any kind of public land, and the 1987
Constitution has unequivocally reiterated this prohibition.
The contention of PEA and AMARI that public lands, once registered under Act No. 496 or PD
No. 1529, automatically become private lands is contrary to existing laws. Several laws
authorize lands of the public domain to be registered under the Torrens System or Act No. 496,
now PD No. 1529, without losing their character as public lands. Section 122 of Act No. 496,
and Section 103 of PD No. 1529, respectively, provide as follows:
Act No. 496
"Sec. 122. Whenever public lands in the Philippine Islands belonging to the x x x
Government of the Philippine Islands are alienated, granted, or conveyed to persons or
the public or private corporations, the same shall be brought forthwith under the
operation of this Act and shall become registered lands."
PD No. 1529
"Sec. 103. Certificate of Title to Patents. Whenever public land is by the Government
alienated, granted or conveyed to any person, the same shall be brought forthwith
under the operation of this Decree." (Emphasis supplied)
Based on its legislative history, the phrase "conveyed to any person" in Section 103 of PD No.
1529 includes conveyances of public lands to public corporations.

Alienable lands of the public domain "granted, donated, or transferred to a province,

municipality, or branch or subdivision of the Government," as provided in Section 60 of CA No.
141, may be registered under the Torrens System pursuant to Section 103 of PD No. 1529.
Such registration, however, is expressly subject to the condition in Section 60 of CA No. 141
that the land "shall not be alienated, encumbered or otherwise disposed of in a manner
affecting its title, except when authorized by Congress." This provision refers to government
reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands of the public domain that have been titled but still cannot
be alienated or encumbered unless expressly authorized by Congress. The need for legislative
authority prevents the registered land of the public domain from becoming private land that can
be disposed of to qualified private parties.
The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 also recognizes that lands of the public domain may
be registered under the Torrens System. Section 48, Chapter 12, Book I of the Code states
"Sec. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real Property. Whenever real property of the
Government is authorized by law to be conveyed, the deed of conveyance shall be
executed in behalf of the government by the following:
(1) x x x
(2) For property belonging to the Republic of the Philippines, but titled in the name
of any political subdivision or of any corporate agency or instrumentality, by the
executive head of the agency or instrumentality." (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, private property purchased by the National Government for expansion of a public wharf
may be titled in the name of a government corporation regulating port operations in the country.
Private property purchased by the National Government for expansion of an airport may also be
titled in the name of the government agency tasked to administer the airport. Private property
donated to a municipality for use as a town plaza or public school site may likewise be titled in
the name of the municipality.106 All these properties become properties of the public domain,
and if already registered under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529, remain registered land. There is no
requirement or provision in any existing law for the de-registration of land from the Torrens
System.
Private lands taken by the Government for public use under its power of eminent domain
become unquestionably part of the public domain. Nevertheless, Section 85 of PD No. 1529
authorizes the Register of Deeds to issue in the name of the National Government new
certificates of title covering such expropriated lands. Section 85 of PD No. 1529 states
"Sec. 85. Land taken by eminent domain. Whenever any registered land, or interest
therein, is expropriated or taken by eminent domain, the National Government, province,
city or municipality, or any other agency or instrumentality exercising such right shall file
for registration in the proper Registry a certified copy of the judgment which shall state
definitely by an adequate description, the particular property or interest expropriated, the
number of the certificate of title, and the nature of the public use. A memorandum of the
right or interest taken shall be made on each certificate of title by the Register of Deeds,
and where the fee simple is taken, a new certificate shall be issued in favor of the
National Government, province, city, municipality, or any other agency or
instrumentality exercising such right for the land so taken. The legal expenses incident to

the memorandum of registration or issuance of a new certificate of title shall be for the
account of the authority taking the land or interest therein." (Emphasis supplied)
Consequently, lands registered under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529 are not exclusively private or
patrimonial lands. Lands of the public domain may also be registered pursuant to existing laws.
AMARI makes a parting shot that the Amended JVA is not a sale to AMARI of the Freedom
Islands or of the lands to be reclaimed from submerged areas of Manila Bay. In the words of
AMARI, the Amended JVA "is not a sale but a joint venture with a stipulation for reimbursement
of the original cost incurred by PEA for the earlier reclamation and construction works
performed by the CDCP under its 1973 contract with the Republic." Whether the Amended JVA
is a sale or a joint venture, the fact remains that the Amended JVA requires PEA to "cause the
issuance and delivery of the certificates of title conveying AMARI's Land Share in the name of
AMARI."107
This stipulation still contravenes Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which provides
that private corporations "shall not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by
lease." The transfer of title and ownership to AMARI clearly means that AMARI will "hold" the
reclaimed lands other than by lease. The transfer of title and ownership is a "disposition" of the
reclaimed lands, a transaction considered a sale or alienation under CA No. 141,108 the
Government Auditing Code,109 and Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
The Regalian doctrine is deeply implanted in our legal system. Foreshore and submerged areas
form part of the public domain and are inalienable. Lands reclaimed from foreshore and
submerged areas also form part of the public domain and are also inalienable, unless converted
pursuant to law into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. Historically, lands
reclaimed by the government are sui generis, not available for sale to private parties unlike
other alienable public lands. Reclaimed lands retain their inherent potential as areas for public
use or public service. Alienable lands of the public domain, increasingly becoming scarce
natural resources, are to be distributed equitably among our ever-growing population. To insure
such equitable distribution, the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions have barred private corporations
from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. Those who attempt to dispose of
inalienable natural resources of the State, or seek to circumvent the constitutional ban on
alienation of lands of the public domain to private corporations, do so at their own risk.
We can now summarize our conclusions as follows:
1. The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now
covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public
domain. PEA may lease these lands to private corporations but may not sell or transfer
ownership of these lands to private corporations. PEA may only sell these lands to
Philippine citizens, subject to the ownership limitations in the 1987 Constitution and
existing laws.
2. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural
resources of the public domain until classified as alienable or disposable lands open to
disposition and declared no longer needed for public service. The government can make
such classification and declaration only after PEA has reclaimed these submerged
areas. Only then can these lands qualify as agricultural lands of the public domain,
which are the only natural resources the government can alienate. In their present state,

the 592.15 hectares of submerged areas are inalienable and outside the commerce
of man.
3. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private corporation, ownership
of 77.34 hectares110of the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for being contrary to
Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits private corporations from
acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
4. Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to AMARI ownership of 290.156
hectares111 of still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being
contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the alienation of
natural resources other than agricultural lands of the public domain. PEA may reclaim
these submerged areas. Thereafter, the government can classify the reclaimed lands as
alienable or disposable, and further declare them no longer needed for public service.
Still, the transfer of such reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain to AMARI will be
void in view of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits private
corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
Clearly, the Amended JVA violates glaringly Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution. Under Article 1409112 of the Civil Code, contracts whose "object or purpose is
contrary to law," or whose "object is outside the commerce of men," are "inexistent and void
from the beginning." The Court must perform its duty to defend and uphold the Constitution, and
therefore declares the Amended JVA null and void ab initio.
Seventh issue: whether the Court is the proper forum to raise the issue of whether the
Amended JVA is grossly disadvantageous to the government.
Considering that the Amended JVA is null and void ab initio, there is no necessity to rule on this
last issue. Besides, the Court is not a trier of facts, and this last issue involves a determination
of factual matters.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Public Estates Authority and Amari Coastal Bay
Development Corporation are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from implementing the Amended
Joint Venture Agreement which is hereby declared NULL and VOID ab initio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, YnaresSantiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, and Corona, JJ., concur.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. 110249 August 21, 1997

ALFREDO TANO, BALDOMERO TANO, DANILO TANO, ROMUALDO TANO, TEOCENES

MIDELLO, ANGEL DE MESA, EULOGIO TREMOCHA, FELIPE ONGONION, JR., ANDRES
LINIJAN, ROBERT LIM, VIRGINIA LIM, FELIMON DE MESA, GENEROSO ARAGON,
TEODORICO ANDRE, ROMULO DEL ROSARIO, CHOLITO ANDRE, ERICK MONTANO,
ANDRES OLIVA, VITTORIO SALVADOR, LEOPOLDO ARAGON, RAFAEL RIBA,
ALEJANDRO LEONILA, JOSE DAMACINTO, RAMIRO MANAEG, RUBEN MARGATE,
ROBERTO REYES, DANILO PANGARUTAN, NOE GOLPAN, ESTANISLAO ROMERO,
NICANOR DOMINGO, ROLDAN TABANG, ADRIANO TABANG, FREDDIE SACAMAY,
MIGUEL TRIMOCHA, PACENCIO LABABIT, PABLO H. OMPAD, CELESTINO A. ABANO,
ALLAN ALMODAI, BILLY D. BARTOLAY, ALBINO D. LIQUE, MECHOR J. LAYSON,
MELANIE AMANTE, CLARO E. YATOC, MERGELDO B. BALDEO, EDGAR M. ALMASETA,
JOSELITO MANAEG, LIBERATO ANDRADA, JR., ROBERTO BERRY, RONALD
VILLANUEVA, EDUARDO VALMORIA, WILFREDO MENDOZA, NAPOLEON BABANGGA,
ROBERTO TADEPA, RUBEN ASINGUA, SILVERIO GABO, JERRY ROMERO, DAVID
PANGGARUTAN, DANIEL PANGGARUTAN, ROMEO AGAWIN, FERNANDO EQUIZ, DITO
LEQUIZ, RONILO MODERABLE, BENEDICTO TORRES, ROSITO A. VALDEZ, CRESENCIO
A. SAYANG, NICOMEDES S. ACOSTA, ERENEO A. SEGARINO, JR., WILFREDO A.
RAUTO, DIOSDADO A. ACOSTA, BONIFACIO G. SISMO, TACIO ALUBA, DANIEL B.
BATERZAL, ELISEO YBAEZ, DIOSDADO E. HANCHIC, EDDIE ESCALICAS, ELEAZAR B.
BATERZAL, DOMINADOR HALICHIC, ROOSEVELT RISMO-AN, ROBERT C. MERCADER,
TIRSO ARESGADO, DANIEL CHAVEZ, DANILO CHAVEZ, VICTOR VILLAROEL, ERNESTO
C. YBAEZ, ARMANDO T. SANTILLAN, RUDY S. SANTILLAN, JODJEN ILUSTRISIMO,
NESTOR SALANGRON, ALBERTO SALANGRON, ROGER L. ROXAS, FRANCISCO T.
ANTICANO, PASTOR SALANGRON, BIENVENIDO SANTILLAN, GILBUENA LADDY, FIDEL
BENJAMIN, JOVELITO BELGANO, HONEY PARIOL, ANTONIO SALANGRON, NICASIO
SALANGRON, & AIRLINE SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION OF PALAWAN,petitioners,
vs.
HON. GOV. SALVADOR P. SOCRATES, MEMBERS OF SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN
OF PALAWAN, namely, VICE-GOVERNOR JOEL T. REYES, JOSE D. ZABALA, ROSALINO
R. ACOSTA, JOSELITO A. CADLAON, ANDRES R. BAACO, NELSON P. PENEYRA,
CIPRIANO C. BARROMA, CLARO E. ORDINARIO, ERNESTO A. LLACUNA, RODOLFO C.
FLORDELIZA, GILBERT S. BAACO, WINSTON G. ARZAGA, NAPOLEON F. ORDONEZ and
GIL P. ACOSTA, CITY MAYOR EDWARD HAGEDORN, MEMBERS OF SANGGUNIANG
PANLUNGSOD NG PUERTO PRINCESA, ALL MEMBERS OF BANTAY DAGAT, MEMBERS
OF PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE OF PALAWAN, PROVINCIAL AND CITY
PROSECUTORS OF PALAWAN and PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, and ALL JUDGES OF
PALAWAN, REGIONAL, MUNICIPAL AND METROPOLITAN, respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Petitioners caption their petition as one for "Certiorari, Injunction With Preliminary and
Mandatory Injunction, with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order" and pray that this Court: (1)
declare as unconstitutional: (a) Ordinance No. 15-92, dated 15 December 1992, of the
Sangguniang Panglungsod of Puerto Princesa; (b) Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993, dated
22 January 1993, issued by Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero of Puerto Princesa City; and (c)
Resolution No. 33, Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, dated 19 February 1993, of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan; (2) enjoin the enforcement thereof; and (3) restrain
respondents Provincial and City Prosecutors of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City and Judges

of the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts 1 and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
Palawan from assuming jurisdiction over and hearing cases concerning the violation of the
Ordinances and of the Office Order.
More appropriately, the petition is, and shall be treated as, a special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition.
The following is petitioners' summary of the factual antecedents giving rise to the petition:
1. On December 15, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Puerto Princesa City
enacted Ordinance No. 15-92 which took effect on January 1, 1993 entitled: "AN
ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER
OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998
AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS, PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
THEREOF", the full text of which reads as follows:
Sec. 1. Title of the Ordinance. This Ordinance is entitled: AN
ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND
LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1,
1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998 AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS,
PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF.
Sec. 2. Purpose, Scope and Coverage. To effectively free our City Sea
Waters from Cyanide and other Obnoxious substance[s], and shall cover
all persons and/or entities operating within and outside the City of Puerto
Princesa who is are (sic) directly or indirectly in the business or shipment
of live fish and lobster outside the City.
Sec. 3. Definition of terms. For purpose of this Ordinance the following
are hereby defined:
A. SEA BASS A kind of fish under the
family of Centropomidae, better known as
APAHAP;
B. CATFISH A kind of fish under the
family of Plotosidae, better known as HITOHITO;
C. MUDFISH A kind of fish under the
family of Orphicaphalisae better known as
DALAG;
D. ALL LIVE FISH All alive, breathing not
necessarily moving of all specie[s] use[d] for
food and for aquarium purposes.
E. LIVE LOBSTER Several relatively,
large marine crusteceans [sic] of the genus

Homarus that are alive and breathing not

necessarily moving.
Sec. 4. It shall be unlawful [for] any person or any business enterprise or
company to ship out from Puerto Princesa City to any point of destination
either via aircraft or seacraft of any live fish and lobster except SEA
BASS, CATFISH, MUDFISH, AND MILKFISH FRIES.
Sec. 5. Penalty Clause. Any person/s and or business entity violating
this Ordinance shall be penalized with a fine of not more than P5,000.00
or imprisonment of not more than twelve (12) months, cancellation of their
permit to do business in the City of Puerto Princesa or all of the herein
stated penalties, upon the discretion of the court.
Sec. 6. If the owner and/or operator of the establishment found violating
the provisions of this ordinance is a corporation or a partnership, the
penalty prescribed in Section 5 hereof shall be imposed upon its
president and/or General Manager or Managing Partner and/or Manager,
as the case maybe [sic].
Sec. 7. Any existing ordinance or any provision of any ordinance
inconsistent to [sic] this ordinance is deemed repealed.
Sec. 8. This Ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 1993.
SO ORDAINED.
xxx xxx xxx
2. To implement said city ordinance, then Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero issued
Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993 dated January 22, 1993 which reads as follows:
In the interest of public service and for purposes of City Ordinance No. PD 426-14-74,
otherwise known as "AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING ANY PERSON ENGAGED OR
INTENDING TO ENGAGE IN ANY BUSINESS, TRADE, OCCUPATION, CALLING OR
PROFESSION OR HAVING IN HIS POSSESSION ANY OF THE ARTICLES FOR
WHICH A PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO BE HAD, TO OBTAIN FIRST A MAYOR'S
PERMIT" and "City Ordinance No. 15-92, AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT
OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM
JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998, you are hereby authorized and directed to
check or conduct necessary inspections on cargoes containing live fish and lobster
being shipped out from the Puerto Princesa Airport, Puerto Princesa Wharf or at any port
within the jurisdiction of the City to any point of destinations [sic] either via aircraft or
seacraft.
The purpose of the inspection is to ascertain whether the shipper possessed the
required Mayor's Permit issued by this Office and the shipment is covered by invoice or
clearance issued by the local office of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
and as to compliance with all other existing rules and regulations on the matter.

