Natural Resources Day 1

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 complaint2 was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit3 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 noticeq. 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. 10Needless 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
1987,15 specifically 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, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ.,
concur.
Narvasa, C.J., Puno and Vitug, JJ., took no part.
Separate Opinions
FELICIANO, J., concurring
I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the Court, Davide, Jr., J., in this case
which, to my mind, is one of the most important cases decided by this Court in the last few years.
The seminal principles laid down in this decision are likely to influence profoundly the direction and
course of the protection and management of the environment, which of course embraces the
utilization of all the natural resources in the territorial base of our polity. I have therefore sought to
clarify, basically to myself, what the Court appears to be saying.
The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locus standi necessary to sustain the bringing
and, maintenance of this suit (Decision, pp. 11-12). Locus standi is not a function of petitioners' claim
that their suit is properly regarded as a class suit. I understand locus standi to refer to the legal
interest which a plaintiff must have in the subject matter of the suit. Because of the very broadness
of the concept of "class" here involved — membership in this "class" appears to
embrace everyone living in the country whether now or in the
future — it appears to me that everyone who may be expected to benefit from the course of action
petitioners seek to require public respondents to take, is vested with the necessary locus standi. The
Court may be seen therefore to be recognizing a beneficiaries' right of action in the field of
environmental protection, as against both the public administrative agency directly concerned and
the private persons or entities operating in the field or sector of activity involved. Whether such
beneficiaries' right of action may be found under any and all circumstances, or whether some failure
to act, in the first instance, on the part of the governmental agency concerned must be shown ("prior
exhaustion of administrative remedies"), is not discussed in the decision and presumably is left for
future determination in an appropriate case.
The Court has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused upon "one specific
fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" (Decision, p. 14). There is
no question that "the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" is "fundamental" and that,
accordingly, it has been "constitutionalized." But although it is fundamental in character, I suggest,
with very great respect, that it cannot be characterized as "specific," without doing excessive
violence to language. It is in fact very difficult to fashion language more comprehensive in scope and
generalized in character than a right to "a balanced and healthful ecology." The list of particular
claims which can be subsumed under this rubic appears to be entirely open-ended: prevention and
control of emission of toxic fumes and smoke from factories and motor vehicles; of discharge of oil,
chemical effluents, garbage and raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters by vessels, oil
rigs, factories, mines and whole communities; of dumping of organic and inorganic wastes on open
land, streets and thoroughfares; failure to rehabilitate land after strip-mining or open-pit
mining; kaingin or slash-and-burn farming; destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other living sea
resources through the use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals; contamination of ground
water resources; loss of certain species of fauna and flora; and so on. The other statements pointed
out by the Court: Section 3, Executive Order No. 192 dated 10 June 1987; Section 1, Title XIV, Book
IV of the 1987 Administrative Code; and P.D. No. 1151, dated 6 June 1977 — all appear to be
formulations of policy, as general and abstract as the constitutional statements of basic policy in
Article II, Section 16 ("the right — to a balanced and healthful ecology") and 15 ("the right to health").
P.D. No. 1152, also dated 6 June 1977, entitled "The Philippine Environment Code," is, upon the
other hand, a compendious collection of more "specific environment management policies" and
"environment quality standards" (fourth "Whereas" clause, Preamble) relating to an extremely wide
range of topics:
(a) air quality management;
(b) water quality management;
(c) land use management;
(d) natural resources management and conservation embracing:
(i) fisheries and aquatic resources;
(ii) wild life;
(iii) forestry and soil conservation;
(iv) flood control and natural calamities;
(v) energy development;
(vi) conservation and utilization of surface and ground water
(vii) mineral resources
Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly, neither petitioners nor the Court has
identified the particular provision or provisions (if any) of the Philippine Environment Code which give
rise to a specific legal right which petitioners are seeking to enforce. Secondly, the Philippine
Environment Code identifies with notable care the particular government agency charged with the
formulation and implementation of guidelines and programs dealing with each of the headings and
sub-headings mentioned above. The Philippine Environment Code does not, in other words, appear
to contemplate action on the part of private persons who are beneficiaries of implementation of that
Code.
As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners' cause of action as anchored on a legal right comprised in
the constitutional statements above noted, the Court is in effect saying that Section 15 (and Section
16) of Article II of the Constitution are self-executing and judicially enforceable even in their present
form. The implications of this doctrine will have to be explored in future cases; those implications are
too large and far-reaching in nature even to be hinted at here.
My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more specific legal right
— a right cast in language of a significantly lower order of generality than Article II (15) of the
Constitution — that is or may be violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public
respondent by petitioners so that the trial court can validly render judgment granting all or part of the
relief prayed for. To my mind, the Court should be understood as simply saying that such a more
specific legal right or rights may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the general policy
principles found in the Constitution and the existence of the Philippine Environment Code, and that
the trial court should have given petitioners an effective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of
aborting the proceedings on a motion to dismiss.
It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential component of a cause of action be
a specific, operable legal right, rather than a constitutional or statutory policy, for at least two (2)
reasons. One is that unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded is given
specification in operational terms, defendants may well be unable to defend themselves intelligently
and effectively; in other words, there are due process dimensions to this matter.
The second is a broader-gauge consideration — where a specific violation of law or applicable

regulation is not alleged or proved, petitioners can be expected to fall back on the expanded
conception of judicial power in the second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution
which reads:
Section 1. . . .
(Emphasis supplied)
When substantive standards as general as "the right to a balanced and healthy ecology" and
"the right to health" are combined with remedial standards as broad ranging as "a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," the result will be, it is
respectfully submitted, to propel courts into the uncharted ocean of social and economic
policy making. At least in respect of the vast area of environmental protection and
management, our courts have no claim to special technical competence and experience and
professional qualification. Where no specific, operable norms and standards are shown to
exist, then the policy making departments — the legislative and executive departments —
must be given a real and effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and
standards, and to implement them before the courts should intervene.
My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the timber companies, whose concession
agreements or TLA's petitioners demand public respondents should cancel, must be impleaded in
the proceedings below. It might be asked that, if petitioners' entitlement to the relief demanded
is not dependent upon proof of breach by the timber companies of one or more of the specific terms
and conditions of their concession agreements (and this, petitioners implicitly assume), what will
those companies litigate about? The answer I suggest is that they may seek to dispute the existence
of the specific legal right petitioners should allege, as well as the reality of the claimed factual nexus
between petitioners' specific legal rights and the claimed wrongful acts or failures to act of public
respondent administrative agency. They may also controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or
remedies demanded by petitioners, under all the circumstances which exist.
I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the protection of the environment, including the
forest cover of our territory, is of extreme importance for the country. The doctrines set out in the
Court's decision issued today should, however, be subjected to closer examination.
# Separate Opinions
FELICIANO, J., concurring
I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the Court, Davide, Jr., J., in this case
which, to my mind, is one of the most important cases decided by this Court in the last few years.
The seminal principles laid down in this decision are likely to influence profoundly the direction and
course of the protection and management of the environment, which of course embraces the
utilization of all the natural resources in the territorial base of our polity. I have therefore sought to
clarify, basically to myself, what the Court appears to be saying.
The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locus standi necessary to sustain the bringing
and, maintenance of this suit (Decision, pp. 11-12). Locus standi is not a function of petitioners' claim
that their suit is properly regarded as a class suit. I understand locus standi to refer to the legal
interest which a plaintiff must have in the subject matter of the suit. Because of the very broadness
of the concept of "class" here involved — membership in this "class" appears to
embrace everyone living in the country whether now or in the
future — it appears to me that everyone who may be expected to benefit from the course of action
petitioners seek to require public respondents to take, is vested with the necessary locus standi. The
Court may be seen therefore to be recognizing a beneficiaries' right of action in the field of
environmental protection, as against both the public administrative agency directly concerned and
the private persons or entities operating in the field or sector of activity involved. Whether such
beneficiaries' right of action may be found under any and all circumstances, or whether some failure
to act, in the first instance, on the part of the governmental agency concerned must be shown ("prior
exhaustion of administrative remedies"), is not discussed in the decision and presumably is left for
future determination in an appropriate case.
The Court has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused upon "one specific
fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" (Decision, p. 14). There is
no question that "the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" is "fundamental" and that,
accordingly, it has been "constitutionalized." But although it is fundamental in character, I suggest,
with very great respect, that it cannot be characterized as "specific," without doing excessive
violence to language. It is in fact very difficult to fashion language more comprehensive in scope and
generalized in character than a right to "a balanced and healthful ecology." The list of particular
claims which can be subsumed under this rubic appears to be entirely open-ended: prevention and
control of emission of toxic fumes and smoke from factories and motor vehicles; of discharge of oil,
chemical effluents, garbage and raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters by vessels, oil
rigs, factories, mines and whole communities; of dumping of organic and inorganic wastes on open
land, streets and thoroughfares; failure to rehabilitate land after strip-mining or open-pit
mining; kaingin or slash-and-burn farming; destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other living sea
resources through the use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals; contamination of ground
water resources; loss of certain species of fauna and flora; and so on. The other statements pointed
out by the Court: Section 3, Executive Order No. 192 dated 10 June 1987; Section 1, Title XIV, Book
IV of the 1987 Administrative Code; and P.D. No. 1151, dated 6 June 1977 — all appear to be
formulations of policy, as general and abstract as the constitutional statements of basic policy in
Article II, Section 16 ("the right — to a balanced and healthful ecology") and 15 ("the right to health").
P.D. No. 1152, also dated 6 June 1977, entitled "The Philippine Environment Code," is, upon the
other hand, a compendious collection of more "specific environment management policies" and
"environment quality standards" (fourth "Whereas" clause, Preamble) relating to an extremely wide
range of topics:
(a) air quality management;
(b) water quality management;
(c) land use management;
(d) natural resources management and conservation embracing:
(i) fisheries and aquatic resources;
(ii) wild life;
(iii) forestry and soil conservation;
(iv) flood control and natural calamities;
(v) energy development;
(vi) conservation and utilization of surface and ground water
(vii) mineral resources
Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly, neither petitioners nor the Court has
identified the particular provision or provisions (if any) of the Philippine Environment Code which give
rise to a specific legal right which petitioners are seeking to enforce. Secondly, the Philippine
Environment Code identifies with notable care the particular government agency charged with the
formulation and implementation of guidelines and programs dealing with each of the headings and
sub-headings mentioned above. The Philippine Environment Code does not, in other words, appear
to contemplate action on the part of private persons who are beneficiaries of implementation of that
Code.
As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners' cause of action as anchored on a legal right comprised in
the constitutional statements above noted, the Court is in effect saying that Section 15 (and Section
16) of Article II of the Constitution are self-executing and judicially enforceable even in their present
form. The implications of this doctrine will have to be explored in future cases; those implications are
too large and far-reaching in nature even to be hinted at here.
My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more specific legal right
— a right cast in language of a significantly lower order of generality than Article II (15) of the
Constitution — that is or may be violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public
respondent by petitioners so that the trial court can validly render judgment granting all or part of the
relief prayed for. To my mind, the Court should be understood as simply saying that such a more
specific legal right or rights may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the general policy
principles found in the Constitution and the existence of the Philippine Environment Code, and that
the trial court should have given petitioners an effective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of
aborting the proceedings on a motion to dismiss.
It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential component of a cause of action be
a specific, operable legal right, rather than a constitutional or statutory policy, for at least two (2)
reasons. One is that unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded is given
specification in operational terms, defendants may well be unable to defend themselves intelligently
and effectively; in other words, there are due process dimensions to this matter.
The second is a broader-gauge consideration — where a specific violation of law or applicable

regulation is not alleged or proved, petitioners can be expected to fall back on the expanded
conception of judicial power in the second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution
which reads:
Section 1. . . .
(Emphasis supplied)
When substantive standards as general as "the right to a balanced and healthy ecology" and
"the right to health" are combined with remedial standards as broad ranging as "a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," the result will be, it is
respectfully submitted, to propel courts into the uncharted ocean of social and economic
policy making. At least in respect of the vast area of environmental protection and
management, our courts have no claim to special technical competence and experience and
professional qualification. Where no specific, operable norms and standards are shown to
exist, then the policy making departments — the legislative and executive departments —
must be given a real and effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and
standards, and to implement them before the courts should intervene.
My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the timber companies, whose concession
agreements or TLA's petitioners demand public respondents should cancel, must be impleaded in
the proceedings below. It might be asked that, if petitioners' entitlement to the relief demanded
is not dependent upon proof of breach by the timber companies of one or more of the specific terms
and conditions of their concession agreements (and this, petitioners implicitly assume), what will
those companies litigate about? The answer I suggest is that they may seek to dispute the existence
of the specific legal right petitioners should allege, as well as the reality of the claimed factual nexus
between petitioners' specific legal rights and the claimed wrongful acts or failures to act of public
respondent administrative agency. They may also controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or
remedies demanded by petitioners, under all the circumstances which exist.
I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the protection of the environment, including the
forest cover of our territory, is of extreme importance for the country. The doctrines set out in the
Court's decision issued today should, however, be subjected to closer examination.
G.R. No. 180771 April 21, 2015
RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PROTECTED SEASCAPE TAÑON STRAIT, e.g.,

