1.

384 SCRA 152 Civil Law Land Titles and Deeds Lands of the Public Domain

The Public Estates Authority (PEA) is the central implementing agency tasked to undertake
reclamation projects nationwide. It took over the leasing and selling functions of the DENR
(Department of Environmental and Natural Resources) insofar as reclaimed or about to be
reclaimed foreshore lands are concerned.

PEA sought the transfer to the Amari Coastal Bay and Development Corporation, a private
corporation, of the ownership of 77.34 hectares of the Freedom Islands. PEA also sought to have
290.156 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay to Amari.

ISSUE: Whether or not the transfer is valid.

HELD: No. To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be transferred to
Amari 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.

The Supreme Court affirmed that 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. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural
resources of the public domain. The transfer (as embodied in a joint venture agreement) to
AMARI, a private corporation, ownership of 77.34 hectares of the Freedom Islands, 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. Furthermore, since
the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to Amari ownership of 290.156 hectares 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.

2. CASE DIGEST : Legaspi Vs Civil Serv. Comm.

G.R. No. L-72119 May 29, 1987 VALENTIN L. LEGASPI, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, respondent.

FACTS : The fundamental right of the people to information on matters of public concern is
invoked in this special civil action for mandamus instituted by petitioner Valentin L. Legaspi
against the Civil Service Commission. The respondent had earlier denied Legaspi's request for
information on the civil service eligibilities of certain persons employed as sanitarians in the
Health Department of Cebu City. These government employees, Julian Sibonghanoy and
Mariano Agas, had allegedly represented themselves as civil service eligibles who passed the
civil service examinations for sanitarians.

ISSUE : WON the petitioner has legal to access government records to validate the civil service
eligibilities of the Health Department employees
 HELD : The constitutional guarantee to information on matters of public concern is not
absolute. It does not open every door to any and all information. Under the Constitution, access
to official records, papers, etc., are "subject to limitations as may be provided by law" The law
may therefore exempt certain types of information from public scrutiny, such as those affecting
national security It follows that, in every case, the availability of access to a particular public
record must be circumscribed by the nature of the information sought, i.e., (a) being of public
concern or one that involves public interest, and, (b) not being exempted by law from the
operation of the constitutional guarantee. The threshold question is, therefore, whether or not the
information sought is of public interest or public concern. This question is first addressed to the
government agency having custody of the desired information. However, as already discussed,
this does not give the agency concerned any discretion to grant or deny access. In case of denial
of access, the government agency has the burden of showing that the information requested is not
of public concern, or, if it is of public concern, that the same has been exempted by law from the
operation of the guarantee. To hold otherwise will serve to dilute the constitutional right. As
aptly observed, ". . . the government is in an advantageous position to marshall and interpret
arguments against release . . ." (87 Harvard Law Review 1511 [1974]). To safeguard the
constitutional right, every denial of access by the government agency concerned is subject to
review by the courts, and in the proper case, access may be compelled by a writ of Mandamus
Public office being a public trust it is the legitimate concern of citizens to ensure that government
positions requiring civil service eligibility are occupied only by persons who are eligibles. Public
officers are at all times accountable to the people even as to their eligibilities for their respective
positions. In the instant, case while refusing to confirm or deny the claims of eligibility, the
respondent has failed to cite any provision in the Civil Service Law which would limit the
petitioner's right to know who are, and who are not, civil service eligibles. We take judicial
notice of the fact that the names of those who pass the civil service examinations, as in bar
examinations and licensure examinations for various professions, are released to the public.
Hence, there is nothing secret about one's civil service eligibility, if actually possessed.
Petitioner's request is, therefore, neither unusual nor unreasonable. And when, as in this case, the
government employees concerned claim to be civil service eligibles, the public, through any
citizen, has a right to verify their professed eligibilities from the Civil Service Commission. The
civil service eligibility of a sanitarian being of public concern, and in the absence of express
limitations under the law upon access to the register of civil service eligibles for said position,
the duty of the respondent Commission to confirm or deny the civil service eligibility of any
person occupying the position becomes imperative. Mandamus, therefore lies

3. IDEALS vs PSALMS GR 192088, 9 Oct 2012 Petitioners: IDEALS et al Respondents: PSALM et al FACTS:
PSALM is a GOCC created by virtue of the EPIRA law. Said law mandated PSALM to manage privatization
of NPC. When PSALM commenced the privatization an invitation to bid was published and the highest
bidder K-Water was identified. The sale to K-Water was sought to be enjoined by petitioners who
contend that PSALM gravely abused its discretion when, in the conduct of the bidding it violated the
peoples right to information without having previously released to the public critical information
about the sale. ISSUES: 1. Can the bid documents, etc. used in the on-going negotiation for the
privatization and sale of Angat hydro plant be accessed via the right to information? 2. Is the duty to
disclose information the same with the duty to permit access to information on matters of public
concern? HELD: 1. Yes. The court reiterated that the constitutional right to information includes official
information on on-going negotiations before a final contract. The information, however, must constitute
definite propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged
information, military and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public
order. 2. No. Unlike the disclosure of information which is mandatory under the Constitution, the other
aspect of the peoples right to know requires a demand or request for one to gain access to
documents and paper of the particular agency. Moreover, the duty to disclose covers only transactions
involving public interest, while the duty to allow access has a broader scope of information which
embraces not only transactions involving public interest, but any matter contained in official
communications and public documents of the government agency

4. RP v City of Davao (Environmental Law)

Republic of the Philippines v City of Davao

GR No. 148622
September 12, 2002

FACTS:

On August 11, 2000, The City of Davao filed an application for a Certificate of Non-
Coverage (CNC) for its proposed project, the Davao City Artica Sports Dome, with the
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), Region XI.

ISSUES:

(1) Is an LGU like Davao exempt from the coverage of PD 1586?

(2) Is the project entitled to a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC)?

APPLICABLE LAWS:

Section 15 of Republic Act 7160,[5] otherwise known as the Local Government Code,
defines a local government unit as a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to
be exercised by it in conformity with law.

Section 4 of PD 1586 clearly states that no person, partnership or corporation shall

undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without
first securing an Environmental Compliance certificate issued by the President or his
duly authorized representative

RULING:

(1) NO, IT IS WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF PD 1586. Found in Section 16 of the

Local Government Code is the duty of the LGUs to promote the people's right to a
balanced ecology. Pursuant to this, an LGU, like the City of Davao, cannot claim
exemption from the coverage of PD 1586. As a body politic endowed with governmental
functions, an LGU has the duty to ensure the quality of the environment, which is the
very same objective of PD 1586.

(2) YES. The Artica Sports Dome in Langub does not come close to any of the projects
or areas enumerated above. Neither is it analogous to any of them. It is clear, therefore,
that the said project is not classified as environmentally critical, or within an
environmentally critical area. Consequently, the DENR has no choice but to issue the
Certificate of Non- Coverage. It becomes its ministerial duty, the performance of which
can be compelled by writ of mandamus, such as that issued by the trial court in the case
at bar.

5.