Any cargo containing live fish and lobster without the required documents as stated
herein must be held for proper disposition.
In the pursuit of this Order, you are hereby authorized to coordinate with the PAL
Manager, the PPA Manager, the local PNP Station and other offices concerned for the
needed support and cooperation. Further, that the usual courtesy and diplomacy must
be observed at all times in the conduct of the inspection.
Please be guided accordingly.
xxx xxx xxx
3. On February 19, 1993, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Provincial Government of
Palawan enacted Resolution No. 33 entitled: "A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE
CATCHING, GATHERING, POSSESSING, BUYING, SELLING AND SHIPMENT OF
LIVE MARINE CORAL DWELLING AQUATIC ORGANISMS, TO WIT:
FAMILY: SCARIDAE (MAMENG), EPINE PHELUS
FASCIATUS (SUNO). CROMILEPTES ALTIVELIS(PANTHER OR SENORITA),
LOBSTER BELOW 200 GRAMS AND SPAWNING, TRIDACNA
GIGAS(TAKLOBO), PINCTADA MARGARITEFERA (MOTHER PEARL, OYSTERS,
GIANT CLAMS AND OTHER SPECIES), PENAEUS MONODON (TIGER PRAWNBREEDER SIZE OR MOTHER), EPINEPHELUS SUILLUS (LOBA OR GREEN
GROUPER) AND FAMILY: BALISTIDAE (TROPICAL AQUARIUM FISHES) FOR A
PERIOD FIVE (5) YEARS IN AND COMING FROM PALAWAN WATERS", the full text
of which reads as follows:
WHEREAS, scientific and factual researches [sic] and studies disclose
that only five (5) percent of the corals of our province remain to be in
excellent condition as [a] habitat of marine coral dwelling aquatic
organisms;
WHEREAS, it cannot be gainsaid that the destruction and devastation of
the corals of our province were principally due to illegal fishing activities
like dynamite fishing, sodium cyanide fishing, use of other obnoxious
substances and other related activities;
WHEREAS, there is an imperative and urgent need to protect and
preserve the existence of the remaining excellent corals and allow the
devastated ones to reinvigorate and regenerate themselves into vitality
within the span of five (5) years;
WHEREAS, Sec. 468, Par. 1, Sub-Par. VI of the [sic] R.A. 7160 otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of 1991 empowers the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan to protect the environment and impose
appropriate penalties [upon] acts which endanger the environment such
as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing, among others.
NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Kagawad Nelson P. Peneyra and
upon unanimous decision of all the members present;

Be it resolved as it is hereby resolved, to approve Resolution No. 33,

Series of 1993 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and to enact Ordinance
No. 2 for the purpose, to wit:
ORDINANCE NO. 2
Series of 1993
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN IN SESSION
ASSEMBLED:
Sec. 1. TITLE This Ordinance shall be known as an "Ordinance
Prohibiting the catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling and
shipment of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms, to wit: 1.
Family: Scaridae (Mameng), 2. Epinephelus Fasciatus (Suno) 3.
Cromileptes altivelis (Panther or Senorita), lobster below 200 grams and
spawning), 4. Tridacna Gigas (Taklobo), 5. Pinctada Margaretefera
(Mother Pearl, Oysters, Giant Clams and other species), 6. Penaeus
Monodon (Tiger Prawn-breeder size or mother), 7. Epinephelus Suillus
(Loba or Green Grouper) and 8. Family: Balistidae (T[r]opical Aquarium
Fishes) for a period of five (5) years in and coming from Palawan Waters.
Sec. II. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
1. Sec. 2-A (Rep. Act 7160). It is hereby declared, the policy of the state
that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy
genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their
fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more
effective partners in the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the
State shall provide for [a] more responsive and accountable local
government structure instituted through a system of decentralization
whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority,
responsibilities and resources.
2. Sec. 5-A (R.A. 7160). Any provision on a power of [a] local
Government Unit shall be liberally interpreted in its favor, and in case of
doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of
powers and of the lower government units. "Any fair and reasonable
doubts as to the existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor of the
Local Government Unit concerned."
3. Sec. 5-C (R.A. 7160). The general welfare provisions in this Code shall
be liberally interpreted to give more powers to local government units in
accelerating economic development and upgrading the quality of life for
the people in the community.
4. Sec. 16 (R.A. 7160). General Welfare. Every local government unit
shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied
therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its
efficient and effective governance; and those which are essential to the
promotion of the general welfare.

Sec. III. DECLARATION OF POLICY. It is hereby declared to be the

policy of the Province of Palawan to protect and conserve the marine
resources of Palawan not only for the greatest good of the majority of the
present generation but with [the] proper perspective and consideration of
[sic] their prosperity, and to attain this end, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan henceforth declares that is (sic) shall be unlawful for any
person or any business entity to engage in catching, gathering,
possessing, buying, selling and shipment of live marine coral dwelling
aquatic organisms as enumerated in Section 1 hereof in and coming out
of Palawan Waters for a period of five (5) years;
Sec. IV. PENALTY CLAUSE. Any person and/or business entity
violating this Ordinance shall be penalized with a fine of not more than
Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), Philippine Currency, and/or
imprisonment of six (6) months to twelve (12) months and confiscation
and forfeiture of paraphernalias [sic] and equipment in favor of the
government at the discretion of the Court;
Sec. V. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE. If for any reason, a Section or
provision of this Ordinance shall be held as unconditional [sic] or invalid, it
shall not affect the other provisions hereof.
Sec. VI. REPEALING CLAUSE. Any existing Ordinance or a provision
of any ordinance inconsistent herewith is deemed modified, amended or
repealed.
Sec. VII. EFFECTIVITY This Ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days
after its publication.
SO ORDAINED.
xxx xxx xxx
4. The respondents implemented the said ordinances, Annexes "A" and "C" hereof
thereby depriving all the fishermen of the whole province of Palawan and the City of
Puerto Princesa of their only means of livelihood and the petitioners Airline Shippers
Association of Palawan and other marine merchants from performing their lawful
occupation and trade;
5. Petitioners Alfredo Tano, Baldomero Tano, Teocenes Midello, Angel de Mesa,
Eulogio Tremocha, and Felipe Ongonion, Jr. were even charged criminally under
criminal case no. 93-05-C in the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Cuyo-AgutayaMagsaysay, an original carbon copy of the criminal complaint dated April 12, 1993 is
hereto attached as Annex "D"; while xerox copies are attached as Annex "D" to the
copies of the petition;
6. Petitioners Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, on the other hand, were charged by the
respondent PNP with the respondent City Prosecutor of Puerto Princess City, a xerox
copy of the complaint is hereto attached as Annex "E";

Without seeking redress from the concerned local government units, prosecutor's office and
courts, petitioners directly invoked our original jurisdiction by filing this petition on 4 June 1993.
In sum, petitioners contend that:
First, the Ordinances deprived them of due process of law, their livelihood, and unduly restricted
them from the practice of their trade, in violation of Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7 of
Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution.
Second, Office Order No. 23 contained no regulation nor condition under which the Mayor's
permit could be granted or denied; in other words, the Mayor had the absolute authority to
determine whether or not to issue the permit.
Third, as Ordinance No. 2 of the Province of Palawan "altogether prohibited the catching,
gathering, possession, buying, selling and shipping of live marine coral dwelling organisms,
without any distinction whether it was caught or gathered through lawful fishing method," the
Ordinance took away the right of petitioners-fishermen to earn their livelihood in lawful ways;
and insofar as petitioners-members of Airline Shippers Association are concerned, they were
unduly prevented from pursuing their vocation and entering "into contracts which are proper,
necessary, and essential to carry out their business endeavors to a successful conclusion."
Finally, as Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is null and void, the criminal
cases based thereon against petitioners Tano and the others have to be dismissed.
In the Resolution of 15 June 1993 we required respondents to comment on the petition, and
furnished the Office of the Solicitor General with a copy thereof.
In their comment filed on 13 August 1993, public respondents Governor Socrates and Members
of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan defended the validity of Ordinance No. 2, Series
of 1993, as a valid exercise of the Provincial Government's power under the general welfare
clause (Section 16 of the Local Government Code of 1991 [hereafter, LGC]), and its specific
power to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the
environment, such as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing under Section 447
(a) (1) (vi), Section 458 (a) (1) (vi), and Section 468 (a) (1) (vi), of the LGC. They claimed that in
the exercise of such powers, the Province of Palawan had "the right and responsibility . . . to
insure that the remaining coral reefs, where fish dwells [sic], within its territory remain healthy for
the future generation." The Ordinance, they further asserted, covered only live marine coral
dwelling aquatic organisms which were enumerated in the ordinance and excluded other kinds
of live marine aquatic organisms not dwelling in coral reefs; besides the prohibition was for only
five (5) years to protect and preserve the pristine coral and allow those damaged to regenerate.
Aforementioned respondents likewise maintained that there was no violation of the due process
and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. As to the former, public hearings were
conducted before the enactment of the Ordinance which, undoubtedly, had a lawful purpose
and employed reasonable means; while as to the latter, a substantial distinction existed
"between a fisherman who catches live fish with the intention of selling it live, and a fisherman
who catches live fish with no intention at all of selling it live," i.e., "the former uses sodium
cyanide while the latter does not." Further, the Ordinance applied equally to all those belonging
to one class.

On 25 October 1993 petitioners filed an Urgent Plea for the Immediate Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order, claiming that despite the pendency of this case, Branch 50 of the Regional
Trial Court of Palawan was bent on proceeding with Criminal Case No. 11223 against
petitioners Danilo Tano, Alfredo Tano, Eulogio Tremocha, Romualdo Tano, Baldomero Tano,
Andres Linijan and Angel de Mesa for violation of Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Palawan. Acting on said plea, we issued on 11 November 1993 a temporary
restraining order directing Judge Angel Miclat of said court to cease and desist from proceeding
with the arraignment and pre-trial of Criminal Case No. 11223.
On 12 July 1994, we excused the Office of the Solicitor General from filing a comment,
considering that as claimed by said office in its Manifestation of 28 June 1994, respondents
were already represented by counsel.
The rest of the respondents did not file any comment on the petition.
In the resolution of 15 September 1994, we resolved to consider the comment on the petition as
the Answer, gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective
memoranda. 2
On 22 April 1997 we ordered impleaded as party respondents the Department of Agriculture
and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and required the Office of the Solicitor
General to comment on their behalf. But in light of the latter's motion of 9 July 1997 for an
extension of time to file the comment which would only result in further delay, we dispensed with
said comment.
After due deliberation on the pleadings filed, we resolved to dismiss this petition for want of
merit, and on 22 July 1997, assigned it to the ponente to write the opinion of the Court.
I
There are actually two sets of petitioners in this case. The first is composed of Alfredo Tano,
Baldomero Tano, Danilo Tano, Romualdo Tano, Teocenes Midello, Angel de Mesa, Eulogio
Tremocha, Felipe Ongonion, Jr., Andres Linijan, and Felimon de Mesa, who were criminally
charged with violating Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 33 and Ordinance No. 2,
Series of 1993, of the Province of Palawan, in Criminal Case No. 93-05-C of the 1st Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Palawan; 3 and Robert Lim and Virginia Lim who were charged
with violating City Ordinance No. 15-92 of Puerto Princesa City and Ordinance No. 2, Series of
1993, of the Province of Palawan before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Puerto
Princesa. 4 All of them, with the exception of Teocenes Midello, Felipe Ongonion, Jr., Felimon
de Mesa, Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, are likewise the accused in Criminal Case No. 11223 for
the violation of Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan, pending before
Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan. 5
The second set of petitioners is composed of the rest of the petitioners numbering seventyseven (77), all of whom, except the Airline Shippers Association of Palawan an alleged
private association of several marine merchants are natural persons who claim to be
fishermen.
The primary interest of the first set of petitioners is, of course, to prevent the prosecution, trial
and determination of the criminal cases until the constitutionality or legality of the Ordinances