TOOTHED WHALES, DOLPHINS, PORPOISES, AND OTHER CETACEAN SPECIES, Joined in
and Represented herein by Human Beings Gloria Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-
Osorio, In Their Capacity as Legal Guardians of the Lesser Life-Forms and as Responsible
Stewards of God's Creations, Petitioners,
vs.
SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Energy
(DOE), SECRETARY JOSE L. ATIENZA, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), LEONARDO R. SIBBALUCA, DENR Regional
Director-Region VII and in his capacity as Chairperson of the Tañon Strait Protected
Seascape Management Board, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR),
DIRECTOR MALCOLM J. SARMIENTO, JR., BFAR Regional Director for Region VII ANDRES
M. BOJOS, JAPAN PETROLEUM EXPLORATION CO., LTD. (JAPEX), as represented by its
Philippine Agent, SUPPLY OILFIELD SERVICES, INC. Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 181527
CENTRAL VISAYAS FISHERFOLK DEVELOPMENT CENTER (FIDEC), CERILO D. ENGARCIAL,

RAMON YANONG, FRANCISCO LABID, in their personal capacity and as representatives of
the SUBSISTENCE FISHERFOLKS OF THE MUNICIPALITIES OF ALOGUINSAN AND
PINAMUNGAJAN, CEBU, AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND THE PRESENT AND FUTURE
GENERATIONS OF FILIPINOS WHOSE RIGHTS ARE SIMILARLY AFFECTED, Petitioners,
vs.
SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Energy
(DOE), JOSE L. ATIENZA, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), LEONARDO R. SIBBALUCA, in his capacity as DENR Regional
Director-Region VII and as Chairperson of the Tañon Strait Protected Seascape Management
Board, ALAN ARRANGUEZ, in his capacity as Director - Environmental Management Bureau-
Region VII, DOE Regional Director for Region VIII1 ANTONIO LABIOS, JAPAN PETROLEUM
EXPLORATION CO., LTD. (JAPEX), as represented by its Philippine Agent, SUPPLY OILFIELD
SERVICES, INC., Respondents.
CONCURRING OPINION
"Until one has loved an animal,

a part of one 's soul remains unawakened."
Anatole France
LEONEN, J.:
I concur in the result, with the following additional reasons.
In G.R. No. 180771, petitioners Resident Marine Mammals allegedly bring their case in their
personal capacity, alleging that they stand to benefit or be injured from the judgment on the issues.
The human petitioners implead themselves in a representative capacity "as legal guardians of the
lesser life-forms and as responsible stewards of God's Creations."1 They use Oposa v. Factoran,
Jr.2 as basis for their claim, asserting their right to enforce international and domestic environmental
laws enacted for their benefit under the concept of stipulation pour autrui.3As the representatives of
Resident Marine Mammals, the human petitioners assert that they have the obligation to build
awareness among the affected residents of Tañon Strait as well as to protect the environment,
especially in light of the government's failure, as primary steward, to do its duty under the doctrine of
public trust.4
Resident Marine Mammals and the human petitioners also assert that through this case, this court
will have the opportunity to lower the threshold for locus standi as an exercise of "epistolary
jurisdiction."5
The zeal of the human petitioners to pursue their desire to protect the environment and to continue
to define environmental rights in the context of actual cases is commendable. However, the space
for legal creativity usually required for advocacy of issues of the public interest is not so unlimited
that it should be allowed to undermine the other values protected by current substantive and
procedural laws. Even rules of procedure as currently formulated set the balance between
competing interests. We cannot abandon these rules when the necessity is not clearly and
convincingly presented.
The human petitioners, in G.R. No. 180771, want us to create substantive and procedural rights for
animals through their allegation that they can speak for them. Obviously, we are asked to accept the
premises that (a) they were chosen by the Resident Marine Mammals of Tañon Strait; (b) they were
chosen by a representative group of all the species of the Resident Marine Mammals; (c) they were
able to communicate with them; and (d) they received clear consent from their animal principals that
they would wish to use human legal institutions to pursue their interests. Alternatively, they ask us to
acknowledge through judicial notice that the interests that they, the human petitioners, assert are
identical to what the Resident Marine Mammals would assert had they been humans and the legal
strategies that they invoked are the strategies that they agree with.
In the alternative, they want us to accept through judicial notice that there is a relationship of
guardianship between them and all the resident mammals in the affected ecology.
Fundamental judicial doctrines that may significantly change substantive and procedural law cannot
be founded on feigned representation.
Instead, I agree that the human petitioners should only speak for themselves and already have legal
standing to sue with respect to the issue raised in their pleading. The rules on standing have already
been liberalized to take into consideration the difficulties in the assertion of environmental rights.
When standing becomes too liberal, this can be the occasion for abuse.
II
Rule 3, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, in part, provides:
SECTION 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. - Only natural or juridical persons, or
entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action.
The Rules provide that parties may only be natural or juridical persons or entities that may be
authorized by statute to be parties in a civil action.
Basic is the concept of natural and juridical persons in our Civil Code:
ARTICLE 37. Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, is inherent in
every natural person and is lost only through death. Capacity to act, which is the power to do acts
with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost.
Article 40 further defines natural persons in the following manner:
ARTICLE 40. Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be considered born for all
purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later with the conditions specified 'in the
following article.
Article 44, on the other hand, enumerates the concept of a juridical person:
ARTICLE 44. The following are juridical persons:
(1) The State and its political subdivisions;
(2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose, created by law;
their personality begins as soon as they have been constituted according to law;
(3) Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose to which the
law grants a juridical personality, separate and distinct from that of each shareholder, partner
or member.
Petitioners in G.R. No. 180771 implicitly suggest that we amend, rather than simply construe, the
provisions of the Rules of Court as well as substantive law to accommodate Resident Marine
Mammals or animals. This we cannot do.
Rule 3, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure further defines real party in interest:
SEC. 2. Parties in interest.-A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured
by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized
by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
interest. (2a)6
A litigant who stands to benefit or sustain an injury from the judgment of a case is a real party in
interest.7 When a case is brought to the courts, the real party in interest must show that another
party's act or omission has caused a direct injury, making his or her interest both material and based
on an enforceable legal right.8
Representatives as parties, on the other hand, are parties acting in representation of the real party in
interest, as defined in Rule 3, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:
SEC. 3. Representatives as parties. - Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a

representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title
of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of
an express rust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these
Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or
be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the
principal.(3a)9
The rule is two-pronged. First, it defines .a representative as a party who is not bound to directly or
actually benefit or suffer from the judgment, but instead brings a case in favor of an identified real
party in interest.10 The representative is an outsider to the cause of action. Second, the rule provides
a list of who may be considered as "representatives." It is not an exhaustive list, but the rule limits
the coverage only to those authorized by law or the Rules of Court.11
These requirements should apply even in cases involving the environment, which means that for the
Petition of the human petitioners to prosper, they must show that (a) the Resident Marine Mammals
are real parties in interest; and (b) that the human petitioners are authorized by law or the Rules to
act in a representative capacity.
The Resident Marine Mammals are comprised of "toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises, and other
cetacean species inhabiting Tañon Strait."12 While relatively new in Philippine jurisdiction, the issue
of whether animals have legal standing before courts has been the subject of academic discourse in
light of the emergence of animal and environmental rights.
In the United States, anim4l rights advocates have managed to establish a system which Hogan
explains as the "guardianship model for nonhuman animals":13
Despite Animal Lovers, there exists a well-established system by which nonhuman animals may
obtain judicial review to enforce their statutory rights and protections: guardianships. With court
approval, animal advocacy organizations may bring suit on behalf of nonhuman animals in the same
way court-appointed guardians bring suit on behalf of mentally-challenged humans who possess an
enforceable right but lack the ability to enforce it themselves.
In the controversial but pivotal Should Trees Have Standing?-Toward Legal Rights for Natural
Objects, Christopher D. Stone asserts that the environment should possess the right to seek judicial
redress even though it is incapable of representing itself. While asserting the rights of
speechless entities such as the environment or nonhuman animals certainly poses legitimate
challenges - such as identifying the proper spokesman -the American legal system is already well-
equipped with a reliable mechanism by which nonhumans may obtain standing via a judicially
established guardianship. Stone notes that other speechless - and nonhuman - entities such as
corporations, states, estates, and municipalities have standing to bring suit on their own behalf.
There is little reason to fear abuses under this regime as procedures for removal and substitution,
avoiding conflicts of interest, and termination of a guardianship are well established.
In fact, the opinion in Animal Lovers suggests that such an arrangement is indeed possible. The
court indicated that AL VA might have obtained standing in its own right if it had an established
history of dedication to the cause of the humane treatment of animals. It noted that the Fund for
Animals had standing and indicated that another more well-known advocacy organization might
have had standing as well. The court further concluded that an organization's standing is more than
a derivative of its history, but history is a relevant consideration where organizations are not well-
established prior to commencing legal action. ALVA was not the proper plaintiff because it could not
identify previous activities demonstrating its recognized activism for and commitment to the dispute
independent of its desire to pursue legal action. The court's analysis suggests that a qualified
organization with a demonstrated commitment to a cause could indeed bring suit on behalf of the
speechless in the form of a court-sanctioned guardianship.
This Comment advocates a shift in contemporary standing doctrine to empower non-profit

