Chavez v.Public Estates Authority, GR NO.

133250 9 July 2002

FACTS:
In 1973, the Comissioner on Public Highways entered into a contract to reclaim areas of Manila Bay with the
Construction and Development Corportion of the Philippines (CDCP). PEA (Public Estates Authority) was
created by President Marcos under P.D. 1084, tasked with developing and leasing reclaimed lands. These
lands were transferred to the care of PEA under P.D. 1085 as part of the Manila Cavite Road and Reclamation
Project (MCRRP). CDCP and PEA entered into an agreement that all future projects under the MCRRP would
be funded and owned by PEA. By 1988, President Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517 transferring lands
to PEA. It was followed by the transfer of three Titles (7309, 7311 and 7312) by the Register of Deeds of
Paranaque to PEA covering the three reclaimed islands known as the FREEDOM ISLANDS. Subsquently,
PEA entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with AMARI, a Thai-Philippine corporation to develop the
Freedom Islands. Along with another 250 hectares, PEA and AMARI entered the JVA which would later
transfer said lands to AMARI. This caused a stir especially when Sen. Maceda assailed the agreement,
claiming that such lands were part of public domain (famously known as the “mother of all scams”). Peitioner
Frank J. Chavez filed case as a taxpayer praying for mandamus, a writ of preliminary injunction and a TRO
against the sale of reclaimed lands by PEA to AMARI and from implementing the JVA. Following these
events, under President Estrada’s admin, PEA and AMARI entered into an Amended JVA and Mr. Chaves
claim that the contract is null and void.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Constitutional Right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations
before a final agreement?

HELD:
YES. 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. Congress has also prescribed other limitations on the
right to information in several legislations.
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 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, conforming, 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.