they allegedly violated shall have been resolved. The second set of petitioners merely claim that
being fishermen or marine merchants, they would be adversely affected by the ordinance's.
As to the first set of petitioners, this special civil for certiorari must fail on the ground of
prematurity amounting to a lack of cause of action. There is no showing that said petitioners, as
the accused in the criminal cases, have filed motions to quash the informations therein and that
the same were denied. The ground available for such motions is that the facts charged therein
do not constitute an offense because the ordinances in question are unconstitutional. 6It cannot
then be said that the lower courts acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion to justify recourse to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari or prohibition. It must
further be stressed that even if petitioners did file motions to quash, the denial thereof would not
forthwith give rise to a cause of action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The general rule is
that where a motion to quash is denied, the remedy therefrom is not certiorari, but for the party
aggrieved thereby to go to trial without prejudice to reiterating special defenses involved in said
motion, and if, after trial on the merits an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in
the manner authorized by law. 7 And, even where in an exceptional circumstance such denial
may be the subject of a special civil action for certiorari, a motion for reconsideration must have
to be filed to allow the court concerned an opportunity to correct its errors, unless such motion
may be dispensed with because of existing exceptional circumstances. 8 Finally, even if a
motion for reconsideration has been filed and denied, the remedy under Rule 65 is still
unavailable absent any showing of the grounds provided for in Section 1 thereof. 9 For obvious
reasons, the petition at bar does not, and could not have, alleged any of such grounds.
As to the second set of petitioners, the instant petition is obviously one for DECLARATORY
RELIEF, i.e., for a declaration that the Ordinances in question are a "nullity . . . for being
unconstitutional." 10 As such, their petition must likewise fail, as this Court is not possessed of
original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief even if only questions of law are
involved, 11 it being settled that the Court merely exercises appellate jurisdiction over such
petitions. 12
II
Even granting arguendo that the first set of petitioners have a cause of action ripe for the
extraordinary writ ofcertiorari, there is here a clear disregard of the hierarchy of courts, and no
special and important reason or exceptional and compelling circumstance has been adduced
why direct recourse to us should be allowed. While we have concurrent jurisdiction with
Regional Trial courts and with the Court of Appeals to issue writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence gives
petitioners no unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum, so we held in People
v. Cuaresma. 13
This concurrence of jurisdiction is not . . . to be taken as according to parties seeking
any of the writs an absolute unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which
application therefor will be directed. There is after all hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy
is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general
determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming
regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of
extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional
Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of
the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only

when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in
the petition. This is established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate
demands upon the Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters
within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court's
docket. . . .
The Court feels the need to reaffirm that policy at this time, and to enjoin strict
adherence thereto in the light of what it perceives to be a growing tendency on the part
of litigants and lawyers to have their applications for the so-called extraordinary writs,
and sometimes even their appeals, passed upon and adjudicated directly and
immediately by the highest tribunal of the land. . . .
In Santiago v. Vasquez, 14 this Court forcefully expressed that the propensity of litigants and
lawyers to disregard the hierarchy of courts must be put to a halt, not only because of the
imposition upon the precious time of this Court, but also because of the inevitable and resultant
delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of the case which often has to be remanded or
referred to the lower court, the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped
to resolve the issues since this Court is not a trier of facts. We reiterated "the judicial policy that
this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in
the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment of a
remedy within and calling for the exercise of [its] primary jurisdiction."
III
Notwithstanding the foregoing procedural obstacles against the first set of petitioners, we opt to
resolve this case on its merits considering that the lifetime of the challenged Ordinances is
about to end. Ordinance No. 15-92 of the City of Puerto Princesa is effective only up to 1
January 1998, while Ordinance No. 2 of the Province of Palawan, enacted on 19 February
1993, is effective for only five (5) years. Besides, these Ordinances were undoubtedly enacted
in the exercise of powers under the new LGC relative to the protection and preservation of the
environment and are thus novel and of paramount importance. No further delay then may be
allowed in the resolution of the issues raised.
It is of course settled that laws (including ordinances enacted by local government units) enjoy
the presumption of constitutionality. 15 To overthrow this presumption, there must be a clear and
unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative contradiction. In
short, the conflict with the Constitution must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. 16 Where
doubt exists, even if well-founded, there can be no finding of unconstitutionality. To doubt is to
sustain. 17
After a scrutiny of the challenged Ordinances and the provisions of the Constitution petitioners
claim to have been violated, we find petitioners' contentions baseless and so hold that the
former do not suffer from any infirmity, both under the Constitution and applicable laws.
Petitioners specifically point to Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7, Article XIII of the
Constitution as having been transgressed by the Ordinances.
The pertinent portion of Section 2 of Article XII reads:
Sec. 2. . . .

The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial
sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to
Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino
citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and
fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII provide:
Sec. 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create
economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of
local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing
resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen
through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production,
and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect,
develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore
fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers
shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing
resources.
There is absolutely no showing that any of the petitioners qualifies as a subsistence or
marginal fisherman. In their petition, petitioner Airline Shippers Association of Palawan is
self-described as "a private association composed of Marine Merchants;" petitioners
Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, as "merchants;" while the rest of the petitioners claim to be
"fishermen," without any qualification, however, as to their status.
Since the Constitution does not specifically provide a definition of the terms
"subsistence" or "marginal" fishermen, 18 they should be construed in their general and
ordinary sense. A marginal fisherman is an individual engaged in fishing whose margin
of return or reward in his harvest of fish as measured by existing price levels is barely
sufficient to yield a profit or cover the cost of gathering the fish, 19 while a subsistence
fisherman is one whose catch yields but the irreducible minimum for his
livelihood. 20 Section 131(p) of the LGC (R.A. No. 7160) defines a marginal farmer or
fisherman as "an individual engaged in subsistence farming or fishing which shall be
limited to the sale, barter or exchange of agricultural or marine products produced by
himself and his immediate family." It bears repeating that nothing in the record supports
a finding that any petitioner falls within these definitions.
Besides, Section 2 of Article XII aims primarily not to bestow any right to subsistence
fishermen, but to lay stress on the duty of the State to protect the nation's marine wealth.
What the provision merely recognizes is that the State may allow, by law, cooperative
fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays
and lagoons. Our survey of the statute books reveals that the only provision of law which
speaks of a preferential right of marginal fishermen is Section 149 of the LGC, which
pertinently provides:

Sec. 149. Fishery Rentals, Fees and Charges. . . .

(b) The sangguniang bayan may:
(1) Grant fishery privileges to erect fish corrals,
oyster, mussels or other aquatic beds or bangus fry
areas, within a definite zone of the municipal
waters, as determined by it: Provided, however,
That duly registered organizations and
cooperatives of marginal fishermen shall have the
preferential right to such fishery privileges . . . .
In a Joint Administrative Order No. 3 dated 25 April 1996, the Secretary of the
Department of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local
Government prescribed guidelines concerning the preferential treatment of small
fisherfolk relative to the fishery right mentioned in Section 149. This case, however, does
not involve such fishery right.
Anent Section 7 of Article XIII, it speaks not only of the use of communal marine and
fishing resources, but of their protection, development and conservation. As hereafter
shown, the ordinances in question are meant precisely to protect and conserve our
marine resources to the end that their enjoyment may be guaranteed not only for the
present generation, but also for the generations to come.
The so-called "preferential right" of subsistence or marginal fishermen to the use of
marine resources is not at all absolute. In accordance with the Regalian Doctrine, marine
resources belong to the State, and, pursuant to the first paragraph of Section 2, Article
XII of the Constitution, their "exploration, development and utilization . . . shall be under
the full control and supervision of the State." Moreover, their mandated protection,
development and conservation as necessarily recognized by the framers of the
Constitution, imply certain restrictions on whatever right of enjoyment there may be in
favor of anyone. Thus, as to the curtailment of the preferential treatment of marginal
fishermen, the following exchange between Commissioner Francisco Rodrigo and
Commissioner Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr., took place at the plenary session of the
Constitutional Commission:
MR. RODRIGO:
Let us discuss the implementation of this because I would not
raise the hopes of our people, and afterwards fail in the
implementation. How will this be implemented? Will there be a
licensing or giving of permits so that government officials will know
that one is really a marginal fisherman? Or if policeman say that a
person is not a marginal fisherman, he can show his permit, to
prove that indeed he is one.
MR. BENGZON:
Certainly, there will be some mode of licensing insofar as this is
concerned and this particular question could be tackled when we

discuss the Article on Local Governments whether we will leave

to the local governments or to Congress on how these things will
be implemented. But certainly, I think our congressmen and our
local officials will not be bereft of ideas on how to implement this
mandate.
xxx xxx xxx
MR. RODRIGO:
So, once one is licensed as a marginal fisherman, he can go
anywhere in the Philippines and fish in any fishing grounds.
MR. BENGZON:
Subject to whatever rules and regulations and local laws that may
be passed, may be existing or will be passed. 21 (emphasis
supplied)
What must likewise be borne in mind is the state policy enshrined in the Constitution
regarding the duty of the State to protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. 22 On
this score, in Oposa v. Factoran, 23 this Court declared:
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the
Declaration of Principles the State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it
does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights
enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights
altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and selfperpetuation aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners the advancement
of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a
matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for
they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now
explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded
fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and
to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby
highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn
obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day
would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present
generation, but also for those to come generations which stand to inherit
nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it a correlative duty to
refrain from impairing the environment. . . .
The LGC provisions invoked by private respondents merely seek to give flesh and blood
to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. In fact, the General
Welfare Clause, expressly mentions this right:

Sec. 16. General Welfare. Every local government unit shall exercise the
powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as
powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective
governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general
welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units
shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment
of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a
balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and
self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals,
enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among
their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and
convenience of their inhabitants. (emphasis supplied).
Moreover, Section 5(c) of the LGC explicitly mandates that the general welfare
provisions of the LGC "shall be liberally interpreted to give more powers to the local
government units in accelerating economic development and upgrading the quality of life
for the people of the community."
The LGC vests municipalities with the power to grant fishery privileges in municipal
waters and impose rentals, fees or charges therefor; to penalize, by appropriate
ordinances, the use of explosives, noxious or poisonous substances, electricity, muroami, and other deleterious methods of fishing; and to prosecute any violation of the
provisions of applicable fishery laws. 24 Further, the sangguniang bayan, the
sangguniang panlungsod and the sangguniang panlalawigan are directed to enact
ordinances for the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants, which shall
include, inter alia, ordinances that "[p]rotect the environment and impose appropriate
penalties for acts which endanger the environment such as dynamite fishing and other
forms of destructive fishing . . . and such other activities which result in pollution,
acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes, or of ecological
imbalance." 25
Finally, the centerpiece of LGC is the system of decentralization 26 as expressly
mandated by the Constitution.27 Indispensable to decentralization is devolution and the
LGC expressly provides that "[a]ny provision on a power of a local government unit shall
be liberally interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be
resolved in favor of devolution of powers and of the lower local government unit. Any fair
and reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor of the
local government unit concerned." 28 Devolution refers to the act by which the National
Government confers power and authority upon the various local government units to
perform specific functions and responsibilities. 29
One of the devolved powers enumerated in the section of the LGC on devolution is the
enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters including the conservation of
mangroves. 30 This necessarily includes the enactment of ordinances to effectively carry
out such fishery laws within the municipal waters.
The term "municipal waters," in turn, includes not only streams, lakes, and tidal waters
within the municipality, not being the subject of private ownership and not comprised
within the national parks, public forest, timber lands, forest reserves, or fishery reserves,
but also marine waters included between two lines drawn perpendicularly to the general

coastline from points where the boundary lines of the municipality or city touch the sea at
low tide and a third line parallel with the general coastline and fifteen kilometers from
it. 31 Under P.D. No. 704, the marine waters included in municipal waters is limited to
three nautical miles from the general coastline using the above perpendicular lines and a
third parallel line.
These "fishery laws" which local government units may enforce under Section 17(b)(2)(i)
in municipal waters include: (1) P.D. No. 704; (2) P.D. No. 1015 which, inter alia,
authorizes the establishment of a "closed season" in any Philippine water if necessary
for conservation or ecological purposes; (3) P.D. No. 1219 which provides for the
exploration, exploitation, utilization and conservation of coral resources; (4) R.A. No.
5474, as amended by B.P. Blg. 58, which makes it unlawful for any person, association
or corporation to catch or cause to be caught, sell, offer to sell, purchase, or have in
possession any of the fish specie called gobiidaeor "ipon" during closed season; and (5)
R.A. No. 6451 which prohibits and punishes electrofishing, as well as various issuances
of the BFAR.
To those specifically devolved insofar as the control and regulation of fishing in
municipal waters and the protection of its marine environment are concerned, must be
added the following:
1. Issuance of permits to construct fish cages within municipal
waters;
2. Issuance of permits to gather aquarium fishes within municipal
waters;
3. Issuance of permits to gather kapis shells within municipal
waters;
4. Issuance of permits to gather/culture shelled mollusks within
municipal waters;
5. Issuance of licenses to establish seaweed farms within
municipal waters;
6. Issuance of licenses to establish culture pearls within municipal
waters;
7. Issuance of auxiliary invoice to transport fish and fishery
products; and
8. Establishment of "closed season" in municipal waters.
These functions are covered in the Memorandum of Agreement of 5 April 1994 between
the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior and Local Government.
In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution enshrined in the LGC
and the powers granted therein to local government units under Section 16 (the General