organizations with an established history of dedication to the cause and relevant expertise to serve
as official guardians ad !item on behalf of nonhuman animals interests. The American legal system
has numerous mechanisms for representing the rights and interests of nonhumans; any challenges
inherent in extending these pre-existing mechanisms to nonhuman animals are minimal compared to
an interest in the proper administration of justice. To adequately protect the statutory rights of
nonhuman animals, the legal system must recognize those statutory rights independent of humans
and provide a viable means of enforcement. Moreover, the idea of a guardianship for speechless
plaintiffs is not new and has been urged on behalf of the natural environment. 'Such a model is even
more compelling as applied to nonhuman animals, because they are sentient beings with the ability
to feel pain and exercise rational thought. Thus, animals are qualitatively different from other legally
protected nonhumans and therefore have interests deserving direct legal protection.
Furthermore, the difficulty of enforcing the statutory rights of nonhuman animals threatens the
integrity of the federal statutes designed to protect them, essentially rendering them meaningless.
Sensing that laws protecting nonhuman animals would be difficult to enforce, Congress provided for
citizen suit provisions: the most well-known example is found in the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Such provisions are evidence of legislative intent to encourage civic participation on behalf of
nonhuman animals. Our law of standing should reflect this intent and its implication that humans are
suitable representatives of the natural environment, which includes nonhuman animals.14 (Emphasis
supplied, citation omitted)
When a court allows guardianship as a basis of representation, animals are considered as similarly
situated as individuals who have enforceable rights but, for a legitimate reason (e.g., cognitive
disability), are unable to bring suit for themselves. They are also similar to entities that by their very
nature are incapable of speaking for themselves (e.g., corporations, states, and others).
In our jurisdiction, persons and entities are recognized both in law and the Rules of Court as having
standing to sue and, therefore, may be properly represented as real parties in interest. The same
cannot be said about animals.
Animals play an important role in households, communities, and the environment. While we, as
humans, may feel the need to nurture and protect them, we cannot go as far as saying we represent
their best interests and can, therefore, speak for them before the courts. As humans, we cannot be
so arrogant as to argue that we know the suffering of animals and that we know what remedy they
need in the face of an injury.
Even in Hogan's discussion, she points out that in a case before the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Animal Lovers Volunteer Ass'n v. Weinberger,15 the court held that
an emotional response to what humans perceive to be an injury inflicted on an animal is not within
the "zone-of-interest" protected by law.16Such sympathy cannot stand independent of or as a
substitute for an actual injury suffered by the claimant.17 The ability to represent animals was further
limited in that case by the need to prove "genuine dedication" to asserting and protecting animal
rights:
What ultimately proved fatal to ALVA 's claim, however, was the court's assertion that standing
doctrine further required ALVA to differentiate its genuine dedication to the humane treatment of
animals from the general disdain for animal cruelty shared by the public at large. In doing so, the
court found ALVA 's asserted organizational injury to be abstract and thus relegated ALVA to the
ranks of the "concerned bystander. "
....
In fact, the opinion in Animal Lovers suggests that such an arrangement is indeed possible. The
court indicated that ALVA might have obtained standing in its own right if it had an established
history of dedication to the cause of the humane treatment of animals. It noted that the Fund for
Animals had standing and indicated that another more well-known advocacy organization might
have had standing as well. The court further concluded that an organization's standing is more than
a derivative of its history, but history is a relevant consideration where organizations are not well-
established prior to commencing legal action. ALVA was not the proper plaintiff because it could not
identify previous activities demonstrating its recognized activism for and commitment to the dispute
independent of its desire to pursue legal action. The court's analysis suggests that a qualified
organization with a demonstrated commitment to a cause could indeed bring suit on behalf of the
speechless in the form of a court-sanctioned guardianship.18(Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
What may be argued as being parallel to this concept of guardianship is the principle of human
stewardship over the environment in a citizen suit under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases. A citizen suit allows any Filipino to act as a representative of a party who has enforceable
rights under environmental laws before Philippine courts, and is defined in Section 5: .
SEC. 5. Citizen suit. - Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors or generations
yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws. Upon the
filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which shall contain a brief description of the
cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties to manifest their interest to
intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order
once in a newspaper of a general circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected barangays
copies of said order.
There is no valid reason in law or the practical requirements of this case to implead and feign
representation on behalf of animals. To have done so betrays a very anthropocentric view of
environmental advocacy. There is no way that we, humans, can claim to speak for animals let alone
present that they would wish to use our court system, which is designed to ensure that humans
seriously carry their responsibility including ensuring a viable ecology for themselves, which of
course includes compassion for all living things.
Our rules on standing are sufficient and need not be further relaxed.
In Arigo v. Swift,19 I posed the possibility of further reviewing the broad interpretation we have given
to the rule on standing. While representatives are not required to establish direct injury on their part,
they should only be allowed to represent after complying with the following: [I]t is imperative for them
to indicate with certainty the injured parties on whose behalf they bring the suit. Furthermore, the
interest of those they represent must be based upon concrete legal rights. It is not sufficient to draw
out a perceived interest from a general, nebulous idea of a potential "injury."20
I reiterate my position in Arigo v. Swift and in Paje v. Casiño21 regarding this rule alongside the
appreciation of legal standing in Oposa v. Factoran22 for environmental cases. In Arigo, I opined that
procedural liberality, especially in cases brought by representatives, should be used with great
caution:
Perhaps it is time to revisit the ruling in Oposa v. Factoran.
That case was significant in that, at that time, there was need to call attention to environmental
concerns in light of emerging international legal principles. While "intergenerational responsibility" is
a noble principle, it should not be used to obtain judgments that would preclude future generations
from making their own assessment based on their actual concerns. The present generation must
restrain itself from assuming that it can speak best for those who will exist at a different time, under a
different set of circumstances. In essence, the unbridled resort to representative suit will inevitably
result in preventing future generations from protecting their own rights and pursuing their own
interests and decisions. It reduces the autonomy of our children and our children 's children. Even
before they are born, we again restricted their ability to make their own arguments.
It is my opinion that, at best, the use of the Oposa doctrine in environmental cases should be
allowed only when a) there is a clear legal basis for the representative suit; b) there are actual
concerns based squarely upon an existing legal right; c) there is no possibility of any countervailing
interests existing within the population represented or those that are yet to be born; and d) there is
an absolute necessity for such standing because there is a threat of catastrophe so imminent that an
immediate protective measure is necessary. Better still, in the light of its costs and risks, we
abandon the precedent all together.23 (Emphasis in the original)
Similarly, in Paje:
A person cannot invoke the court's jurisdiction if he or she has no right or interest to protect. He or
she who invokes the court's jurisdiction must be the "owner of the right sought to be enforced." In
other words, he or she must have a cause of action. An action may be dismissed on the ground of
lack of cause of action if the person who instituted it is not the real party in interest.24 The term
"interest" under the Rules of Court must refer to a material interest that is not merely a curiosity
about or an "interest in the question involved." The interest must be present and substantial. It is not
a mere expectancy or a future, contingent interest.
A person who is not a real party in interest may institute an action if he or she is suing as
representative of a .real party in interest. When an action is prosecuted or defended by a
representative, that representative is not and does not become the real party in interest. The person
represented is deemed the real party in interest. The representative remains to be a third party to the
action instituted on behalf of another.
....
To sue under this rule, two elements must be present: "(a) the suit is brought on behalf of an
identified party whose right has been violated, resulting in some form of damage, and (b) the
representative authorized by law or the Rules of Court to represent the victim."
The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases allows filing of a citizen's suit. A citizen's suit under
this rule allows any Filipino citizen to file an action for the enforcement of environmental law on
behalf of minors or generations yet unborn. It is essentially a representative suit that allows persons
who are not real parties in interest to institute actions on behalf of the real party in interest.
The expansion of what constitutes "real party in interest" to include minors and generations yet
unborn is a recognition of this court's ruling in Oposa v. Factoran. This court recognized the capacity
of minors (represented by their parents) to file a class suit on behalf of succeeding generations
based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility to ensure the future generation's access to
and enjoyment of [the] country's natural resources.
To allow citizen's suits to enforce environmental rights of others, including future generations, is
dangerous for three reasons:
First, they run the risk of foreclosing arguments of others who are unable to take part in the suit,
putting into. question its representativeness. Second, varying interests may potentially result in
arguments that are bordering on political issues, the resolutions of which do not fall upon this court.
Third, automatically allowing a class or citizen's suit on behalf of minors and generations yet unborn
may result in the oversimplification of what may be a complex issue, especially in light of the
impossibility of determining future generation's true interests on the matter.
In citizen's suits, persons who may have no interest in the case may file suits for others.
Uninterested persons will argue for the persons they represent, and the court will decide based on
their evidence and arguments. Any decision by the court will be binding upon the beneficiaries,
which in this case are the minors and the future generations. The court's decision will be res judicata
upon them and conclusive upon the issues presented.25
The danger in invoking Oposa v. Factoran to justify all kinds of environmental claims lies in its
potential to diminish the value of legitimate environmental rights. Extending the application of "real
party in interest" to the Resident Marine Mammals, or animals in general, through a judicial
pronouncement will potentially result in allowing petitions based on mere concern rather than an
actual enforcement of a right. It is impossible for animals to tell humans what their concerns are. At
best, humans can only surmise the extent of injury inflicted, if there be any. Petitions invoking a right
and seeking legal redress before this court cannot be a product of guesswork, and representatives
have the responsibility to ensure that they bring "reasonably cogent, rational, scientific, well-founded
arguments"26 on behalf of those they represent.
Creative approaches to fundamental problems should be welcome. However, they should be