Welfare Clause), and under Sections 149, 447(a) (1) (vi), 458 (a) (1) (vi) and 468 (a) (1)
(vi), which unquestionably involve the exercise of police power, the validity of the
questioned Ordinances cannot be doubted.
Parenthetically, we wish to add that these Ordinances find full support under R.A. No.
7611, otherwise known as the Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan Act,
approved on 19 June 1992. This statute adopts a "comprehensive framework for the
sustainable development of Palawan compatible with protecting and enhancing the
natural resources and endangered environment of the province," which "shall serve to
guide the local government of Palawan and the government agencies concerned in the
formulation and implementation of plans, programs and projects affecting said
province." 32
At this time then, it would be appropriate to determine the relation between the assailed
Ordinances and the aforesaid powers of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of
Puerto Princesa and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Palawan to
protect the environment. To begin, we ascertain the purpose of the Ordinances as set
forth in the statement of purposes or declaration of policies quoted earlier.
It is clear to the Court that both Ordinances have two principal objectives or purposes:
(1) to establish a "closed season" for the species of fish or aquatic animals covered
therein for a period of five years; and (2) to protect the coral in the marine waters of the
City of Puerto Princesa and the Province of Palawan from further destruction due to
illegal fishing activities.
The accomplishment of the first objective is well within the devolved power to enforce
fishery laws in municipal waters, such as P.D. No. 1015, which allows the establishment
of "closed seasons." The devolution of such power has been expressly confirmed in the
Memorandum of Agreement of 5 April 1994 between the Department of Agriculture and
the Department of Interior and Local Government.
The realization of the second objective clearly falls within both the general welfare
clause of the LGC and the express mandate thereunder to cities and provinces to
protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the
environment. 33
The destruction of coral reefs results in serious, if not irreparable, ecological imbalance,
for coral reefs are among nature's life-support systems. 34 They collect, retain and
recycle nutrients for adjacent nearshore areas such as mangroves, seagrass beds, and
reef flats; provide food for marine plants and animals; and serve as a protective shelter
for aquatic organisms. 35 It is said that "[e]cologically, the reefs are to the oceans what
forests are to continents: they are shelter and breeding grounds for fish and plant
species that will disappear without them." 36
The prohibition against catching live fish stems, in part, from the modern phenomenon of
live-fish trade which entails the catching of so-called exotic species of tropical fish, not
only for aquarium use in the West, but also for "the market for live banquet fish [which] is
virtually insatiable in ever more affluent Asia. 37 These exotic species are coral-dwellers,
and fishermen catch them by "diving in shallow water with corraline habitats and
squirting sodium cyanide poison at passing fish directly or onto coral crevices; once

affected the fish are immobilized [merely stunned] and then scooped by hand." 38 The
diver then surfaces and dumps his catch into a submerged net attached to the skiff.
Twenty minutes later, the fish can swim normally. Back on shore, they are placed in
holding pens, and within a few weeks, they expel the cyanide from their system and are
ready to be hauled. They are then placed in saltwater tanks or packaged in plastic bags
filled with seawater for shipment by air freight to major markets for live food fish. 39 While
the fish are meant to survive, the opposite holds true for their former home as "[a]fter the
fisherman squirts the cyanide, the first thing to perish is the reef algae, on which fish
feed. Days later, the living coral starts to expire. Soon the reef loses its function as
habitat for the fish, which eat both the algae and invertebrates that cling to the coral. The
reef becomes an underwater graveyard, its skeletal remains brittle, bleached of all color
and vulnerable to erosion from the pounding of the waves." 40 It has been found that
cyanide fishing kills most hard and soft corals within three months of repeated
application. 41
The nexus then between the activities barred by Ordinance No. 15-92 of the City of
Puerto Princesa and the prohibited acts provided in Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993 of
the Province of Palawan, on one hand, and the use of sodium cyanide, on the other, is
painfully obvious. In sum, the public purpose and reasonableness of the Ordinances
may not then be controverted.
As to Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993, issued by Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero
of the City of Puerto Princesa, we find nothing therein violative of any constitutional or
statutory provision. The Order refers to the implementation of the challenged ordinance
and is not the Mayor's Permit.
The dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo relies upon the lack of authority
on the part of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Puerto Princesa to enact Ordinance No.
15, Series of 1992, on the theory that the subject thereof is within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) under P.D. No.
704, otherwise known as the Fisheries Decree of 1975; and that, in any event, the
Ordinance is unenforceable for lack of approval by the Secretary of the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), likewise in accordance with P.D. No. 704.
The majority is unable to accommodate this view. The jurisdiction and responsibility of
the BFAR under P.D. No. 704, over the management, conservation, development,
protection, utilization and disposition of all fishery and aquatic resources of the country is
not all-encompassing. First, Section 4 thereof excludes from such jurisdiction and
responsibility municipal waters, which shall be under the municipal or city government
concerned, except insofar as fishpens and seaweed culture in municipal centers are
concerned. This section provides, however, that all municipal or city ordinances and
resolutions affecting fishing and fisheries and any disposition thereunder shall be
submitted to the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources for appropriate
action and shall have full force and effect only upon his approval. 42
Second, it must at once be pointed out that the BFAR is no longer under the Department
of Natural Resources (now Department of Environment and Natural Resources).
Executive Order No. 967 of 30 June 1984 transferred the BFAR from the control and
supervision of the Minister (formerly Secretary) Of Natural Resources to the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food (MAF) and converted it into a mere staff agency thereof,
integrating its functions with the regional offices of the MAF.
In Executive Order No. 116 of 30 January 1987, which reorganized the MAF, the BFAR
was retained as an attached agency of the MAF. And under the Administrative Code of
1987, 43 the BFAR is placed under the Title concerning the Department of Agriculture. 44
Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the challenged Ordinance of the City of Puerto
Princesa is invalid or unenforceable because it was not approved by the Secretary of the
DENR. If at all, the approval that should be sought would be that of the Secretary of the
Department of Agriculture. However, the requirement of approval by the Secretary of the
Department of Agriculture (not DENR) of municipal ordinances affecting fishing and
fisheries in municipal waters has been dispensed with in view of the following reasons:
(1) Section 534 (Repealing Clause) of the LGC expressly repeals or amends Sections
16 and 29 of P.D. No. 704 45 insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of the
LGC.
(2) As discussed earlier, under the general welfare clause of the LGC, local government
units have the power, inter alia, to enact ordinances to enhance the right of the people to
a balanced ecology. It likewise specifically vests municipalities with the power to grant
fishery privileges in municipal waters, and impose rentals, fees or charges therefor; to
penalize, by appropriate ordinances, the use of explosives, noxious or poisonous
substances, electricity, muro-ami, and other deleterious methods of fishing; and to
prosecute any violation of the provisions of applicable fishery laws. 46 Finally, it imposes
upon the sangguniang bayan, the sangguniang panlungsod, and the sangguniang
panlalawigan the duty to enact ordinances to "[p]rotect the environment and impose
appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment such as dynamite fishing
and other forms of destructive fishing . . . and such other activities which result in
pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes or of ecological imbalance." 47
In closing, we commend the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Puerto Princesa
and Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Palawan for exercising the requisite
political will to enact urgently needed legislation to protect and enhance the marine
environment, thereby sharing in the herculean task of arresting the tide of ecological
destruction. We hope that other local government units shall now be roused from their
lethargy and adopt a more vigilant stand in the battle against the decimation of our
legacy to future generations. At this time, the repercussions of any further delay in their
response may prove disastrous, if not, irreversible.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the temporary
restraining order issued on 11 November 1993 is LIFTED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Romero, Melo, Vitug, Francisco Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

Regalado, J., is on leave.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. 122156 February 3, 1997

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL petitioner,
vs.
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION,
COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE
COUNSEL, respondents.

BELLOSILLO, J.:
The FiIipino First Policy enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, i.e., in the grant of rights, privileges,
and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference
to qualified Filipinos, 1 is in oked by petitioner in its bid to acquire 51% of the shares of the
Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) which owns the historic Manila Hotel. Opposing, respondents
maintain that the provision is not self-executing but requires an implementing legislation for its
enforcement. Corollarily, they ask whether the 51% shares form part of the national economy
and patrimony covered by the protective mantle of the Constitution.
The controversy arose when respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS),
pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation No. 50
dated 8 December 1986, decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and
outstanding shares of respondent MHC. The winning bidder, or the eventual "strategic
partner," is to provide management expertise and/or an international marketing/reservation
system, and financial support to strengthen the profitability and performance of the Manila
Hotel. 2 In a close bidding held on 18 September 1995 only two (2) bidders participated:
petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of
the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with
ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per
share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner.
Pertinent provisions of the bidding rules prepared by respondent GSIS state
I. EXECUTION OF THE NECESSARY CONTRACTS WITH
GSIS/MHC
1. The Highest Bidder must comply with the conditions set forth below by
October 23, 1995 (reset to November 3, 1995) or the Highest Bidder will lose the

right to purchase the Block of Shares and GSIS will instead offer the Block of
Shares to the other Qualified Bidders:
a. The Highest Bidder must negotiate and execute with the
GSIS/MHC the Management Contract, International
Marketing/Reservation System Contract or other type of contract
specified by the Highest Bidder in its strategic plan for the Manila
Hotel. . . .
b. The Highest Bidder must execute the Stock Purchase and Sale
Agreement with GSIS . . . .
K. DECLARATION OF THE WINNING BIDDER/STRATEGIC
PARTNER
The Highest Bidder will be declared the Winning Bidder/Strategic Partner after
the following conditions are met:
a. Execution of the necessary contracts with GSIS/MHC not later
than October 23, 1995 (reset to November 3, 1995); and
b. Requisite approvals from the GSIS/MHC and COP (Committee
on Privatization)/OGCC (Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel) are obtained. 3
Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winning bidder/strategic partner and the
execution of the necessary contracts, petitioner in a letter to respondent GSIS dated 28
September 1995 matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by Renong Berhad. 4 In a
subsequent letter dated 10 October 1995 petitioner sent a manager's check issued by Philtrust
Bank for Thirty-three Million Pesos (P33.000.000.00) as Bid Security to match the bid of the
Malaysian Group, Messrs. Renong Berhad . . . 5 which respondent GSIS refused to accept.
On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that respondent GSIS has disregarded the tender
of the matching bid and that the sale of 51% of the MHC may be hastened by respondent GSIS
and consummated with Renong Berhad, petitioner came to this Court on prohibition
and mandamus. On 18 October 1995 the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining
respondents from perfecting and consummating the sale to the Malaysian firm.
On 10 September 1996 the instant case was accepted by the Court En Banc after it was
referred to it by the First Division. The case was then set for oral arguments with former Chief
Justice Enrique M. Fernando and Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., as amici curiae.
In the main, petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution and
submits that the Manila Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation and has practically
become a historical monument which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture. It
is a proud legacy of an earlier generation of Filipinos who believed in the nobility and
sacredness of independence and its power and capacity to release the full potential of the
Filipino people. To all intents and purposes, it has become a part of the national
patrimony. 6 Petitioner also argues that since 51% of the shares of the MHC carries with it the
ownership of the business of the hotel which is owned by respondent GSIS, a government-

owned and controlled corporation, the hotel business of respondent GSIS being a part of the
tourism industry is unquestionably a part of the national economy. Thus, any transaction
involving 51% of the shares of stock of the MHC is clearly covered by the term national
economy, to which Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, 1987 Constitution, applies. 7
It is also the thesis of petitioner that since Manila Hotel is part of the national patrimony and its
business also unquestionably part of the national economy petitioner should be preferred after it
has matched the bid offer of the Malaysian firm. For the bidding rules mandate that if for any
reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares, GSIS may offer this to the
other Qualified Bidders that have validly submitted bids provided that these Qualified Bidders
are willing to match the highest bid in terms of price per share. 8
Respondents except. They maintain that: First, Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987
Constitution is merely a statement of principle and policy since it is not a self-executing
provision and requires implementing legislation(s) . . . Thus, for the said provision to Operate,
there must be existing laws "to lay down conditions under which business may be done." 9
Second, granting that this provision is self-executing, Manila Hotel does not fall under the term
national patrimony which only refers to lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
wildlife, flora and fauna and all marine wealth in its territorial sea, and exclusive marine zone as
cited in the first and second paragraphs of Sec. 2, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution. According to
respondents, while petitioner speaks of the guests who have slept in the hotel and the events
that have transpired therein which make the hotel historic, these alone do not make the hotel fall
under the patrimony of the nation. What is more, the mandate of the Constitution is addressed
to the State, not to respondent GSIS which possesses a personality of its own separate and
distinct from the Philippines as a State.
Third, granting that the Manila Hotel forms part of the national patrimony, the constitutional
provision invoked is still inapplicable since what is being sold is only 51% of the outstanding
shares of the corporation, not the hotel building nor the land upon which the building stands.
Certainly, 51% of the equity of the MHC cannot be considered part of the national patrimony.
Moreover, if the disposition of the shares of the MHC is really contrary to the Constitution,
petitioner should have questioned it right from the beginning and not after it had lost in the
bidding.
Fourth, the reliance by petitioner on par. V., subpar. J. 1., of the bidding rules which provides
that if for any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares, GSIS may
offer this to the other Qualified Bidders that have validly submitted bids provided that these
Qualified Bidders are willing to match the highest bid in terms of price per share, is misplaced.
Respondents postulate that the privilege of submitting a matching bid has not yet arisen since it
only takes place if for any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares.
Thus the submission by petitioner of a matching bid is premature since Renong Berhad could
still very well be awarded the block of shares and the condition giving rise to the exercise of the
privilege to submit a matching bid had not yet taken place.
Finally, the prayer for prohibition grounded on grave abuse of discretion should fail since
respondent GSIS did not exercise its discretion in a capricious, whimsical manner, and if ever it
did abuse its discretion it was not so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. Similarly, the petition

for mandamus should fail as petitioner has no clear legal right to what it demands and
respondents do not have an imperative duty to perform the act required of them by petitioner.
We now resolve. A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and
administration of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the
authority from which it emanates. It has been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of
the nation. 10 It prescribes the permanent framework of a system of government, assigns to the
different departments their respective powers and duties, and establishes certain fixed
principles on which government is founded. The fundamental conception in other words is that it
is a supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private
rights must be determined and all public authority administered.11 Under the doctrine of
constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or
contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by
private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect.
Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is
deemed written in every statute and contract.
Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations of policies and principles. Their
provisions command the legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of the framers who
merely establish an outline of government providing for the different departments of the
governmental machinery and securing certain fundamental and inalienable rights of
citizens. 12 A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in Art. II of the
1987 Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a provision which is complete in itself and
becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which
supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is selfexecuting. Thus a constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right
conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can be
determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating
that the subject is referred to the legislature for action. 13
As against constitutions of the past, modern constitutions have been generally drafted upon a
different principle and have often become in effect extensive codes of laws intended to operate
directly upon the people in a manner similar to that of statutory enactments, and the function of
constitutional conventions has evolved into one more like that of a legislative body. Hence,
unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional
mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing If the
constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation instead of self-executing, the
legislature would have the power to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the
fundamental law. 14 This can be cataclysmic. That is why the prevailing view is, as it has always
been, that
. . . in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather
than non-self-executing . . . . Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the
provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a contrary
rule would give the legislature discretion to determine when, or whether, they
shall be effective. These provisions would be subordinated to the will of the
lawmaking body, which could make them entirely meaningless by simply refusing
to pass the needed implementing statute. 15