considered carefully so that no unintended or unwarranted consequences should follow. I concur
with the approach of Madame Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro in her brilliant ponencia as it
carefully narrows down the doctrine in terms of standing. Resident Marine Mammals and the human
petitioners have no legal standing to file any kind of petition.
However, I agree that petitioners in G.R. No. 181527, namely, Central Visayas Fisherfolk
Development Center,. Engarcial, Yanong, and Labid, have standing both as real parties in interest
and as representatives of subsistence fisherfolks of the Municipalities of Aloguinsan and
Pinamungahan, Cebu, and their families, and the present and future generations of Filipinos whose
rights are similarly affected. The activities undertaken under Service Contract 46 (SC-46) directly
affected their source of livelihood, primarily felt through the significant reduction of their fish
harvest.27 The actual, direct, and material damage they suffered, which has potential long-term
effects transcending generations, is a proper subject of a legal suit.
III
In our jurisdiction, there is neither reason nor any legal basis for the concept of implied petitioners,
most especially when the implied petitioner was a sitting President of the Republic of the Philippines.
In G.R. No. 180771, apart from adjudicating unto themselves the status of "legal guardians" of
whales, dolphins, porpoises, and other cetacean species, human petitioners also impleaded Former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as "unwilling co-petitioner" for "her express declaration and
undertaking in the ASEAN Charter to protect Tañon Strait."28
No person may implead any other person as a co-plaintiff or co-petitioner without his or her consent.
In our jurisdiction, only when there is a party that should have been a necessary party but was
unwilling to join would there be an allegation as to why that party has been omitted. In Rule 3,
Section 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:
SEC. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. -Whenever in any pleading in which a claim
is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall
state why he is omitted. Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order
the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a
waiver of the claim against such party.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and
the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party.29
A party who should have been a plaintiff or petitioner but whose consent cannot be obtained should
be impleaded as a defendant in the nature of an unwilling co-plaintiff under Rule 3, Section 10 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:
SEC. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. - If the consent of any party who should be joined as plaintiff can not
be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint.30
The reason for this rule is plain: Indispensable party plaintiffs who should be part of the action but
who do not consent should be put within the jurisdiction of the court through summons or other court
processes. Petitioners. should not take it upon themselves to simply imp lead any party who does
not consent as a petitioner. This places the unwilling co-petitioner at the risk of being denied due
process.
Besides, Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo cannot be a party to this suit. As a co-equal
constitutional department, we cannot assume that the President needs to enforce policy directions
by suing his or her alter-egos. The procedural situation caused by petitioners may have gained
public attention, but its legal absurdity borders on the contemptuous. The Former President's name
should be stricken out of the title of this case.
IV
I also concur with the conclusion that SC-46 is both. illegal and unconstitutional.
SC-46 is illegal because it violates Republic Act No. ·7586 or the National Integrated Protected
Areas System Act of 1992, and Presidential Decree No. 1234,31 which declared Tañon Strait as a
protected seascape. It is unconstitutional because it violates the fourth paragraph of Article XII,
Section 2 of the Constitution.
Petitioner Central Visayas Fisherfolk Development Center asserts that SC-46 violated Article XII,
Section 2, paragraph 1 of the .1987 Constitution because Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd.
(JAPEX) is 100% Japanese-owned.32 It further asserts that SC-46 cannot be validly classified as a
technical and financial assistance agreement executed under Article XII, Section 2, paragraph 4 of
the 1987 Constitution.33 Public respondents counter that SC-46 does not fall under the coverage of
paragraph 1, but is a validly executed contract under paragraph 4.34· Public respondents further aver
that SC-46 neither granted exclusive fishing rights to JAPEX nor violated Central Visayas Fisherfolk
Development Center's right to preferential use of communal marine and fishing resources.35
VI
Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution states:
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. The State may directly undertake such
activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with
Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned
by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable
for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by
law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
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 fish-workers in rivers,
lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical
or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law,
based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such
agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical
resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this
provision, within thirty days from its execution. (Emphasis supplied)
I agree that fully foreign-owned corporations may participate in the exploration, development, and
use of natural resources, but only through either financial agreements or technical ones. This is the
clear import of the words "either financial or technical assistance agreements." This is also
the clear result if we compare the 1987 constitutional provision with the versions in the 1973 and
1935 Constitution:
1973 CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE XIV
THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND THE PATRIMONY OF THE NATION
SEC. 9. The disposition, exploration, development, of exploitation, or utilization of any of the natural
resources of the Philippines shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or
association at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. The Batasang
Pambansa, in the national interest, may allow such citizens, corporations, or associations to enter
into service contracts for financial, technical, management, or other forms of assistance with any
foreign person or entity for the exploitation, development, exploitation, or utilization of any of the
natural resources. Existing valid and binding service contracts for financial, the technical,
management, or other forms of assistance are hereby recognized as such. (Emphasis supplied)
1935 CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE XIII
CONSERVATION AND UTILIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
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 the
limit of the grant.
The clear text of the Constitution in light of its history prevails over any attempt to infer interpretation
from the Constitutional Commission deliberations. The constitutional texts are the product of a full
sovereign act: deliberations in a constituent assembly and ratification. Reliance on recorded
discussion of Constitutional Commissions, on the other hand, may result in dependence on
incomplete authorship; Besides, it opens judicial review to further subjectivity from those who spoke
during the Constitutional Commission deliberations who may not have predicted how their words will
be used. It is safer that we use the words already in the Constitution. The Constitution was their
product. Its words were read by those who ratified it. The Constitution is what society relies upon
even at present.
SC-46 is neither a financial assistance nor a technical assistance agreement.
Even supposing for the sake of argument that it is, it could not be declared valid in light of the
standards set forth in La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos:36
Such service contracts may be entered into only with respect to minerals, petroleum and other
mineral oils. The grant thereof is subject to several safeguards, among which are these
requirements:
(1) The service contract shall be crafted m accordance with a general law that will set
standard or uniform terms, conditions and requirements, presumably to attain a certain
uniformity in provisions and avoid the possible insertion of terms disadvantageous to the
country.
(2) The President shall be the signatory for the government because, supposedly before an
agreement is presented to the President for signature, it will have been vetted several times
over at different levels to ensure that it conforms to law and can withstand public scrutiny.
(3) Within thirty days of the executed agreement, the President shall report it to Congress to
give that branch of government an opportunity to look over the agreement and interpose
timely objections, if any.37 (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
Based on the standards pronounced in La Bugal, SC-46' S validity must be tested against three
important points: (a) whether SC-46 was crafted in accordance with a general law that provides
standards, terms, and conditions; (b) whether SC-46 was signed by the President for and on behalf
of the government; and (c) whether it was reported by the President to Congress within 30 days of
execution.
VII
The general law referred to as a possible basis for SC-46's validity is Presidential Decree No. 87 or
the Oil Exploration and Development Act of 1972. It is my opinion that this law is unconstitutional in
1âwphi1
that it allows service contracts, contrary to Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution:
resources. (Emphasis supplied)
The deletion of service contracts from the enumeration of the kind of agreements the President may
enter into with foreign-owned corporations for exploration and utilization of resources means that
service contracts are no longer allowed by the Constitution. Pursuant to Article XVIII, Section 3 of
the 1987 Constitution,38 this inconsistency renders the law invalid and ineffective.
SC-46 suffers from the lack of a special law allowing its activities. The Main Opinion emphasizes an
important point, which is that SC-46 did not merely involve exploratory activities, but also provided
the rights and obligations of the parties should it be discovered that there is oil in commercial
quantities in the area. The Tañon Strait being a protected seascape under Presidential Decree No.
123439 requires that the exploitation and utilization of energy resources from that area are explicitly
covered by a law passed by Congress specifically for that purpose, pursuant to Section 14 of
Republic Act No. 7586 or the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992:
SEC. 14. Survey for Energy R6'sources. - Consistent with the policies declared in Section 2, hereof,
protected areas, except strict nature reserves and natural parks, may be subjected to exploration
only for the purpose of gathering information on energy resources and only if such activity is carried
out with the least damage to surrounding areas. Surveys shall be conducted only in accordance with
a program approved by the DENR, and the result of such surveys shall be made available to the
public and submitted to the President for recommendation to Congress. Any exploitation and
utilization of energy resources found within NIP AS areas shall be allowed only through a law passed
by Congress.40 (Emphasis supplied)
No law was passed by Congress specifically providing the standards, terms, and conditions of an oil
exploration, extraction, and/or utilization for Tañon Strait and, therefore, no such activities could
have been validly undertaken under SC-46. The National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of
1992 is clear that exploitation and utilization of energy resources in a protected seascape such as
Tañon Strait shall only be allowed through a specific law.
VIII
Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was not the signatory to SC-46, contrary to the
requirement set by paragraph 4 of Article XII, Section 2 for service contracts involving the
exploration of petroleum. SC-46 was entered into by then Department of Energy Secretary Vicente
S. Perez, Jr., on behalf of the government. I agree with the Main Opinion that in cases where the
Constitution or law requires the President to act personally on the matter, the duty cannot be
delegated to another public official.41 La Bugal highlights the importance of the President's
involvement, being one of the constitutional safeguards against abuse and corruption, as not mere
formality:
At this point, we sum up the matters established, based on a careful reading of the ConCom
deliberations, as follows:
• In their deliberations on what was to become paragraph 4, the framers used the term
service contracts in referring to agreements x x x involving either technical or financial
assistance. • They spoke of service contracts as the concept was understood in the 1973
Constitution.
• It was obvious from their discussions that they were not about to ban or eradicate service
contracts.
• Instead, they were plainly crafting provisions to. put in place safeguards that would
eliminate or m minimize the abuses prevalent during the marital law regime.42 (Emphasis in
the original)
Public respondents failed to show that. Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was involved in
the signing or execution of SC-46. The failure to comply with this constitutional requirement renders
SC-46 null and void.
IX
Public respondents also failed to show that Congress was subsequently informed of the execution
and existence of SC-46. The reporting requirement is an equally important requisite to the validity of
any service contract involving the exploration, development, and utilization of Philippine petroleum.
Public respondents' failure to report to Congress about SC-46 effectively took away any opportunity
for the legislative branch to scrutinize its terms and conditions.
In sum, SC-46 was executed and implemented absent all the requirements provided under
paragraph 4 of Article XII, Section 2. It is, therefore, null and void.
I am of the view that SC-46, aside from not having complied with the 1987 Constitution, is also null
and void for being violative of environmental laws protecting Tañon Strait. In particular, SC-46 was
implemented despite falling short of the requirements of the National Integrated Protected Areas
System Act of 1992.
As a protected seascape under Presidential Decree No. 1234,43 Tañon Strait is covered by the
National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992. This law declares as a matter of policy:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. Cognizant of the profound impact of man's activities on all
components of the natural environment particularly the effect of increasing population, resource
exploitation and industrial advancement and recognizing the critical importance of protecting and
maintaining the natural biological and physical diversities of the environment notably on areas with
biologically unique features to sustain human life and development, as well as plant and animal life,
it is hereby declared the policy of the State to secure for the Filipino people of present and future
generations the perpetual existence of all native plants and animals through the establishment of a
comprehensive system of integrated protected areas within the classification of national park as
provided for in the Constitution.
It is hereby recognized that these areas, although distinct in features, possess common ecological
values that may be incorporated into a holistic plan representative of our natural heritage; that
effective administration of these areas is possible only through cooperation among national
government, local and concerned private organizations; that the use and enjoyment of these
protected areas must be consistent with the principles of biological diversity and sustainable
development.
To this end, there is hereby established a National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS),
which shall encompass outstanding remarkable areas and biologically important public lands that
are habitats of rare and endangered species of plants and animals, biogeographic zones and related
ecosystems, whether terrestrial, wetland or marine, all of which shall be designated as "protected
areas."44 (Emphasis supplied)
Pursuant to this law, any proposed activity in Tañon Strait must undergo an Environmental Impact
Assessment:
SEC. 12. Environmental Impact Assessment. - Proposals for activities which are outside the scope
of the management plan for protected areas shall be subject to an environmental impact assessment
as required by law before they are adopted, and the results thereof shall be taken into consideration
in the decision-making process.45(Emphasis supplied)
The same provision further requires that an Environmental Compliance Certificate be secured under
the Philippine Environmental Impact Assessment System before arty project is implemented:
No actual implementation of such activities shall be allowed without the required Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) under the Philippine Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) system. In
instances where such activities are allowed to be undertaken, the proponent shall plan and carry
them out in such manner as will minimize any adverse effects and take preventive and remedial
action when appropriate. The proponent shall be liable for any damage due to lack of caution or
indiscretion.46 (Emphasis supplied)
In projects involving the exploration or utilization of energy resources, the National Integrated
Protected Areas System Act of 1992 additionally requires that a program be approved by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which shall be publicly accessible. The program
shall also be submitted to the President, who in turn will recommend the program to Congress.
Furthermore, Congress must enact a law specifically allowing the exploitation of energy resources
found within a protected area such as Tañon Strait:
SEC. 14. Survey for Energy Resources. - Consistent with the policies declared in Section 2, hereof,
protected areas, except strict nature reserves and natural parks, may be subjected to exploration
only for the purpose of gathering information on energy resources and only if such activity is carried
out with the least damage to surrounding areas. Surveys shall be conducted only in accordance with
a program approved by the DENR, and the result of such surveys shall be made available to the
public and submitted to the President for recommendation to Congress. Any exploitation and
utilization of energy resources found within NIPAS areas shall be allowed only through a taw passed
by Congress.47 (Emphasis supplied)
Public respondents argue that SC-46 complied with the procedural requirements of obtaining an
Environmental Compliance Certificate.48 At any rate, they assert that the activities covered by SC-46
fell under Section 14 of the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992, which they
interpret to be an exception to Section 12. They argue that the Environmental Compliance Certificate
is not a strict requirement for the validity of SC-46 since (a) the Tañon Strait is not a nature' reserve
or natural park; (b) the exploration was merely for gathering information; and ( c) measures were in
place to ensure that the exploration caused the least possible damage to the area.49
Section 14 is not an exception to Section 12, but instead provides additional requirements for cases
involving Philippine energy resources. The National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992
was enacted to recognize the importance of protecting the environment in light of resource
exploitation, among others.50 Systems are put in place to secure for Filipinos local resources under
the most favorable conditions. With the status of Tañon Strait as a protected seascape, the
institution of additional legal safeguards is even more significant.
Public respondents did not validly obtain an Environmental Compliance Certificate for SC-46. Based
on the records, JAPEX commissioned an environmental impact evaluation only in the second
subphase of its project, with the Environmental Management .Bureau of Region
VII granting the project an Environmental Compliance Certificate on March 6, 2007.51
Despite its scale, the seismic surveys from May 9 to 18, 2005 were conducted without any
environmental assessment contrary to Section 12 of the National Integrated Protected Areas System
Act of 1992.
XI
Finally, we honor every living creature when we take care of our environment. As sentient species,
we do not lack in the wisdom or sensitivity to realize that we only borrow the resources that we use
to survive and to thrive. We are not incapable of mitigating the greed that is slowly causing the
demise of our planet. Thus, there is no need for us to feign representation of any other species or
some imagined unborn generation in filing any action in our courts of law to claim any of our
fundamental rights to a healthful ecology. In this way and with candor and courage, we fully shoulder
the responsibility deserving of the grace and power endowed on our species.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote:
(a) to DISMISS G.R. No. 180771 for lack of standing and STRIKE OUT the name of Former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from the title of this case;
(b) to GRANT G.R. No. 181527; and
(c) to DECLARE SERVICE CONTRACT 46 NULL AND VOID for violating the 1987
Constitution, Republic Act No. 7586, and Presidential Decree No. 1234.
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice
G.R. No. 206510 September 16, 2014

MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO, Vicar Apostolic of Puerto Princesa D.D.; MOST REV.
DEOGRACIAS S. INIGUEZ, JR., Bishop-Emeritus of Caloocan, FRANCES Q. QUIMPO,
CLEMENTE G. BAUTISTA, JR., Kalikasan-PNE, MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, RENATO M.
REYES, JR., Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, HON. NERI JAVIER COLMENARES, Bayan Muna
Partylist, ROLAND G. SIMBULAN, PH.D., Junk VF A Movement, TERESITA R. PEREZ, PH.D.,
HON. RAYMOND V. PALATINO, Kabataan Party-list, PETER SJ. GONZALES, Pamalakaya,
GIOVANNI A. TAPANG, PH. D., Agham, ELMER C. LABOG, Kilusang Mayo Uno, JOAN MAY E.
SALVADOR, Gabriela, JOSE ENRIQUE A. AFRICA, THERESA A. CONCEPCION, MARY JOAN
A. GUAN, NESTOR T. BAGUINON, PH.D., A. EDSEL F. TUPAZ, Petitioners,
vs.
SCOTT H. SWIFT in his capacity as Commander of the US. 7th Fleet, MARK A. RICE in his
capacity as Commanding Officer of the USS Guardian, PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III in
his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, HON. ALBERT F.
DEL ROSARIO, Secretary, pepartment of Foreign Affair.s, HON. PAQUITO OCHOA, JR.,
Executiv~.:Secretary, Office of the President, . HON. VOLTAIRE T. GAZMIN, Secretary,
Department of National Defense, HON. RAMON JESUS P. P AJE, Secretary, Department of
Environment and Natural Resoz!rces, VICE ADMIRAL JOSE LUIS M. ALANO, Philippine Navy
Flag Officer in Command, Armed Forces of the Philippines, ADMIRAL RODOLFO D. ISO
RENA, Commandant, Philippine Coast Guard, COMMODORE ENRICO EFREN EVANGELISTA,
Philippine Coast Guard Palawan, MAJOR GEN. VIRGILIO 0. DOMINGO, Commandant of
Armed Forces of the Philippines Command and LT. GEN. TERRY G. ROBLING, US Marine
Corps Forces. Pacific and Balikatan 2013 Exercise Co-Director, Respondents.
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR, J.:
Before us is a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with prayer for the issuance of a
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) under Rule 7 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise
known as the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (Rules), involving violations of
environmental laws and regulations in relation to the grounding of the US military ship USS Guardian
over the Tubbataha Reefs.
Factual Background
The name "Tubbataha" came from the Samal (seafaring people of southern Philippines) language
which means "long reef exposed at low tide." Tubbataha is composed of two huge coral atolls - the
north atoll and the south atoll - and the Jessie Beazley Reef, a smaller coral structure about 20
kilometers north of the atolls. The reefs of Tubbataha and Jessie Beazley are considered part of
Cagayancillo, a remote island municipality of Palawan.1
In 1988, Tubbataha was declared a National Marine Park by virtue of Proclamation No. 306 issued
by President Corazon C. Aquino on August 11, 1988. Located in the middle of Central Sulu Sea, 150
kilometers southeast of Puerto Princesa City, Tubbataha lies at the heart of the Coral Triangle, the
global center of marine biodiversity.
In 1993, Tubbataha was inscribed by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) as a World Heritage Site. It was recognized as one of the Philippines'
oldest ecosystems, containing excellent examples of pristine reefs and a high diversity of marine life.
The 97,030-hectare protected marine park is also an important habitat for internationally threatened
and endangered marine species. UNESCO cited Tubbataha's outstanding universal value as an
important and significant natural habitat for in situ conservation of biological diversity; an example
representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes; and an area of exceptional
natural beauty and aesthetic importance.2
On April 6, 2010, Congress passed Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10067,3 otherwise known as the
"Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009" "to ensure the protection and conservation of
the globally significant economic, biological, sociocultural, educational and scientific values of the
Tubbataha Reefs into perpetuity for the enjoyment of present and future generations." Under the
"no-take" policy, entry into the waters of TRNP is strictly regulated and many human activities are
prohibited and penalized or fined, including fishing, gathering, destroying and disturbing the
resources within the TRNP. The law likewise created the Tubbataha Protected Area Management
Board (TPAMB) which shall be the sole policy-making and permit-granting body of the TRNP.
The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship of the US Navy. In December
2012, the US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic clearance for the said vessel "to enter
and exit the territorial waters of the Philippines and to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the purpose
of routine ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty."4 On January 6, 2013, the ship left
Sasebo, Japan for Subic Bay, arriving on January 13, 2013 after a brief stop for fuel in Okinawa,
Japan. 1âw phi 1
On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay for its next port of call in Makassar,
Indonesia. On January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on
the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs, about 80 miles east-southeast of
Palawan. No cine was injured in the incident, and there have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.
On January 20, 2013, U.S. 7th Fleet Commander, Vice Admiral Scott Swift, expressed regret for the
incident in a press statement.5 Likewise, US Ambassador to the Philippines Harry K. Thomas, Jr., in
a meeting at the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) on February 4, "reiterated his regrets over the
grounding incident and assured Foreign Affairs Secretazy Albert F. del Rosario that the United
States will provide appropriate compensation for damage to the reef caused by the ship."6 By March
30, 2013, the US Navy-led salvage team had finished removing the last piece of the grounded ship
from the coral reef.
On April 1 7, 2013, the above-named petitioners on their behalf and in representation of their
respective sector/organization and others, including minors or generations yet unborn, filed the
present petition agairtst Scott H. Swift in his capacity as Commander of the US 7th Fleet, Mark A.
Rice in his capacity as Commanding Officer of the USS Guardian and Lt. Gen. Terry G. Robling, US
Marine Corps Forces, Pacific and Balikatan 2013 Exercises Co-Director ("US respondents");
President Benigno S. Aquino III in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP), DF A Secretary Albert F. Del Rosario, Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Jr.,
Secretary Voltaire T. Gazmin (Department of National Defense), Secretary Jesus P. Paje
(Department of Environment and Natural Resources), Vice-Admiral Jose Luis M. Alano (Philippine
Navy Flag Officer in Command, AFP), Admiral Rodolfo D. Isorena (Philippine Coast Guard
Commandant), Commodore Enrico Efren Evangelista (Philippine Coast Guard-Palawan), and Major
General Virgilio 0. Domingo (AFP Commandant), collectively the "Philippine respondents."
The Petition
Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian
cause and continue to cause environmental damage of such magnitude as to affect the provinces of
Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del
Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi, which events violate their constitutional rights to a balanced
and healthful ecology. They also seek a directive from this Court for the institution of civil,
administrative and criminal suits for acts committed in violation of environmental laws and
regulations in connection with the grounding incident.
Specifically, petitioners cite the following violations committed by US respondents under R.A. No.
10067: unauthorized entry (Section 19); non-payment of conservation fees (Section 21 ); obstruction
of law enforcement officer (Section 30); damages to the reef (Section 20); and destroying and
disturbing resources (Section 26[g]). Furthermore, petitioners assail certain provisions of the Visiting
Forces Agreement (VFA) which they want this Court to nullify for being unconstitutional.
The numerous reliefs sought in this case are set forth in the final prayer of the petition, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Petitioners respectfully pray that the Honorable Court: 1.
Immediately issue upon the filing of this petition a Temporary Environmental Protection Order
(TEPO) and/or a Writ of Kalikasan, which shall, in particular,
a. Order Respondents and any person acting on their behalf, to cease and desist all
operations over the Guardian grounding incident;
b. Initially demarcating the metes and bounds of the damaged area as well as an additional
buffer zone;
c. Order Respondents to stop all port calls and war games under 'Balikatan' because of the
absence of clear guidelines, duties, and liability schemes for breaches of those duties, and
require Respondents to assume responsibility for prior and future environmental damage in
general, and environmental damage under the Visiting Forces Agreement in particular.
d. Temporarily define and describe allowable activities of ecotourism, diving, recreation, and
limited commercial activities by fisherfolk and indigenous communities near or around the
TRNP but away from the damaged site and an additional buffer zone;
2. After summary hearing, issue a Resolution extending the TEPO until further orders of the
Court;
3. After due proceedings, render a Decision which shall include, without limitation:
a. Order Respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs, following the dispositive portion of

Nicolas v. Romulo, "to forthwith negotiate with the United States representatives for the
appropriate agreement on [environmental guidelines and environmental accountability] under
Philippine authorities as provided in Art. V[] of the VFA ... "
b. Direct Respondents and appropriate agencies to commence administrative, civil, and

criminal proceedings against erring officers and individuals to the full extent of the law, and to
make such proceedings public;
c. Declare that Philippine authorities may exercise primary and exclusive criminal jurisdiction
over erring U.S. personnel under the circumstances of this case;
d. Require Respondents to pay just and reasonable compensation in the settlement of all
meritorious claims for damages caused to the Tubbataha Reef on terms and conditions no
less severe than those applicable to other States, and damages for personal injury or death,
if such had been the case;
e. Direct Respondents to cooperate in providing for the attendance of witnesses and in the
collection and production of evidence, including seizure and delivery of objects connected
with the offenses related to the grounding of the Guardian;
f. Require the authorities of the Philippines and the United States to notify each other of the
disposition of all cases, wherever heard, related to the grounding of the Guardian;
g. Restrain Respondents from proceeding with any purported restoration, repair, salvage or
post salvage plan or plans, including cleanup plans covering the damaged area of the
Tubbataha Reef absent a just settlement approved by the Honorable Court;
h. Require Respondents to engage in stakeholder and LOU consultations in accordance with

the Local Government Code and R.A. 10067;
i. Require Respondent US officials and their representatives to place a deposit to the TRNP
Trust Fund defined under Section 17 of RA 10067 as a bona .fide gesture towards full
reparations;
j. Direct Respondents to undertake measures to rehabilitate the areas affected by the

grounding of the Guardian in light of Respondents' experience in the Port Royale grounding
in 2009, among other similar grounding incidents;
k. Require Respondents to regularly publish on a quarterly basis and in the name of