Respondents argue that Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is clearly not
self-executing, as they quote from discussions on the floor of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I am asking this question as
the Chairman of the Committee on Style. If the wording of
"PREFERENCE" is given to QUALIFIED FILIPINOS," can it be
understood as a preference to qualified Filipinos vis-a-vis Filipinos
who are not qualified. So, why do we not make it clear? To
qualified Filipinos as against aliens?
THE PRESIDENT. What is the question of Commissioner
Rodrigo? Is it to remove the word "QUALIFIED?".
MR. RODRIGO. No, no, but say definitely "TO QUALIFIED
FILIPINOS" as against whom? As against aliens or over aliens?
MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I think that is understood. We
use the word "QUALIFIED" because the existing laws or
prospective laws will always lay down conditions under which
business may be done. For example, qualifications on the setting
up of other financial structures, et cetera (emphasis supplied by
respondents)
MR. RODRIGO. It is just a matter of style.
MR. NOLLEDO Yes, 16
Quite apparently, Sec. 10, second par., of Art XII is couched in such a way as not to make it
appear that it is non-self-executing but simply for purposes of style. But, certainly, the legislature
is not precluded from enacting other further laws to enforce the constitutional provision so long
as the contemplated statute squares with the Constitution. Minor details may be left to the
legislature without impairing the self-executing nature of constitutional provisions.
In self-executing constitutional provisions, the legislature may still enact legislation to facilitate
the exercise of powers directly granted by the constitution, further the operation of such a
provision, prescribe a practice to be used for its enforcement, provide a convenient remedy for
the protection of the rights secured or the determination thereof, or place reasonable safeguards
around the exercise of the right. The mere fact that legislation may supplement and add to or
prescribe a penalty for the violation of a self-executing constitutional provision does not render
such a provision ineffective in the absence of such legislation. The omission from a constitution
of any express provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or liability is not necessarily an
indication that it was not intended to be self-executing. The rule is that a self-executing provision
of the constitution does not necessarily exhaust legislative power on the subject, but any
legislation must be in harmony with the constitution, further the exercise of constitutional right
and make it more available. 17 Subsequent legislation however does not necessarily mean that
the subject constitutional provision is not, by itself, fully enforceable.
Respondents also argue that the non-self-executing nature of Sec. 10, second par., of Art. XII is
implied from the tenor of the first and third paragraphs of the same section which undoubtedly

are not self-executing. 18 The argument is flawed. If the first and third paragraphs are not selfexecuting because Congress is still to enact measures to encourage the formation and
operation of enterprises fully owned by Filipinos, as in the first paragraph, and the State still
needs legislation to regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national
jurisdiction, as in the third paragraph, then a fortiori, by the same logic, the second paragraph
can only be self-executing as it does not by its language require any legislation in order to give
preference to qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the
national economy and patrimony. A constitutional provision may be self-executing in one part
and non-self-executing in another. 19
Even the cases cited by respondents holding that certain constitutional provisions are merely
statements of principles and policies, which are basically not self-executing and only placed in
the Constitution as moral incentives to legislation, not as judicially enforceable rights are
simply not in point. Basco v. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation 20 speaks of
constitutional provisions on personal dignity, 21 the sanctity of family life, 22 the vital role of the
youth in nation-building 23 the promotion of social justice, 24 and the values of
education. 25 Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance 26 refers to the constitutional provisions on social
justice and human rights 27 and on education. 28 Lastly,Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato 29 cites
provisions on the promotion of general welfare, 30 the sanctity of family life, 31 the vital role of the
youth in nation-building 32 and the promotion of total human liberation and development. 33 A
reading of these provisions indeed clearly shows that they are not judicially enforceable
constitutional rights but merely guidelines for legislation. The very terms of the provisions
manifest that they are only principles upon which the legislations must be based.Res ipsa
loquitur.
On the other hand, Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory,
positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or
implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From its very words the provision does not
require any legislation to put it in operation. It is per se judicially enforceable When our
Constitution mandates that [i]n the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering national
economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just that
qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. And when our Constitution declares that a right exists in
certain specified circumstances an action may be maintained to enforce such right
notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the subject; consequently, if there is no
statute especially enacted to enforce such constitutional right, such right enforces itself by its
own inherent potency and puissance, and from which all legislations must take their bearings.
Where there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium.
As regards our national patrimony, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission 34 explains

The patrimony of the Nation that should be conserved and developed refers not
only to out rich natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of out race. It
also refers to our intelligence in arts, sciences and letters. Therefore, we should
develop not only our lands, forests, mines and other natural resources but also
the mental ability or faculty of our people.
We agree. In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to heritage. 35 When
the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the

Philippines, as the Constitution could have very well used the term natural resources, but also to
the cultural heritage of the Filipinos.
Manila Hotel has become a landmark a living testimonial of Philippine heritage. While it was
restrictively an American hotel when it first opened in 1912, it immediately evolved to be truly
Filipino, Formerly a concourse for the elite, it has since then become the venue of various
significant events which have shaped Philippine history. It was called the Cultural Center of the
1930's. It was the site of the festivities during the inauguration of the Philippine Commonwealth.
Dubbed as the Official Guest House of the Philippine Government. it plays host to dignitaries
and official visitors who are accorded the traditional Philippine hospitality. 36
The history of the hotel has been chronicled in the book The Manila Hotel: The Heart and
Memory of a City. 37During World War II the hotel was converted by the Japanese Military
Administration into a military headquarters. When the American forces returned to recapture
Manila the hotel was selected by the Japanese together with Intramuros as the two (2) places
fro their final stand. Thereafter, in the 1950's and 1960's, the hotel became the center of political
activities, playing host to almost every political convention. In 1970 the hotel reopened after a
renovation and reaped numerous international recognitions, an acknowledgment of the Filipino
talent and ingenuity. In 1986 the hotel was the site of a failed coup d' etatwhere an aspirant for
vice-president was "proclaimed" President of the Philippine Republic.
For more than eight (8) decades Manila Hotel has bore mute witness to the triumphs and
failures, loves and frustrations of the Filipinos; its existence is impressed with public interest; its
own historicity associated with our struggle for sovereignty, independence and nationhood.
Verily, Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy and patrimony. For sure, 51% of
the equity of the MHC comes within the purview of the constitutional shelter for it comprises the
majority and controlling stock, so that anyone who acquires or owns the 51% will have actual
control and management of the hotel. In this instance, 51% of the MHC cannot be disassociated
from the hotel and the land on which the hotel edifice stands. Consequently, we cannot sustain
respondents' claim that theFilipino First Policy provision is not applicable since what is being
sold is only 51% of the outstanding shares of the corporation, not the Hotel building nor the land
upon which the building stands. 38
The argument is pure sophistry. The term qualified Filipinos as used in Our Constitution also
includes corporations at least 60% of which is owned by Filipinos. This is very clear from the
proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE. I would like to introduce an amendment to the
Nolledo amendment. And the amendment would consist in
substituting the words "QUALIFIED FILIPINOS" with the following:
"CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES OR CORPORATIONS OR
ASSOCIATIONS WHOSE CAPITAL OR CONTROLLING STOCK
IS WHOLLY OWNED BY SUCH CITIZENS.
xxx xxx xxx
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, apparently the proponent is
agreeable, but we have to raise a question. Suppose it is a

corporation that is 80-percent Filipino, do we not give it

preference?
MR. DAVIDE. The Nolledo amendment would refer to an
individual Filipino. What about a corporation wholly owned by
Filipino citizens?
MR. MONSOD. At least 60 percent, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE. Is that the intention?
MR. MONSOD. Yes, because, in fact, we would be limiting it if we
say that the preference should only be 100-percent Filipino.
MR: DAVIDE. I want to get that meaning clear because
"QUALIFIED FILIPINOS" may refer only to individuals and not to
juridical personalities or entities.
MR. MONSOD. We agree, Madam President. 39
xxx xxx xxx
MR. RODRIGO. Before we vote, may I request that the
amendment be read again.
MR. NOLLEDO. The amendment will read: "IN THE GRANT OF
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND CONCESSIONS COVERING THE
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY, THE STATE SHALL
GIVE PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS." And the word
"Filipinos" here, as intended by the proponents, will include not
only individual Filipinos but also Filipino-controlled entities or
entities fully-controlled by Filipinos. 40
The phrase preference to qualified Filipinos was explained thus
MR. FOZ. Madam President, I would like to request Commissioner
Nolledo to please restate his amendment so that I can ask a
question.
MR. NOLLEDO. "IN THE GRANT OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES
AND CONCESSIONS COVERING THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
AND PATRIMONY, THE STATE SHALL GIVE PREFERENCE TO
QUALIFIED FILIPINOS."
MR FOZ. In connection with that amendment, if a foreign
enterprise is qualified and a Filipino enterprise is also qualified,
will the Filipino enterprise still be given a preference?
MR. NOLLEDO. Obviously.

MR. FOZ. If the foreigner is more qualified in some aspects than

the Filipino enterprise, will the Filipino still be preferred?
MR. NOLLEDO. The answer is "yes."
MR. FOZ. Thank you, 41
Expounding further on the Filipino First Policy provision Commissioner Nolledo continues
MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President. Instead of "MUST," it will be "SHALL
THE STATE SHALL GlVE PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS. This
embodies the so-called "Filipino First" policy. That means that Filipinos should be
given preference in the grant of concessions, privileges and rights covering the
national patrimony. 42
The exchange of views in the sessions of the Constitutional Commission regarding the subject
provision was still further clarified by Commissioner Nolledo 43
Paragraph 2 of Section 10 explicitly mandates the "Pro-Filipino" bias in all
economic concerns. It is better known as the FILIPINO FIRST Policy . . . This
provision was never found in previous Constitutions . . . .
The term "qualified Filipinos" simply means that preference shall be given to
those citizens who can make a viable contribution to the common good, because
of credible competence and efficiency. It certainly does NOT mandate the
pampering and preferential treatment to Filipino citizens or organizations that are
incompetent or inefficient, since such an indiscriminate preference would be
counter productive and inimical to the common good.
In the granting of economic rights, privileges, and concessions, when a choice
has to be made between a "qualified foreigner" end a "qualified Filipino," the
latter shall be chosen over the former."
Lastly, the word qualified is also determinable. Petitioner was so considered by respondent
GSIS and selected as one of the qualified bidders. It was pre-qualified by respondent GSIS in
accordance with its own guidelines so that the sole inference here is that petitioner has been
found to be possessed of proven management expertise in the hotel industry, or it has
significant equity ownership in another hotel company, or it has an overall management and
marketing proficiency to successfully operate the Manila Hotel. 44
The penchant to try to whittle away the mandate of the Constitution by arguing that the subject
provision is not self-executory and requires implementing legislation is quite disturbing. The
attempt to violate a clear constitutional provision by the government itself is only too
distressing. To adopt such a line of reasoning is to renounce the duty to ensure faithfulness to
the Constitution. For, even some of the provisions of the Constitution which evidently need
implementing legislation have juridical life of their own and can be the source of a judicial
remedy. We cannot simply afford the government a defense that arises out of the failure to
enact further enabling, implementing or guiding legislation. In fine, the discourse of Fr. Joaquin
G. Bernas, S.J., on constitutional government is apt

The executive department has a constitutional duty to implement laws, including

the Constitution, even before Congress acts provided that there are
discoverable legal standards for executive action. When the executive acts, it
must be guided by its own understanding of the constitutional command and of
applicable laws. The responsibility for reading and understanding the Constitution
and the laws is not the sole prerogative of Congress. If it were, the executive
would have to ask Congress, or perhaps the Court, for an interpretation every
time the executive is confronted by a constitutional command. That is not how
constitutional government operates. 45
Respondents further argue that the constitutional provision is addressed to the State, not to
respondent GSIS which by itself possesses a separate and distinct personality. This argument
again is at best specious. It is undisputed that the sale of 51% of the MHC could only be carried
out with the prior approval of the State acting through respondent Committee on Privatization.
As correctly pointed out by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., this fact alone makes the sale of the
assets of respondents GSIS and MHC a "state action." In constitutional jurisprudence, the acts
of persons distinct from the government are considered "state action" covered by the
Constitution (1) when the activity it engages in is a "public function;" (2) when the government is
so significantly involved with the private actor as to make the government responsible for his
action; and, (3) when the government has approved or authorized the action. It is evident that
the act of respondent GSIS in selling 51% of its share in respondent MHC comes under the
second and third categories of "state action." Without doubt therefore the transaction. although
entered into by respondent GSIS, is in fact a transaction of the State and therefore subject to
the constitutional command. 46
When the Constitution addresses the State it refers not only to the people but also to the
government as elements of the State. After all, government is composed of three (3) divisions of
power legislative, executive and judicial. Accordingly, a constitutional mandate directed to the
State is correspondingly directed to the three(3) branches of government. It is undeniable that in
this case the subject constitutional injunction is addressed among others to the Executive
Department and respondent GSIS, a government instrumentality deriving its authority from the
State.
It should be stressed that while the Malaysian firm offered the higher bid it is not yet the winning
bidder. The bidding rules expressly provide that the highest bidder shall only be declared the
winning bidder after it has negotiated and executed the necessary contracts, and secured the
requisite approvals. Since the "Filipino First Policy provision of the Constitution bestows
preference on qualified Filipinos the mere tending of the highest bid is not an assurance that the
highest bidder will be declared the winning bidder. Resultantly, respondents are not bound to
make the award yet, nor are they under obligation to enter into one with the highest bidder. For
in choosing the awardee respondents are mandated to abide by the dictates of the 1987
Constitution the provisions of which are presumed to be known to all the bidders and other
interested parties.
Adhering to the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, the subject constitutional provision is, as it
should be, impliedly written in the bidding rules issued by respondent GSIS, lest the bidding
rules be nullified for being violative of the Constitution. It is a basic principle in constitutional law
that all laws and contracts must conform with the fundamental law of the land. Those which
violate the Constitution lose their reason for being.