transparency and accountability such environmental damage assessment, valuation, and
valuation methods, in all stages of negotiation;
l. Convene a multisectoral technical working group to provide scientific and technical support
to the TPAMB;
m. Order the Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of National Defense, and the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources to review the Visiting Forces Agreement
and the Mutual Defense Treaty to consider whether their provisions allow for the exercise of
erga omnes rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and for damages which follow from
any violation of those rights;
n. Narrowly tailor the provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement for purposes of protecting
the damaged areas of TRNP;
o. Declare the grant of immunity found in Article V ("Criminal Jurisdiction") and Article VI of
the Visiting Forces Agreement unconstitutional for violating equal protection and/or for
violating the preemptory norm of nondiscrimination incorporated as part of the law of the land
under Section 2, Article II, of the Philippine Constitution;
p. Allow for continuing discovery measures;
q. Supervise marine wildlife rehabilitation in the Tubbataha Reefs in all other respects; and
4. Provide just and equitable environmental rehabilitation measures and such other reliefs as
are just and equitable under the premises.7 (Underscoring supplied.)
Since only the Philippine respondents filed their comment8 to the petition, petitioners also filed a
motion for early resolution and motion to proceed ex parte against the US respondents.9
Respondents' Consolidated Comment
In their consolidated comment with opposition to the application for a TEPO and ocular inspection
and production orders, respondents assert that: ( 1) the grounds relied upon for the issuance of a
TEPO or writ of Kalikasan have become fait accompli as the salvage operations on the USS
Guardian were already completed; (2) the petition is defective in form and substance; (3) the petition
improperly raises issues involving the VFA between the Republic of the Philippines and the United
States of America; and ( 4) the determination of the extent of responsibility of the US Government as
regards the damage to the Tubbataha Reefs rests exdusively with the executive branch.
The Court's Ruling
As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute on the legal standing of petitioners to file the present
petition.
Locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."10 Specifically, it is "a
party's personal and substantial interest in a case where he has sustained or will sustain direct injury
as a result" of the act being challenged, and "calls for more than just a generalized
grievance."11 However, the rule on standing is a procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for
non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest so
requires, such as when the subject matter of the controversy is of transcendental importance, of
overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.12
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,13 we recognized the "public right" of citizens to "a
balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our constitutional history, is solemnly
incorporated in the fundamental law." We declared that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
need not be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and polittcal rights
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of
transcendental importance with intergenerational implications. Such right carries with it the
1âwphi1
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.14
On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors in Oposa, this Court ruled that
not only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of environmental rights,
they can do so in representation of their own and future generations. Thus:
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. 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 a:: well as future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a
responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full 1:njoyment 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.15 (Emphasis supplied.)
The liberalization of standing first enunciated in Oposa, insofar as it refers to minors and generations
yet unborn, is now enshrined in the Rules which allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental
cases. The provision on citizen suits in the Rules "collapses the traditional rule on personal and
direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of nature."16
Having settled the issue of locus standi, we shall address the more fundamental question of whether
this Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents who did not submit any pleading or manifestation
in this case.
The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of sovereign immunity or non-
suability of the State,17is expressly provided in Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution which states:
Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.
In United States of America v. Judge Guinto,18 we discussed the principle of state immunity from suit,
as follows:
The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now · expressed in Article XVI, Section 3,
of the 1987 Constitution, is one of the generally accepted principles of international law that we have
adopted as part of the law of our land under Article II, Section 2. x x x.
Even without such affirmation, we would still be bound by the generally accepted principles of
international law under the doctrine of incorporation. Under this doctrine, as accepted by the majority
of states, such principles are deemed incorporated in the law of every civilized state as a condition
and consequence of its membership in the society of nations. Upon its admission to such society,
the state is automatically obligated to comply with these principles in its relations with other states.
As applied to the local state, the doctrine of state immunity is based on the justification given by
Justice Holmes that ''there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which
the right depends." [Kawanakoa v. Polybank, 205 U.S. 349] There are other practical reasons for the
enforcement of the doctrine. In the case of the foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local
jurisdiction, the added inhibition is expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. All
states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. A contrary disposition
would, in the language of a celebrated case, "unduly vex the peace of nations." [De Haber v. Queen
of Portugal, 17 Q. B. 171]
While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also
applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the
discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state
itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same,. such as the appropriation of the amount
needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as against the state
itself although it has not been formally impleaded. [Garcia v. Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120] In such a
situation, the state may move to dismiss the comp.taint on the ground that it has been filed without
its consent.19 (Emphasis supplied.)
Under the American Constitution, the doctrine is expressed in the Eleventh Amendment which
reads:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity,
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by
Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
In the case of Minucher v. Court of Appeals,20 we further expounded on the immunity of foreign
states from the jurisdiction of local courts, as follows:
The precept that a State cannot be sued in the courts of a foreign state is a long-standing rule of
customary international law then closely identified with the personal immunity of a foreign sovereign
from suit and, with the emergence of democratic states, made to attach not just to the person of the
head of state, or his representative, but also distinctly to the state itself in its sovereign capacity. If
the acts giving rise to a suit arc those of a foreign government done by its foreign agent, although
not necessarily a diplomatic personage, but acting in his official capacity, the complaint could be
barred by the immunity of the foreign sovereign from suit without its consent. Suing a representative
of a state is believed to be, in effect, suing the state itself. The proscription is not accorded for the
benefit of an individual but for the State, in whose service he is, under the maxim -par in parem, non
habet imperium -that all states are soverr~ign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one
another. The implication, in broad terms, is that if the judgment against an official would rec 1uire the
state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the award, such as the appropriation of the amount
needed to pay the damages decreed against him, the suit must be regarded as being against the
state itself, although it has not been formally impleaded.21 (Emphasis supplied.)
In the same case we also mentioned that in the case of diplomatic immunity, the privilege is not an
immunity from the observance of the law of the territorial sovereign or from ensuing legal liability; it
is, rather, an immunity from the exercise of territorial jurisdiction.22
In United States of America v. Judge Guinto,23 one of the consolidated cases therein involved a
Filipino employed at Clark Air Base who was arrested following a buy-bust operation conducted by
two officers of the US Air Force, and was eventually dismissed from his employment when he was
charged in court for violation of R.A. No. 6425. In a complaint for damages filed by the said
employee against the military officers, the latter moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the
suit was against the US Government which had not given its consent. The RTC denied the motion
but on a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed before this Court, we reversed the RTC and
dismissed the complaint. We held that petitioners US military officers were acting in the exercise of
their official functions when they conducted the buy-bust operation against the complainant and
thereafter testified against him at his trial. It follows that for discharging their duties as agents of the
United States, they cannot be directly impleaded for acts imputable to their principal, which has not
given its consent to be sued.
This traditional rule of State immunity which exempts a State from being sued in the courts of
another State without the former's consent or waiver has evolved into a restrictive doctrine which
distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts (Jure imperil") from private, commercial and
proprietary acts (Jure gestionis). Under the restrictive rule of State immunity, State immunity extends
only to acts Jure imperii. The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the
proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities
or economic affairs.24
In Shauf v. Court of Appeals,25 we discussed the limitations of the State immunity principle, thus:
It is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as such for acts
contrary to law and injurious to the rights of plaintiff. As was clearly set forth by JustiGe Zaldivar in
Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications, et al. vs. Aligaen, etc., et al. : "Inasmuch as the State
authorizes only legal acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are not
acts of the State, and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been
invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State within
the rule of immunity of the State from suit. In the same tenor, it has been said that an action at law or
suit in equity against a State officer or the director of a State department on the ground that, while
claiming to act for the State, he violates or invades the personal and property rights of the plaintiff,
under an unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority which he does not have, is not a
suit against the State within the constitutional provision that the State may not be sued without its
consent." The rationale for this ruling is that the doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice.
xxxx
The aforecited authorities are clear on the matter. They state that the doctrine of immunity from suit
will not apply and may not be invoked where the public official is being sued in his private and
personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The cloak of protection afforded the officers and agents of
the government is removed the moment they are sued in their individual capacity. This situation
usually arises where the public official acts without authority or in excess of the powers vested in
him. It is a well-settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal private
capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith, or
beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.26 (Emphasis supplied.) In this case, the US
respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy who had
control and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. The alleged act or omission resulting in
the unfortunate grounding of the USS Guardian on the TRNP was committed while they we:re
performing official military duties. Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against said
officials will require remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is
deemed to be one against the US itself. The principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise
of jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.
During the deliberations, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio took the position that the
conduct of the US in this case, when its warship entered a restricted area in violation of R.A. No.
10067 and caused damage to the TRNP reef system, brings the matter within the ambit of Article 31
of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He explained that while
historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity from suit as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of
the UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in cases where they fail to comply with the rules and
regulations of the coastal State regarding passage through the latter's internal waters and the
territorial sea.
According to Justice Carpio, although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as a matter of
long-standing policy the US considers itself bound by customary international rules on the "traditional
uses of the oceans" as codified in UNCLOS, as can be gleaned from previous declarations by former
Presidents Reagan and Clinton, and the US judiciary in the case of United States v. Royal
Caribbean Cruise Lines, Ltd.27
The international law of the sea is generally defined as "a body of treaty rules arid customary norms
governing the uses of the sea, the exploitation of its resources, and the exercise of jurisdiction over
maritime regimes. It is a branch of public international law, regulating the relations of states with
respect to the uses of the oceans."28 The UNCLOS is a multilateral treaty which was opened for
signature on December 10, 1982 at Montego Bay, Jamaica. It was ratified by the Philippines in 1984
but came into force on November 16, 1994 upon the submission of the 60th ratification.
The UNCLOS is a product of international negotiation that seeks to balance State sovereignty (mare
clausum) and the principle of freedom of the high seas (mare liberum).29 The freedom to use the
world's marine waters is one of the oldest customary principles of international law.30 The UNCLOS
gives to the coastal State sovereign rights in varying degrees over the different zones of the sea
which are: 1) internal waters, 2) territorial sea, 3) contiguous zone, 4) exclusive economic zone, and
5) the high seas. It also gives coastal States more or less jurisdiction over foreign vessels depending
on where the vessel is located.31
Insofar as the internal waters and territorial sea is concerned, the Coastal State exercises
sovereignty, subject to the UNCLOS and other rules of international law. Such sovereignty extends
to the air space over the territorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil.32
In the case of warships,33 as pointed out by Justice Carpio, they continue to enjoy sovereign
immunity subject to the following exceptions:
Article 30
Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State
If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning
passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is
made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.
Article 31
Responsibility of the flag State for damage caused by a warship
or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes
The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the coastal State
resulting from the non-compliance by a warship or other government ship operated for non-
commercial purposes with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through
the territorial sea or with the provisions of this Convention or other rules of international law.
Article 32
Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes
With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this
Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-
commercial purposes. (Emphasis supplied.) A foreign warship's unauthorized entry into our internal
waters with resulting damage to marine resources is one situation in which the above provisions may
apply. But what if the offending warship is a non-party to the UNCLOS, as in this case, the US?
An overwhelming majority - over 80% -- of nation states are now members of UNCLOS, but despite
this the US, the world's leading maritime power, has not ratified it.
While the Reagan administration was instrumental in UNCLOS' negotiation and drafting, the U.S.
delegation ultimately voted against and refrained from signing it due to concerns over deep seabed
mining technology transfer provisions contained in Part XI. In a remarkable, multilateral effort to
induce U.S. membership, the bulk of UNCLOS member states cooperated over the succeeding
decade to revise the objection.able provisions. The revisions satisfied the Clinton administration,
which signed the revised Part XI implementing agreement in 1994. In the fall of 1994, President
Clinton transmitted UNCLOS and the Part XI implementing agreement to the Senate requesting its
advice and consent. Despite consistent support from President Clinton, each of his successors, and
an ideologically diverse array of stakeholders, the Senate has since withheld the consent required
for the President to internationally bind the United States to UNCLOS.
While UNCLOS cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) during the 108th and
110th Congresses, its progress continues to be hamstrung by significant pockets of political
ambivalence over U.S. participation in international institutions. Most recently, 111 th Congress
SFRC Chairman Senator John Kerry included "voting out" UNCLOS for full Senate consideration
among his highest priorities. This did not occur, and no Senate action has been taken on UNCLOS
by the 112th Congress.34
Justice Carpio invited our attention to the policy statement given by President Reagan on March 10,
1983 that the US will "recognize the rights of the other , states in the waters off their coasts, as
reflected in the convention [UNCLOS], so long as the rights and freedom of the United States and
others under international law are recognized by such coastal states", and President Clinton's
reiteration of the US policy "to act in a manner consistent with its [UNCLOS] provisions relating to
traditional uses of the oceans and to encourage other countries to do likewise." Since Article 31
relates to the "traditional uses of the oceans," and "if under its policy, the US 'recognize[s] the rights
of the other states in the waters off their coasts,"' Justice Carpio postulates that "there is more
reason to expect it to recognize the rights of other states in their internal waters, such as the Sulu
Sea in this case."
As to the non-ratification by the US, Justice Carpio emphasizes that "the US' refusal to join the UN
CLOS was centered on its disagreement with UN CLOS' regime of deep seabed mining (Part XI)
which considers the oceans and deep seabed commonly owned by mankind," pointing out that such
"has nothing to do with its [the US'] acceptance of customary international rules on navigation."
It may be mentioned that even the US Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps publicly endorses the
ratification of the UNCLOS, as shown by the following statement posted on its official website:
The Convention is in the national interest of the United States because it establishes stable maritime
zones, including a maximum outer limit for territorial seas; codifies innocent passage, transit
passage, and archipelagic sea lanes passage rights; works against "jurisdictiomtl creep" by
preventing coastal nations from expanding their own maritime zones; and reaffirms sovereign
immunity of warships, auxiliaries anJ government aircraft.
xxxx
Economically, accession to the Convention would support our national interests by enhancing the
ability of the US to assert its sovereign rights over the resources of one of the largest continental
shelves in the world. Further, it is the Law of the Sea Convention that first established the concept of
a maritime Exclusive Economic Zone out to 200 nautical miles, and recognized the rights of coastal
states to conserve and manage the natural resources in this Zone.35
We fully concur with Justice Carpio's view that non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that
the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal waters and
territorial sea. We thus expect the US to bear "international responsibility" under Art. 31 in
connection with the USS Guardian grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs. Indeed,
it is difficult to imagine that our long-time ally and trading partner, which has been actively supporting
the country's efforts to preserve our vital marine resources, would shirk from its obligation to
compensate the damage caused by its warship while transiting our internal waters. Much less can
we comprehend a Government exercising leadership in international affairs, unwilling to comply with
the UNCLOS directive for all nations to cooperate in the global task to protect and preserve the
marine environment as provided in Article 197, viz:
Article 197
Cooperation on a global or regional basis
States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate, on a regional basis, directly or through
competent international organizations, in formulating and elaborating international rules, standards
and recommended practices and procedures consistent with this Convention, for the protection and
preservation of the marine environment, taking into account characteristic regional features.
In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is beyond dispute. Although
the said treaty upholds the immunity of warships from the jurisdiction of Coastal States while
navigating the.latter's territorial sea, the flag States shall be required to leave the territorial '::;ea
immediately if they flout the laws and regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable for
damages caused by their warships or any other government vessel operated for non-commercial
purposes under Article 31.
Petitioners argue that there is a waiver of immunity from suit found in the VFA. Likewise, they invoke
federal statutes in the US under which agencies of the US have statutorily waived their immunity to
any action. Even under the common law tort claims, petitioners asseverate that the US respondents
are liable for negligence, trespass and nuisance.
We are not persuaded.
The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United States troops and personnel visiting
the Philippines to promote "common security interests" between the US and the Philippines in the
region. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of military personnel, and further defines
the rights of the United States and the Philippine government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction,
movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment, materials and
supplies.36 The invocation of US federal tort laws and even common law is thus improper considering
that it is the VF A which governs disputes involving US military ships and crew navigating Philippine
waters in pursuance of the objectives of the agreement.
As it is, the waiver of State immunity under the VF A pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to
special civil actions such as the present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be
inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of the Rules that a criminal case against a person charged with a
violation of an environmental law is to be filed separately:
SEC. 17. Institution of separate actions.-The filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of
kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or administrative actions.
In any case, it is our considered view that a ruling on the application or non-application of criminal
jurisdiction provisions of the VF A to US personnel who may be found responsible for the grounding
of the USS Guardian, would be premature and beyond the province of a petition for a writ of
Kalikasan. We also find it unnecessary at this point to determine whether such waiver of State
immunity is indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant damages which have resulted from
the violation of environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of damages, including the
collection of administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit or that deemed
instituted with the criminal action charging the same violation of an environmental law.37
Section 15, Rule 7 enumerates the reliefs which may be granted in a petition for issuance of a writ of
Kalikasan, to wit:
SEC. 15. Judgment.-Within sixty (60) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision, the
court shall render judgment granting or denying the privilege of the writ of kalikasan.
The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the following:
(a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing acts or neglecting
the performance of a duty in violation of environmental laws resulting in environmental
destruction or damage;
(b) Directing the respondent public official, govemment agency, private person or entity to
protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the environment;
(c) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or entity to
monitor strict compliance with the decision and orders of the court;
(d) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or private person or entity to
make periodic reports on the execution of the final judgment; and
(e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology or to the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the environment,
except the award of damages to individual petitioners. (Emphasis supplied.)
We agree with respondents (Philippine officials) in asserting that this petition has become moot in
the sense that the salvage operation sought to be enjoined or restrained had already been
accomplished when petitioners sought recourse from this Court. But insofar as the directives to
Philippine respondents to protect and rehabilitate the coral reef stn icture and marine habitat
adversely affected by the grounding incident are concerned, petitioners are entitled to these reliefs
notwithstanding the completion of the removal of the USS Guardian from the coral reef. However,
we are mindful of the fact that the US and Philippine governments both expressed readiness to
negotiate and discuss the matter of compensation for the damage caused by the USS Guardian.
The US Embassy has also declared it is closely coordinating with local scientists and experts in
assessing the extent of the damage and appropriate methods of rehabilitation.
Exploring avenues for settlement of environmental cases is not proscribed by the Rules. As can be
gleaned from the following provisions, mediation and settlement are available for the consideration
of the parties, and which dispute resolution methods are encouraged by the court, to wit:
RULE3
xxxx
SEC. 3. Referral to mediation.-At the start of the pre-trial conference, the court shall inquire from the
parties if they have settled the dispute; otherwise, the court shall immediately refer the parties or
their counsel, if authorized by their clients, to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) unit for
purposes of mediation. If not available, the court shall refer the case to the clerk of court or legal
researcher for mediation.
Mediation must be conducted within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt of notice
of referral to mediation.
The mediation report must be submitted within ten (10) days from the expiration of the 30-day
period.
SEC. 4. Preliminary conference.-If mediation fails, the court will schedule the continuance of the pre-
trial. Before the scheduled date of continuance, the court may refer the case to the branch clerk of
court for a preliminary conference for the following purposes:
(a) To assist the parties in reaching a settlement;
xxxx
SEC. 5. Pre-trial conference; consent decree.-The judge shall put the parties and their counsels
under oath, and they shall remain under oath in all pre-trial conferences.
The judge shall exert best efforts to persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement of the dispute. The
judge may issue a consent decree approving the agreement between the parties in accordance with
law, morals, public order and public policy to protect the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology.
xxxx
SEC. 10. Efforts to settle.- The court shall endeavor to make the parties to agree to compromise or
settle in accordance with law at any stage of the proceedings before rendition of judgment.
(Underscoring supplied.)
The Court takes judicial notice of a similar incident in 2009 when a guided-missile cruiser, the USS
Port Royal, ran aground about half a mile off the Honolulu Airport Reef Runway and remained stuck
for four days. After spending $6.5 million restoring the coral reef, the US government was reported to
have paid the State of Hawaii $8.5 million in settlement over coral reef damage caused by the
grounding.38
To underscore that the US government is prepared to pay appropriate compensation for the damage
caused by the USS Guardian grounding, the US Embassy in the Philippines has announced the
formation of a US interdisciplinary scientific team which will "initiate discussions with the Government
of the Philippines to review coral reef rehabilitation options in Tubbataha, based on assessments by
Philippine-based marine scientists." The US team intends to "help assess damage and remediation
options, in coordination with the Tubbataha Management Office, appropriate Philippine government
entities, non-governmental organizations, and scientific experts from Philippine universities."39
A rehabilitation or restoration program to be implemented at the cost of the violator is also a major
relief that may be obtained under a judgment rendered in a citizens' suit under the Rules, viz:
RULES
SECTION 1. Reliefs in a citizen suit.-If warranted, the court may grant to the plaintiff proper reliefs
which shall include the protection, preservation or rehabilitation of the environment and the payment
of attorney's fees, costs of suit and other litigation expenses. It may also require the violator to
submit a program of rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, the costs of which shall be
borne by the violator, or to contribute to a special trust fund for that purpose subject to the control of
the court.1âw phi 1
In the light of the foregoing, the Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter of compensation
and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels. Resolution of these issues impinges on
our relations with another State in the context of common security interests under the VFA. It is
settled that "[t]he conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution
to the executive and legislative-"the political" --departments of the government, and the propriety of
what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision."40
On the other hand, we cannot grant the additional reliefs prayed for in the petition to order a review
of the VFA and to nullify certain immunity provisions thereof.
As held in BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Exec. Sec. Zamora,41 the VFA was duly
concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States as
attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of the United States government. The VF
A being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter of international law to
abide by its terms and provisions.42 The present petition under the Rules is not the proper remedy to
assail the constitutionality of its provisions. WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of the
privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan is hereby DENIED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 79538 October 18, 1990
FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & CO., INC., petitioner,