Paragraph V. J. 1 of the bidding rules provides that [if] for any reason the Highest Bidder cannot
be awarded the Block of Shares, GSIS may offer this to other Qualified Bidders that have validly
submitted bids provided that these Qualified Bidders are willing to match the highest bid in
terms of price per
share. 47 Certainly, the constitutional mandate itself is reason enough not to award the block of
shares immediately to the foreign bidder notwithstanding its submission of a higher, or even the
highest, bid. In fact, we cannot conceive of a stronger reason than the constitutional injunction
itself.
In the instant case, where a foreign firm submits the highest bid in a public bidding concerning
the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony,
thereby exceeding the bid of a Filipino, there is no question that the Filipino will have to be
allowed to match the bid of the foreign entity. And if the Filipino matches the bid of a foreign firm
the award should go to the Filipino. It must be so if we are to give life and meaning to
the Filipino First Policy provision of the 1987 Constitution. For, while this may neither be
expressly stated nor contemplated in the bidding rules, the constitutional fiat is, omnipresent to
be simply disregarded. To ignore it would be to sanction a perilous skirting of the basic law.
This Court does not discount the apprehension that this policy may discourage foreign
investors. But the Constitution and laws of the Philippines are understood to be always open to
public scrutiny. These are given factors which investors must consider when venturing into
business in a foreign jurisdiction. Any person therefore desiring to do business in the Philippines
or with any of its agencies or instrumentalities is presumed to know his rights and obligations
under the Constitution and the laws of the forum.
The argument of respondents that petitioner is now estopped from questioning the sale to
Renong Berhad since petitioner was well aware from the beginning that a foreigner could
participate in the bidding is meritless. Undoubtedly, Filipinos and foreigners alike were invited to
the bidding. But foreigners may be awarded the sale only if no Filipino qualifies, or if the
qualified Filipino fails to match the highest bid tendered by the foreign entity. In the case before
us, while petitioner was already preferred at the inception of the bidding because of the
constitutional mandate, petitioner had not yet matched the bid offered by Renong Berhad. Thus
it did not have the right or personality then to compel respondent GSIS to accept its earlier bid.
Rightly, only after it had matched the bid of the foreign firm and the apparent disregard by
respondent GSIS of petitioner's matching bid did the latter have a cause of action.
Besides, there is no time frame for invoking the constitutional safeguard unless perhaps the
award has been finally made. To insist on selling the Manila Hotel to foreigners when there is a
Filipino group willing to match the bid of the foreign group is to insist that government be treated
as any other ordinary market player, and bound by its mistakes or gross errors of judgment,
regardless of the consequences to the Filipino people. The miscomprehension of the
Constitution is regrettable. Thus we would rather remedy the indiscretion while there is still an
opportunity to do so than let the government develop the habit of forgetting that the Constitution
lays down the basic conditions and parameters for its actions.
Since petitioner has already matched the bid price tendered by Renong Berhad pursuant to the
bidding rules, respondent GSIS is left with no alternative but to award to petitioner the block of
shares of MHC and to execute the necessary agreements and documents to effect the sale in
accordance not only with the bidding guidelines and procedures but with the Constitution as
well. The refusal of respondent GSIS to execute the corresponding documents with petitioner as

provided in the bidding rules after the latter has matched the bid of the Malaysian firm clearly
constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
The Filipino First Policy is a product of Philippine nationalism. It is embodied in the 1987
Constitution not merely to be used as a guideline for future legislation but primarily to be
enforced; so must it be enforced. This Court as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution will
never shun, under any reasonable circumstance, the duty of upholding the majesty of the
Constitution which it is tasked to defend. It is worth emphasizing that it is not the intention of this
Court to impede and diminish, much less undermine, the influx of foreign investments. Far from
it, the Court encourages and welcomes more business opportunities but avowedly sanctions the
preference for Filipinos whenever such preference is ordained by the Constitution. The position
of the Court on this matter could have not been more appropriately articulated by Chief Justice
Narvasa
As scrupulously as it has tried to observe that it is not its function to substitute its
judgment for that of the legislature or the executive about the wisdom and
feasibility of legislation economic in nature, the Supreme Court has not been
spared criticism for decisions perceived as obstacles to economic progress and
development . . . in connection with a temporary injunction issued by the Court's
First Division against the sale of the Manila Hotel to a Malaysian Firm and its
partner, certain statements were published in a major daily to the effect that
injunction "again demonstrates that the Philippine legal system can be a major
obstacle to doing business here.
Let it be stated for the record once again that while it is no business of the Court
to intervene in contracts of the kind referred to or set itself up as the judge of
whether they are viable or attainable, it is its bounden duty to make sure that they
do not violate the Constitution or the laws, or are not adopted or implemented
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It will
never shirk that duty, no matter how buffeted by winds of unfair and ill-informed
criticism. 48
Privatization of a business asset for purposes of enhancing its business viability and preventing
further losses, regardless of the character of the asset, should not take precedence over nonmaterial values. A commercial, nay even a budgetary, objective should not be pursued at the
expense of national pride and dignity. For the Constitution enshrines higher and nobler nonmaterial values. Indeed, the Court will always defer to the Constitution in the proper governance
of a free society; after all, there is nothing so sacrosanct in any economic policy as to draw itself
beyond judicial review when the Constitution is involved. 49
Nationalism is inherent, in the very concept of the Philippines being a democratic and republican
state, with sovereignty residing in the Filipino people and from whom all government authority
emanates. In nationalism, the happiness and welfare of the people must be the goal. The
nation-state can have no higher purpose. Any interpretation of any constitutional provision must
adhere to such basic concept. Protection of foreign investments, while laudible, is merely a
policy. It cannot override the demands of nationalism. 50
The Manila Hotel or, for that matter, 51% of the MHC, is not just any commodity to be sold to
the highest bidder solely for the sake of privatization. We are not talking about an ordinary piece
of property in a commercial district. We are talking about a historic relic that has hosted many of

the most important events in the short history of the Philippines as a nation. We are talking
about a hotel where heads of states would prefer to be housed as a strong manifestation of their
desire to cloak the dignity of the highest state function to their official visits to the Philippines.
Thus the Manila Hotel has played and continues to play a significant role as an authentic
repository of twentieth century Philippine history and culture. In this sense, it has become truly a
reflection of the Filipino soul a place with a history of grandeur; a most historical setting that
has played a part in the shaping of a country. 51
This Court cannot extract rhyme nor reason from the determined efforts of respondents to sell
the historical landmark this Grand Old Dame of hotels in Asia to a total stranger. For,
indeed, the conveyance of this epic exponent of the Filipino psyche to alien hands cannot be
less than mephistophelian for it is, in whatever manner viewed, a veritable alienation of a
nation's soul for some pieces of foreign silver. And so we ask: What advantage, which cannot
be equally drawn from a qualified Filipino, can be gained by the Filipinos Manila Hotel and all
that it stands for is sold to a non-Filipino? How much of national pride will vanish if the
nation's cultural heritage is entrusted to a foreign entity? On the other hand, how much dignity
will be preserved and realized if the national patrimony is safekept in the hands of a qualified,
zealous and well-meaning Filipino? This is the plain and simple meaning of the Filipino First
Policy provision of the Philippine Constitution. And this Court, heeding the clarion call of the
Constitution and accepting the duty of being the elderly watchman of the nation, will continue to
respect and protect the sanctity of the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, respondents GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA
HOTEL CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL are directed to CEASE and DESIST from selling
51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation to RENONG BERHAD, and to ACCEPT the
matching bid of petitioner MANILA PRINCE HOTEL CORPORATION to purchase the subject
51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation at P44.00 per share and thereafter to
execute the necessary clearances and to do such other acts and deeds as may be necessary
for purpose.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Kapunan, Francisco and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-32166 October 18, 1977
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
HON. MAXIMO A. MACEREN CFI, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, JOSE BUENAVENTURA,

GODOFREDO REYES, BENJAMIN REYES, NAZARIO AQUINO and CARLO DEL

ROSARIO, accused-appellees.
Office of the Solicitor General for appellant.
Rustics F. de los Reyes, Jr. for appellees.

AQUINO, J.:t.hqw
This is a case involving the validity of a 1967 regulation, penalizing electro fishing in fresh water
fisheries, promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the
Commissioner of Fisheries under the old Fisheries Law and the law creating the Fisheries
Commission.
On March 7, 1969 Jose Buenaventura, Godofredo Reyes, Benjamin Reyes, Nazario Aquino and
Carlito del Rosario were charged by a Constabulary investigator in the municipal court of Sta.
Cruz, Laguna with having violated Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84-1.
It was alleged in the complaint that the five accused in the morning of March 1, 1969 resorted to
electro fishing in the waters of Barrio San Pablo Norte, Sta. Cruz by "using their own motor
banca, equipped with motor; with a generator colored green with attached dynamo colored gray
or somewhat white; and electrocuting device locally known as sensored with a somewhat
webbed copper wire on the tip or other end of a bamboo pole with electric wire attachment
which was attached to the dynamo direct and with the use of these devices or equipments
catches fish thru electric current, which destroy any aquatic animals within its cuffed reach, to
the detriment and prejudice of the populace" (Criminal Case No. 5429).
Upon motion of the accused, the municipal court quashed the complaint. The prosecution
appealed. The Court of First Instance of Laguna affirmed the order of dismissal (Civil Case No.
SC-36). The case is now before this Court on appeal by the prosecution under Republic Act No.
5440.
The lower court held that electro fishing cannot be penalize because electric current is not an
obnoxious or poisonous substance as contemplated in section I I of the Fisheries Law and that it
is not a substance at all but a form of energy conducted or transmitted by substances. The
lower court further held that, since the law does not clearly prohibit electro fishing, the executive
and judicial departments cannot consider it unlawful.
As legal background, it should be stated that section 11 of the Fisheries Law prohibits "the use
of any obnoxious or poisonous substance" in fishing.
Section 76 of the same law punishes any person who uses an obnoxious or poisonous
substance in fishing with a fine of not more than five hundred pesos nor more than five
thousand, and by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than five years.
It is noteworthy that the Fisheries Law does not expressly punish .electro fishing."
Notwithstanding the silence of the law, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources,

upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Fisheries, promulgated Fisheries

Administrative Order No. 84 (62 O.G. 1224), prohibiting electro fishing in all Philippine waters.
The order is quoted below: +.wph!1
SUBJECT: PROHIBITING ELECTRO FISHING IN ALL WATERS +.wph!1
OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Pursuant to Section 4 of Act No. 4003, as amended, and Section 4 of R.A. No. 3512, the
following rules and regulations regarding the prohibition of electro fishing in all waters of the
Philippines are promulgated for the information and guidance of all concerned.+.wph!1
SECTION 1. Definition. Words and terms used in this Order 11 construed
as follows:
(a) Philippine waters or territorial waters of the Philippines' includes all waters of
the Philippine Archipelago, as defined in the t between the United States and
Spain, dated respectively the tenth of December, eighteen hundred ninety eight
and the seventh of November, nineteen hundred. For the purpose of this order,
rivers, lakes and other bodies of fresh waters are included.
(b) Electro Fishing. Electro fishing is the catching of fish with the use of
electric current. The equipment used are of many electrical devices which may
be battery or generator-operated and from and available source of electric
current.
(c) 'Persons' includes firm, corporation, association, agent or employee.
(d) 'Fish' includes other aquatic products.
SEC. 2. Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in electro
fishing or to catch fish by the use of electric current in any portion of the
Philippine waters except for research, educational and scientific purposes which
must be covered by a permit issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources which shall be carried at all times.
SEC. 3. Penalty. Any violation of the provisions of this Administrative Order
shall subject the offender to a fine of not exceeding five hundred pesos (P500.00)
or imprisonment of not extending six (6) months or both at the discretion of the
Court.
SEC. 4. Repealing Provisions. All administrative orders or parts thereof
inconsistent with the provisions of this Administrative Order are hereby revoked.
SEC. 5. Effectivity. This Administrative Order shall take effect six (60) days
after its publication in the Office Gazette.
On June 28, 1967 the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, upon the
recommendation of the Fisheries Commission, issued Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84-1,

amending section 2 of Administrative Order No. 84, by restricting the ban against electro fishing
to fresh water fisheries (63 O.G. 9963).
Thus, the phrase "in any portion of the Philippine waters" found in section 2, was changed by
the amendatory order to read as follows: "in fresh water fisheries in the Philippines, such as
rivers, lakes, swamps, dams, irrigation canals and other bodies of fresh water."
The Court of First Instance and the prosecution (p. 11 of brief) assumed that electro fishing is
punishable under section 83 of the Fisheries Law (not under section 76 thereof), which provides
that any other violation of that law "or of any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall
subject the offender to a fine of not more than two hundred pesos (P200), or in t for not more
than six months, or both, in the discretion of the court."
That assumption is incorrect because 3 of the aforequoted Administrative Order No. 84 imposes
a fm of not exceeding P500 on a person engaged in electro fishing, which amount the 83. It
seems that the Department of Fisheries prescribed their own penalty for swift fishing which
penalty is less than the severe penalty imposed in section 76 and which is not Identified to the
at penalty imposed in section 83.
Had Administrative Order No. 84 adopted the fighter penalty prescribed in on 83, then the crime
of electro fishing would be within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the inferior court (Sec. 44
[f], Judiciary Law; People vs. Ragasi, L-28663, September 22,
We have discussed this pre point, not raised in the briefs, because it is obvious that the crime of
electro fishing which is punishable with a sum up to P500, falls within the concurrent original
jurisdiction of the inferior courts and the Court of First instance (People vs. Nazareno, L-40037,
April 30, 1976, 70 SCRA 531 and the cases cited therein).
And since the instant case was filed in the municipal court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, a provincial
capital, the order of d rendered by that municipal court was directly appealable to the Court, not
to the Court of First Instance of Laguna (Sec. 45 and last par. of section 87 of the Judiciary Law;
Esperat vs. Avila, L-25992, June 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 596).
It results that the Court of First Instance of Laguna had no appellate jurisdiction over the case.
Its order affirming the municipal court's order of dismissal is void for lack of motion. This appeal
shall be treated as a direct appeal from the municipal court to this Court. (See People vs. Del
Rosario, 97 Phil. 67).
In this appeal, the prosecution argues that Administrative Orders Nos. 84 and 84-1 were not
issued under section 11 of the Fisheries Law which, as indicated above, punishes fishing by
means of an obnoxious or poisonous substance. This contention is not well-taken because, as
already stated, the Penal provision of Administrative Order No. 84 implies that electro fishing is
penalized as a form of fishing by means of an obnoxious or poisonous substance under section
11.
The prosecution cites as the legal sanctions for the prohibition against electro fishing in fresh
water fisheries (1) the rule-making power of the Department Secretary under section 4 of the
Fisheries Law; (2) the function of the Commissioner of Fisheries to enforce the provisions of the
Fisheries Law and the regulations Promulgated thereunder and to execute the rules and
regulations consistent with the purpose for the creation of the Fisheries Commission and for the