vs.
THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES, THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT and
TWIN PEAKS DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY CORPORATION, respondents.
Tañada, Vivo & Tan for petitioner.
Antonio E. Escober and Jurado Law Office for respondent Twin Peaks Development Corporation.
COURTS, J.:
Soon after the change of government in February 1986, petitioner sent a letter dated March 17, 1986 to the Office of the President, and
another letter dated April 2, 1986 to Minister Ernesto Maceda of the Ministry of Natural Resources [MNR], seeking: (1) the reinstatement of
its timber license agreement which was cancelled in August 1983 during the Marcos administration; (2) the revocation of TLA No. 356 which
was issued to Twin Peaks Development and Realty Corporation without public bidding and in violation of forestry laws, rules and regulations;
and, (3) the issuance of an order allowing petitioner to take possession of all logs found in the concession area [Annexes "6" and "7" of the
Petition; Rollo, pp. 54-63].
Petitioner made the following allegations:
(a) That on October 12, 1965, it entered into a timber license agreement designated as TLA No. 87
with the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, represented by then Secretary Jose
Feliciano, wherein it was issued an exclusive license to cut, collect and remove timber except
prohibited species within a specified portion of public forest land with an area of 54,920 hectares
located in the municipality of Maddela, province of Nueva Vizcaya * from October 12, 1965 until June 30, 1990;
(b) That on August 18, 1983, the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development [hereinafter referred
to as "Bureau"], Director Edmundo Cortes, issued a memorandum order stopping all logging
operations in Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino provinces, and cancelling the logging concession of
petitioner and nine other forest concessionaires, pursuant to presidential instructions and a
memorandum order of the Minister of Natural Resources Teodoro Pena [Annex "5" of the Petition;
Rollo, p. 49];
(c) that on August 25, 1983, petitioner received a telegram from the Bureau, the contents of which
were as follows:
PURSUANT TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT YOU ARE