development of fisheries (Sec. 4[c] and [h] Republic Act No. 3512; (3) the declared national
policy to encourage, Promote and conserve our fishing resources (Sec. 1, Republic Act No.
3512), and (4) section 83 of the Fisheries Law which provides that "any other violation of" the
Fisheries Law or of any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder "shall subject the
offender to a fine of not more than two hundred pesos, or imprisonment for not more than six
months, or both, in the discretion of the court."
As already pointed out above, the prosecution's reference to section 83 is out of place because
the penalty for electro fishing under Administrative order No. 84 is not the same as the penalty
fixed in section 83.
We are of the opinion that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the
Commissioner of Fisheries exceeded their authority in issuing Fisheries Administrative Orders
Nos. 84 and 84-1 and that those orders are not warranted under the Fisheries Commission,
Republic Act No. 3512.
The reason is that the Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit electro fishing. As electro
fishing is not banned under that law, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the
Commissioner of Fisheries are powerless to penalize it. In other words, Administrative Orders
Nos. 84 and 84-1, in penalizing electro fishing, are devoid of any legal basis.
Had the lawmaking body intended to punish electro fishing, a penal provision to that effect could
have been easily embodied in the old Fisheries Law.
That law punishes (1) the use of obnoxious or poisonous substance, or explosive in fishing; (2)
unlawful fishing in deepsea fisheries; (3) unlawful taking of marine molusca, (4) illegal taking of
sponges; (5) failure of licensed fishermen to report the kind and quantity of fish caught, and (6)
other violations.
Nowhere in that law is electro fishing specifically punished. Administrative Order No. 84, in
punishing electro fishing, does not contemplate that such an offense fails within the category of
"other violations" because, as already shown, the penalty for electro fishing is the penalty next
lower to the penalty for fishing with the use of obnoxious or poisonous substances, fixed in
section 76, and is not the same as the penalty for "other violations" of the law and regulations
fixed in section 83 of the Fisheries Law.
The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive official the power to declare what acts
should constitute an offense. It can authorize the issuance of regulations and the imposition of
the penalty provided for in the law itself. (People vs. Exconde 101 Phil. 11 25, citing 11 Am. Jur.
965 on p. 11 32).
Originally, Administrative Order No. 84 punished electro fishing in all waters. Later, the ban
against electro fishing was confined to fresh water fisheries. The amendment created the
impression that electro fishing is not condemnable per se. It could be tolerated in marine waters.
That circumstances strengthens the view that the old law does not eschew all forms of electro
fishing.
However, at present, there is no more doubt that electro fishing is punishable under the
Fisheries Law and that it cannot be penalized merely by executive revolution because
Presidential Decree No. 704, which is a revision and consolidation of all laws and decrees

affecting fishing and fisheries and which was promulgated on May 16, 1975 (71 O.G. 4269),
expressly punishes electro fishing in fresh water and salt water areas.
That decree provides: +.wph!1
SEC. 33. Illegal fishing, dealing in illegally caught fish or fishery/aquatic
products. It shall he unlawful for any person to catch, take or gather or cause
to be caught, taken or gathered fish or fishery/aquatic products in Philippine
waters with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance, or by the
use of electricity as defined in paragraphs (1), (m) and (d), respectively, of
Section 3 hereof: ...
The decree Act No. 4003, as amended, Republic Acts Nos. 428, 3048, 3512 and 3586,
Presidential Decrees Nos. 43, 534 and 553, and all , Acts, Executive Orders, rules and
regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with it (Sec. 49, P. D. No. 704).
The inclusion in that decree of provisions defining and penalizing electro fishing is a clear
recognition of the deficiency or silence on that point of the old Fisheries Law. It is an admission
that a mere executive regulation is not legally adequate to penalize electro fishing.
Note that the definition of electro fishing, which is found in section 1 (c) of Fisheries
Administrative Order No. 84 and which is not provided for the old Fisheries Law, is now found in
section 3(d) of the decree. Note further that the decree penalty electro fishing by "imprisonment
from two (2) to four (4) years", a punishment which is more severe than the penalty of a time of
not excluding P500 or imprisonment of not more than six months or both fixed in section 3 of
Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84.
An examination of the rule-making power of executive officials and administrative agencies and,
in particular, of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (now Secretary of Natural
Resources) under the Fisheries Law sustains the view that he ex his authority in penalizing
electro fishing by means of an administrative order.
Administrative agent are clothed with rule-making powers because the lawmaking body finds it
impracticable, if not impossible, to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and complex
situations that may be encountered in enforcing the law. All that is required is that the regulation
should be germane to the defects and purposes of the law and that it should conform to the
standards that the law prescribes (People vs. Exconde 101 Phil. 1125; Director of Forestry vs.
Mu;oz, L-24796, June 28, 1968, 23 SCRA 1183, 1198; Geukeko vs. Araneta, 102 Phil. 706,
712).
The lawmaking body cannot possibly provide for all the details in the enforcement of a particular
statute (U.S. vs. Tupasi Molina, 29 Phil. 119, 125, citing U.S. vs. Grimaud 220 U.S. 506;
Interprovincial Autobus Co., Inc. vs. Coll. of Internal Revenue, 98 Phil. 290, 295-6).
The grant of the rule-making power to administrative agencies is a relaxation of the principle of
separation of powers and is an exception to the nondeleption of legislative, powers.
Administrative regulations or "subordinate legislation calculated to promote the public interest
are necessary because of "the growing complexity of modem life, the multiplication of the
subjects of governmental regulations, and the increased difficulty of administering the law"
Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726; People vs. Rosenthal and Osme;a, 68 Phil. 328).

Administrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must

be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying into
effect its general provisions. By such regulations, of course, the law itself cannot be extended.
(U.S. vs. Tupasi Molina, supra). An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress
(Santos vs. Estenzo, 109 Phil. 419, 422; Teoxon vs. Members of the d of Administrators, L25619, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 585; Manuel vs. General Auditing Office, L-28952, December
29, 1971, 42 SCRA 660; Deluao vs. Casteel, L-21906, August 29, 1969, 29 SCRA 350).
The rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to
carry into effect the law as it his been enacted. The power cannot be extended to amending or
expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute. Rules
that subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned. (University of Santo Tomas vs. Board of Tax A 93
Phil. 376, 382, citing 12 C.J. 845-46. As to invalid regulations, see of Internal Revenue vs.
Villaflor 69 Phil. 319, Wise & Co. vs. Meer, 78 Phil. 655, 676; Del March vs. Phil. Veterans
Administrative, L-27299, June 27, 1973, 51 SCRA 340, 349).
There is no question that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources has rule-making
powers. Section 4 of the Fisheries law provides that the Secretary "shall from time to time issue
instructions, orders, and regulations consistent" with that law, "as may be and proper to carry
into effect the provisions thereof." That power is now vested in the Secretary of Natural
Resources by on 7 of the Revised Fisheries law, Presidential December No. 704.
Section 4(h) of Republic Act No. 3512 empower the Co of Fisheries "to prepare and execute
upon the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, forms instructions,
rules and regulations consistent with the purpose" of that enactment "and for the development
of fisheries."
Section 79(B) of the Revised Administrative Code provides that "the Department Head shall
have the power to promulgate, whenever he may see fit do so, all rules, regulates, orders,
memorandums, and other instructions, not contrary to law, to regulate the proper working and
harmonious and efficient administration of each and all of the offices and dependencies of his
Department, and for the strict enforcement and proper execution of the laws relative to matters
under the jurisdiction of said Department; but none of said rules or orders shall prescribe
penalties for the violation thereof, except as expressly authorized by law."
Administrative regulations issued by a Department Head in conformity with law have the force of
law (Valerie vs. Secretary of culture and Natural Resources, 117 Phil. 729, 733; Antique
Sawmills, Inc. vs. Zayco, L- 20051, May 30, 1966, 17 SCRA 316). As he exercises the rulemaking power by delegation of the lawmaking body, it is a requisite that he should not transcend
the bound demarcated by the statute for the exercise of that power; otherwise, he would be
improperly exercising legislative power in his own right and not as a surrogate of the lawmaking
body.
Article 7 of the Civil Code embodies the basic principle that administrative or executive acts,
orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the
Constitution."
As noted by Justice Fernando, "except for constitutional officials who can trace their
competence to act to the fundamental law itself, a public office must be in the statute relied
upon a grant of power before he can exercise it." "department zeal may not be permitted to

outrun the authority conferred by statute." (Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. vs.
Santiago, L-29236, August 21, 1974, 58 SCRA 493, 496-8).
"Rules and regulations when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred
upon the administrative agency by law, partake of the nature of a statute, and compliance
therewith may be enforced by a penal sanction provided in the law. This is so because statutes
are usually couched in general terms, after expressing the policy, purposes, objectives,
remedies and sanctions intended by the legislature. The details and the manner of carrying out
the law are oftentimes left to the administrative agency entrusted with its enforcement. In this
sense, it has been said that rules and regulations are the product of a delegated power to create
new or additional legal provisions that have the effect of law." The rule or regulation should be
within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the administrative
agency. (Davis, Administrative Law, p. 194, 197, cited in Victories Milling Co., Inc. vs. Social
Security Commission, 114 Phil. 555, 558).
In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement said
law, the basic law prevails because said rule or regulation cannot go beyond the terms and
provisions of the basic law (People vs. Lim, 108 Phil. 1091).
This Court in its decision in the Lim case, supra, promulgated on July 26, 1960, called the
attention of technical men in the executive departments, who draft rules and regulations, to the
importance and necessity of closely following the legal provisions which they intend to
implement so as to avoid any possible misunderstanding or confusion.
The rule is that the violation of a regulation prescribed by an executive officer of the government
in conformity with and based upon a statute authorizing such regulation constitutes an offense
and renders the offender liable to punishment in accordance with the provisions of the law (U.S.
vs. Tupasi Molina, 29 Phil. 119, 124).
In other words, a violation or infringement of a rule or regulation validly issued can constitute a
crime punishable as provided in the authorizing statute and by virtue of the latter (People vs.
Exconde 101 Phil. 1125, 1132).
It has been held that "to declare what shall constitute a crime and how it shall be punished is a
power vested exclusively in the legislature, and it may not be delegated to any other body or
agency" (1 Am. Jur. 2nd, sec. 127, p. 938; Texas Co. vs. Montgomery, 73 F. Supp. 527).
In the instant case the regulation penalizing electro fishing is not strictly in accordance with the
Fisheries Law, under which the regulation was issued, because the law itself does not expressly
punish electro fishing.
The instant case is similar to People vs. Santos, 63 Phil. 300. The Santos case involves section
28 of Fish and Game Administrative Order No. 2 issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources pursuant to the aforementioned section 4 of the Fisheries Law.
Section 28 contains the proviso that a fishing boat not licensed under the Fisheries Law and
under the said administrative order may fish within three kilometers of the shoreline of islands
and reservations over which jurisdiction is exercised by naval and military reservations
authorities of the United States only upon receiving written permission therefor, which
permission may be granted by the Secretary upon recommendation of the military or naval

authorities concerned. A violation of the proviso may be proceeded against under section 45 of
the Federal Penal Code.
Augusto A. Santos was prosecuted under that provision in the Court of First Instance of Cavite
for having caused his two fishing boats to fish, loiter and anchor without permission from the
Secretary within three kilometers from the shoreline of Corrigidor Island.
This Court held that the Fisheries Law does not prohibit boats not subject to license from fishing
within three kilometers of the shoreline of islands and reservations over which jurisdiction is
exercised by naval and military authorities of the United States, without permission from the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources upon recommendation of the military and naval
authorities concerned.
As the said law does not penalize the act mentioned in section 28 of the administrative order,
the promulgation of that provision by the Secretary "is equivalent to legislating on the matter, a
power which has not been and cannot be delegated to him, it being expressly reserved" to the
lawmaking body. "Such an act constitutes not only an excess of the regulatory power conferred
upon the Secretary but also an exercise of a legislative power which he does not have, and
therefore" the said provision "is null and void and without effect". Hence, the charge against
Santos was dismiss.
A penal statute is strictly construed. While an administrative agency has the right to make ranks
and regulations to carry into effect a law already enacted, that power should not be confused
with the power to enact a criminal statute. An administrative agency can have only the
administrative or policing powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred upon it.
(Glustrom vs. State, 206 Ga. 734, 58 Second 2d 534; See 2 Am. Jr. 2nd 129-130).
Where the legislature has delegated to executive or administrative officers and boards authority
to promulgate rules to carry out an express legislative purpose, the rules of administrative
officers and boards, which have the effect of extending, or which conflict with the authority
granting statute, do not represent a valid precise of the rule-making power but constitute an
attempt by an administrative body to legislate (State vs. Miles, Wash. 2nd 322, 105 Pac. 2nd
51).
In a prosecution for a violation of an administrative order, it must clearly appear that the order is
one which falls within the scope of the authority conferred upon the administrative body, and the
order will be scrutinized with special care. (State vs. Miles supra).
The Miles case involved a statute which authorized the State Game Commission "to adopt,
promulgate, amend and/or repeal, and enforce reasonable rules and regulations governing
and/or prohibiting the taking of the various classes of game.
Under that statute, the Game Commission promulgated a rule that "it shall be unlawful to offer,
pay or receive any reward, prize or compensation for the hunting, pursuing, taking, killing
or displaying of any game animal, game bird or game fish or any part thereof."
Beryl S. Miles, the owner of a sporting goods store, regularly offered a ten-down cash prize to
the person displaying the largest deer in his store during the open for hunting such game
animals. For that act, he was charged with a violation of the rule Promulgated by the State
Game Commission.

It was held that there was no statute penalizing the display of game. What the statute penalized
was the taking of game. If the lawmaking body desired to prohibit the display of game, it could
have readily said so. It was not lawful for the administrative board to extend or modify the
statute. Hence, the indictment against Miles was quashed. The Miles case is similar to this
case.
WHEREFORE, the lower court's decision of June 9, 1970 is set aside for lack of appellate
jurisdiction and the order of dismissal rendered by the municipal court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna in
Criminal Case No. 5429 is affirmed. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, Concepcion, Jr., Santos and Guerrero, JJ., concur.1wph1.t
Fernando and Antonio, JJ., took no part.
Guerrero, J., was designated to sit in the Second Division.

THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 135297. June 8, 2000]
GAVINO CORPUZ, petitioner, vs. Spouses GERONIMO GROSPE and HILARIA
GROSPE, respondents.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The sale, transfer or conveyance of land reform rights are, as a rule, void in order to prevent a
circumvention of agrarian reform laws. However, in the present case, the voluntary surrender or
waiver of these rights in favor of the Samahang Nayon is valid because such action is deemed a
legally permissible conveyance in favor of the government. After the surrender or waiver of said
land reform rights, the Department of Agrarian Reform, which took control of the property,
validly awarded it to private respondents.
The Case
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the May 14, 1998 Decision[1] and the
August 19, 1998 Resolution[2] in CA-GR SP No. 47176, in which the Court of Appeals
(CA)[3] dismissed the petitioners appeal and denied reconsideration respectively.
The decretal portion of the assailed Decision reads:[4]
"IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Petition is denied due course
and is hereby dismissed. The Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. With costs
against the Petitioner."

The Facts
Petitioner Gavino Corpuz was a farmer-beneficiary under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT)
Program of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). Pursuant to Presidential Decree (PD)
No. 27, he was issued a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) over two parcels of agricultural land
(Lot Nos. 3017 and 012) with a total area of 3.3 hectares situated in Salungat, Sto. Domingo,
Nueva Ecija. The lots were formerly owned by a certain Florentino Chioco and registered under
Title No. 126638.
To pay for his wifes hospitalization, petitioner mortgaged the subject land on January 20, 1982,
in favor of Virginia de Leon. When the contract period expired, he again mortgaged it to
Respondent Hilaria Grospe, wife of Geronimo Grospe, for a period of four years (December 5,
1986 to December 5, 1990) to guarantee a loan of P32,500. The parties executed a contract
denominated as "Kasunduan Sa Pagpapahiram Ng Lupang Sakahan,"[5] which allowed the
respondents to use or cultivate the land during the duration of the mortgage.
Before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Cabanatuan City
(Region III), petitioner instituted against the respondents an action for recovery of
possession.[6] In his Complaint, he alleged that they had entered the disputed land by force and
intimidation on January 10 and 11, 1991, and destroyed the palay that he had planted on the
land.
Respondents, in their Answer, claimed that the "Kasunduan" between them and petitioner
allowed the former to take over the possession and cultivation of the property until the latter paid
his loan. Instead of paying his loan, petitioner allegedly executed on June 29, 1989, a "Waiver
of Rights"[7]
over the landholding in favor of respondents in consideration of P54,394.
Petitioner denied waiving his rights and interest over the landholding and alleged that his and
his childrens signatures appearing on the Waiver were forgeries.
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) Ernesto P. Tabara ruled that petitioner
abandoned and surrendered the landholding to the Samahang Nayon of Malaya, Sto. Domingo,
Nueva Ecija, which had passed Resolution Nos. 16 and 27 recommending the reallocation of
the said lots to the respondent spouses, who were the "most qualified farmer[s]-beneficiaries."[8]
The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB),[9] in a Decision promulgated
on October 8, 1997 in DARAB Case No. 1251, affirmed the provincial adjudicators
Decision.[10] Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied in the Resolution dated
February 26, 1998.[11] As earlier stated, petitioners appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The appellate court ruled that petitioner had abandoned the landholding and forfeited his right
as a beneficiary. It rejected his contention that all deeds relinquishing possession of the
landholding by a beneficiary were unenforceable. Section 9 of Republic Act (RA) 1199 and
Section 28 of RA 6389 allow a tenant to voluntarily sever his tenancy status by voluntary
surrender. The waiver by petitioner of his rights and his conformity to the Samahang Nayon

Resolutions reallocating the landholding to the respondents are immutable evidence of his
abandonment and voluntary surrender of his rights as beneficiary under the land reform laws.
Furthermore, petitioner failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence the alleged forgery of
his and his sons signatures.
Hence, this recourse.[12]
Issues
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner alleges in his Memorandum that the appellate court committed
these reversible errors:[13]
"I
xxx [I]n relying on the findings of fact of the DARAB and PARAD as conclusive
when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts and the inference
taken is manifestly mistaken.
"II
xxx [I]n disregarding and/or ignoring the claim of petitioner that the alleged waiver
documents are all forgeries.
"III
xxx [I]n ruling that petitioner had forfeited his right to become a beneficiary under
PD No. 27.
"IV
xxx [I]n failing to rule on the legality and/or validity of the waiver/transfer action."
In short, the focal issues are: (1) Was the appellate court correct in finding that the signatures of
petitioner and his sons on the Waiver were not forged? (2) Assumingarguendo that the
signatures in the Waiver were genuine, was it null and void for being contrary to agrarian laws?
(3) Did the petitioner abandon his rights as a beneficiary under PD 27? (4) Did he, by voluntary
surrender, forfeit his right as a beneficiary?
The Courts Ruling
The Petition is devoid of merit.
First Issue: Factual Findings
Alleging that an information for estafa through falsification was filed against the respondents,
petitioner insists that his signature on the Waiver was forged.

We are not persuaded. The filing of an information for estafa does not by itself prove that the
respondents forged his signature. It only means that the public prosecutor found probable cause
against the respondents, but such finding does not constitute binding evidence of forgery or
fraud.[14] We agree with the well-reasoned CA ruling on this point:[15]
"xxx We are not swayed by Petitioners incantations that his signature on the
Waiver of Rights is a forgery. In the first place, forgery is never presumed. The
Petitioner is mandated to prove forgery with clear and convincing evidence. The
Petitioner failed to do so. Indeed, the Waiver of Rights executed by the
Petitioner was even with the written conformity of his four (4) sons (at page 11,
Rollo). The Petitioner himself signed the Resolution of the Board of Samahang
Nayon of Malaya, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, surrendering his possession of the
landholding to the Samahang Nayon, (idem, supra). Under Memorandum
Circular No. 7, dated April 23, 1979 of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
transactions involving transfer of rights of possession and or cultivation of
agricultural lands are first investigated by a team leader of the DAR District who
then submits the results of his investigation to the District Officer who, in turn,
submits his report to the Regional Director who, then, acts on said report. In the
present recourse, the requisite investigation was conducted and the report
thereon was submitted to and approved by the Regional Director. Under Section
3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Evidence, public officers are presumed to have
performed their duties regularly and in accordance with law."
As a rule, if the factual findings of the Court of Appeals coincide with those of the DARAB -- an
administrative body which has acquired expertise on the matter such findings are accorded
respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[16] The presence or the absence of forgery was an
issue of fact that was convincingly settled by the agrarian and the appellate tribunals. Petitioner
utterly failed to convince us that the appellate court had misapprehended the facts. Quite the
contrary, its findings were well-supported by the evidence.
Second Issue: Validity of the "Waiver of Rights"
Petitioner insists that agreements purportedly relinquishing possession of landholdings are
invalid for being violative of the agrarian reform laws.
Private respondents contend that petitioner was no longer entitled to recognition as a farmerbeneficiary because of the series of mortgages he had taken out over the land. They also cite
his "Waiver of Rights" and abandonment of the farm.
We have already ruled that the sale or transfer of rights over a property covered by a Certificate
of Land Transfer is void except when the alienation is made in favor of the government or
through hereditary succession. This ruling is intended to prevent a reversion to the old feudal
system in which the landowners reacquired vast tracts of land, thus negating the governments
program of freeing the tenant from the bondage of the soil.[17] In Torres v. Ventura,[18] the Court
clearly held:
"xxx As such [the farmer-beneficiary] gained the rights to possess, cultivate and
enjoy the landholding for himself. Those rights over that particular property were
granted by the government to him and to no other. To insure his continued
possession and enjoyment of the property, he could not, under the law, make

any valid form of transfer except to the government or by hereditary succession,

to his successors.
"xxx [T]he then Ministry of Agrarian Reform issued the following Memorandum
Circular [No. 7, Series of 1979, April 23, 1979]:
"Despite the above prohibition, however, there are reports that many farmerbeneficiaries of PD 27 have transferred the ownership, rights, and/or possession
of their farms/homelots to other persons or have surrendered the same to their
former landowners. All these transactions/surrenders are violative of PD 27 and
therefore, null and void."
Third Issue: Abandonment
Based on the invalidity of the Waiver, petitioner concludes that the PARAD, the DARAB and the
CA erroneously ruled on the basis of the said document that he had abandoned or voluntarily
surrendered his landholding. Denying that he abandoned the land, he contends that the
transaction was a simple loan to enable him to pay the expenses incurred for his wifes
hospitalization.
We agree. Abandonment[19] requires (a) a clear and absolute intention to renounce a right or
claim or to desert a right or property; and (b) an external act by which that intention is expressed
or carried into effect.[20] The intention to abandon implies a departure, with the avowed intent of
never returning, resuming or claiming the right and the interest that have been abandoned.[21]
The CA ruled that abandonment required (a) the tenants clear intention to sever the agricultural
tenancy relationship; and (b) his failure to work on the landholding for no valid reason.[22] The
CA also deemed the following as formidable evidence of his intent to sever the tenancy
relationship: (a) the mortgage and (b) his express approval and conformity to the Samahang
Nayon Resolution installing the private respondents as tenants/farmers-beneficiaries of the
landholding. We disagree.
As earlier shown, the Waiver was void. Furthermore, the mortgage expired after four years.
Thus, the private respondents were obligated to return possession of the landholding to the
petitioner. At bottom, we see on the part of the petitioner no clear, absolute or irrevocable intent
to abandon. His surrender of possession did not amount to an abandonment because there was
an obligation on the part of private respondents to return possession upon full payment of the
loan.
Fourth Issue: Voluntary Surrender
Contrary to the finding of the appellate court, the petitioner also denies that he voluntarily
surrendered his landholding.
His contention is untenable. The nullity of the Waiver does not save the case for him because
there is a clear showing that he voluntarily surrendered his landholding to the Samahang Nayon
which, under the present circumstances, may qualify as a surrender or transfer, to the
government, of his rights under the agrarian laws.

PD 27 provides that title to land acquired pursuant to the land reform program shall not be
transferable except through hereditary succession or to the government, in accordance with the
provisions of existing laws and regulations. Section 8 of RA 3844 also provides that "[t]he
agricultural leasehold relation xxx shall be extinguished by: xxx (2) [v]oluntary surrender of the
landholding by the agricultural lessee, xxx."
In this case, petitioners intention to surrender the landholding was clear and unequivocal. He
signed his concurrence to the Samahang Nayon Resolutions surrendering his possession of the
landholding. The Samahan then recommended to the team leader of the DAR District that the
private respondent be designated farmer-beneficiary of said landholding.
To repeat, the land was surrendered to the government, not transferred to another private
person. It was the government, through the DAR, which awarded the landholding to the private
respondents who were declared as qualified beneficiaries under the agrarian laws. Voluntary
surrender, as a mode of extinguishment of tenancy relations, does not require court approval as
long as it is convincingly and sufficiently proved by competent evidence.[23]
Petitioners voluntary surrender to the Samahang Nayon qualifies as a surrender or transfer to
the government because such action forms part of the mechanism for the disposition and the
reallocation of farmholdings of tenant-farmers who refuse to become beneficiaries of PD 27.
Under Memorandum Circular No. 8-80 of the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform, the Samahan
shall, upon notice from the agrarian reform team leader, recommend other tenant-farmers who
shall be substituted to all rights and obligations of the abandoning or surrendering tenantfarmer. Besides, these cooperatives are established to provide a strong social and economic
organization to ensure that the tenant-farmers will enjoy on a lasting basis the benefits of
agrarian reform.
The cooperatives work in close coordination with DAR officers (regional directors, district
officers, team leaders and field personnel) to attain the goals of agrarian reform (DAR
Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 1977). The Department of Local Government (now the
Department of Interior and Local Government) regulates them through the Bureau of
Cooperative Development (Section 8, PD 175). They also have access to financial assistance
through the Cooperative Development Fund, which is administered by a management
committee composed of the representatives from the DILG, the Central Bank, the Philippine
National Bank, the DAR and the DENR (Section 6, PD 175).
Petitioner insists that his act of allowing another to possess and cultivate his land did not
amount to abandonment or voluntary surrender, as the rights of an OLT beneficiary are
preserved even in case of transfer of legal possession over the subject property, as held
in Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association (Cocoma) v. Court of Appeals.[24]
We disagree. Petitioner misconstrued the Cocoma ruling because what was prohibited was the
perpetration of the tenancy or leasehold relationship between the landlord and the farmerbeneficiary. The case did not rule out abandonment or voluntary surrender by the agricultural
tenant or lessee in favor of the government.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision and
Resolution AFFIRMED insofar as it dismissed petitioners appeal. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Melo, (Chairman), Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Vitug, J., abroad on official business.