REQUESTED TO STOP ALL LOGGING OPERATIONS TO CONSERVE
REMAINING FORESTS PLEASE CONDUCT THE ORDERLY PULL-OUT OF
LOGGING MACHINERIES AND EQUIPMENT AND COORDINATE WITH THE
RESPECTIVE DISTRICT FORESTERS FOR THE INVENTORY OF LOGS CUT
PRIOR TO THIS ORDER THE SUBMISSION OF A COMPLIANCE REPORT
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS SHALL BE APPRECIATED — [Annex "4" of the Petition;
Rollo, p. 48];
(d) That after the cancellation of its timber license agreement, it immediately sent a letter addressed
to then President Ferdinand Marcos which sought reconsideration of the Bureau's directive, citing in
support thereof its contributions to alleging that it was not given the forest conservation and
opportunity to be heard prior to the cancellation of its logging 531, but no operations (Annex "6" of
the Petition; Rollo, pp. 50 favorable action was taken on this letter;
(e) That barely one year thereafter, approximately one-half or 26,000 hectares of the area formerly
covered by TLA No. 87 was re-awarded to Twin Peaks Development and Reality Corporation under
TLA No. 356 which was set to expire on July 31, 2009, while the other half was allowed to be logged
by Filipinas Loggers, Inc. without the benefit of a formal award or license; and,
(f) That the latter entities were controlled or owned by relatives or cronies of deposed President
Ferdinand Marcos. Acting on petitioner's letter, the MNR through then Minister Ernesto Maceda
issued an order dated July 22, 1986 denying petitioner's request. The Ministry ruled that a timber
license was not a contract within the due process clause of the Constitution, but only a privilege
which could be withdrawn whenever public interest or welfare so demands, and that petitioner was
not discriminated against in view of the fact that it was among ten concessionaires whose licenses
were revoked in 1983. Moreover, emphasis was made of the total ban of logging operations in the
provinces of Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Ifugao imposed on April 2, 1986, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
It should be recalled that [petitioner's] earlier request for reinstatement has been
denied in view of the total ban of all logging operations in the provinces of Nueva
Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Ifugao which was imposed for reasons of
conservation and national security.
The Ministry imposed the ban because it realizes the great responsibility it bear [sic]
in respect to forest t considers itself the trustee thereof. This being the case, it has to
ensure the availability of forest resources not only for the present, but also for the
future generations of Filipinos.
On the other hand, the activities of the insurgents in these parts of the country are
well documented. Their financial demands on logging concessionaires are well
known. The government, therefore, is well within its right to deprive its enemy of
sources of funds in order to preserve itself, its established institutions and the liberty
and democratic way of life of its people.
xxx xxx xxx
[Annex "9" of the Petition, pp. 2-4; Rollo, pp. 65-67.]
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the aforestated order reiterating, among others. its request
that TLA No. 356 issued to private respondent be declared null and void. The MNR however denied
this motion in an order dated September 15, 1986. stating in part:
xxx xxx xxx
Regarding [petitioner's] request that the award of a 26,000 hectare portion of TLA
No. 87 to Twin Peaks Realty Development Corporation under TLA No. 356 be
declared null and void, suffice it to say that the Ministry is now in the process of
reviewing all contracts, permits or other form of privileges for the exploration,
development, exploitation, or utilization of natural resources entered into, granted,
issued or acquired before the issuance of Proclamation No. 3, otherwise known as
the Freedom Constitution for the purpose of amending, modifying or revoking them
when the national interest so requires.
xxx xxx xxx
The Ministry, through the Bureau of Forest Development, has jurisdiction and
authority over all forest lands. On the basis of this authority, the Ministry issued the
order banning all logging operations/activities in Quirino province, among others,
where movant's former concession area is located. Therefore, the issuance of an
order disallowing any person or entity from removing cut or uncut logs from the
portion of TLA No. 87, now under TLA No. 356, would constitute an unnecessary or
superfluous act on the part of the Ministry.
xxx xxx xxx
[Annex "11" of the Petition, pp. 3-4; Rollo, pp. 77-78.]
On November 26, 1986, petitioner's supplemental motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Meanwhile, per MNR Administrative Order No. 54, series of 1986, issued on November 26, 1986,
the logging ban in the province of Quirino was lifted.
Petitioner subsequently appealed from the orders of the MNR to the Office of the President. In a
resolution dated July 6, 1987, the Office of the President, acting through then Deputy Executive
Secretary Catalino Macaraig, denied petitioner's appeal for lack of merit. The Office of the President
ruled that the appeal of petitioner was prematurely filed, the matter not having been terminated in the
MNR. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on August 14, 1987.
Hence, petitioner filed directly with this Court a petition for certiorari, with prayer for the issuance of a
restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction, on August 27, 1987. On October 13, 1987, it filed a
supplement to its petition for certiorari. Thereafter, public and private respondents submitted their
respective comments, and petitioner filed its consolidated reply thereto. In a resolution dated May
22, 1989, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition.
After a careful study of the circumstances in the case at bar, the Court finds several factors which
militate against the issuance of a writ of certiorari in favor of petitioner.
1. Firstly, the refusal of public respondents herein to reverse final and executory administrative
orders does not constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
It is an established doctrine in this jurisdiction that the decisions and orders of administrative
agencies have upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview
of the doctrine of res judicata. These decisions and orders are as conclusive upon the rights of the
affected parties as though the same had been rendered by a court of general jurisdiction. The rule
of res judicata thus forbids the reopening of a matter once determined by competent authority acting
within their exclusive jurisdiction [See Brillantes v. Castro, 99 Phil. 497 (1956); Ipekdjian
Merchandising Co., Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-15430, September 30, 1963, 9 SCRA
72; San Luis v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80160, June 26, 1989].
In the case at bar, petitioner's letters to the Office of the President and the MNR [now the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) dated March 17, 1986 and April 2,
1986, respectively, sought the reconsideration of a memorandum order issued by the Bureau of
Forest Development which cancelled its timber license agreement in 1983, as well as the revocation
of TLA No. 356 subsequently issued by the Bureau to private respondents in 1984.
But as gleaned from the record, petitioner did not avail of its remedies under the law, i.e. Section 8 of
Pres. Dec. No. 705 as amended, for attacking the validity of these administrative actions until after
1986. By the time petitioner sent its letter dated April 2, 1986 to the newly appointed Minister of the
MNR requesting reconsideration of the above Bureau actions, these were already settled matters as
far as petitioner was concerned [See Rueda v. Court of Agrarian Relations, 106 Phil. 300 (1959);
Danan v. Aspillera G.R. No. L-17305, November 28, 1962, 6 SCRA 609; Ocampo v. Arboleda G.R.
No. L-48190, August 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 374].
No particular significance can be attached to petitioner's letter dated September 19, 1983 which
petitioner claimed to have sent to then President Marcos [Annex "6" of Petition, Rollo, pp. 50-53],
seeking the reconsideration of the 1983 order issued by Director Cortes of the Bureau. It must be
pointed out that the averments in this letter are entirely different from the charges of fraud against
officials under the previous regime made by petitioner in its letters to public respondents herein. In
the letter to then President Marcos, petitioner simply contested its inclusion in the list of
concessionaires, whose licenses were cancelled, by defending its record of selective logging and
reforestation practices in the subject concession area. Yet, no other administrative steps appear to
have been taken by petitioner until 1986, despite the fact that the alleged fraudulent scheme became
apparent in 1984 as evidenced by the awarding of the subject timber concession area to other
entities in that year.
2. Moreover, petitioner is precluded from availing of the benefits of a writ of certiorari in the present
case because he failed to file his petition within a reasonable period.
The principal issue ostensibly presented for resolution in the instant petition is whether or not public
respondents herein acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in refusing to overturn administrative orders issued by their predecessors in the past regime. Yet,
what the petition ultimately seeks is the nullification of the Bureau orders cancelling TLA No. 87 and
granting TLA No. 356 to private respondent, which were issued way back in 1983 and 1984,
respectively.
Once again, the fact that petitioner failed to seasonably take judicial recourse to have the earlier
administrative actions reviewed by the courts through a petition for certiorari is prejudicial to its
cause. For although no specific time frame is fixed for the institution of a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, the same must nevertheless be done within a
"reasonable time". The yardstick to measure the timeliness of a petition for certiorari is the
"reasonableness of the length of time that had expired from the commission of the acts complained
of up to the institution of the proceeding to annul the same" [Toledo v. Pardo, G.R. No. 56761,
November 19, 1982, 118 SCRA 566, 571]. And failure to file the petition for certiorari within a
reasonable period of time renders the petitioner susceptible to the adverse legal consequences of
laches [Municipality of Carcar v. Court of First Instance of Cebu, G.R. No. L-31628, December 27,
1982, 119 SCRA 392).
Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do
that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, or to assert a right
within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto has either
abandoned it or declined to assert it [Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April 15, 1968, 23
SCRA 29; Seno v. Mangubat, G.R. No. L-44339, December 2, 1987, 156 SCRA 113]. The rule is
that unreasonable delay on the part of a plaintiff in seeking to enforce an alleged right may,
depending upon the circumstances, be destructive of the right itself. Verily, the laws aid those who
are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights (Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt)
[See Buenaventura v. David, 37 Phil. 435 (1918)].
In the case at bar, petitioner waited for at least three years before it finally filed a petition for
certiorari with the Court attacking the validity of the assailed Bureau actions in 1983 and 1984.
Considering that petitioner, throughout the period of its inaction, was not deprived of the opportunity
to seek relief from the courts which were normally operating at the time, its delay constitutes
unreasonable and inexcusable neglect, tantamount to laches. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari
requiring the reversal of these orders will not lie.
3. Finally, there is a more significant factor which bars the issuance of a writ of certiorari in favor of
petitioner and against public respondents herein. It is precisely this for which prevents the Court from
departing from the general application of the rules enunciated above.
A cursory reading of the assailed orders issued by public respondent Minister Maceda of the MNR
which were ed by the Office of the President, will disclose public policy consideration which
effectively forestall judicial interference in the case at bar,
Public respondents herein, upon whose shoulders rests the task of implementing the policy to
develop and conserve the country's natural resources, have indicated an ongoing department
evaluation of all timber license agreements entered into, and permits or licenses issued, under the
previous dispensation. In fact, both the executive and legislative departments of the incumbent
administration are presently taking stock of its environmental policies with regard to the utilization of
timber lands and developing an agenda for future programs for their conservation and rehabilitation.
The ongoing administrative reassessment is apparently in response to the renewed and growing
global concern over the despoliation of forest lands and the utter disregard of their crucial role in
sustaining a balanced ecological system. The legitimacy of such concern can hardly be disputed,
most especially in this country. The Court takes judicial notice of the profligate waste of the country's
forest resources which has not only resulted in the irreversible loss of flora and fauna peculiar to the
region, but has produced even more disastrous and lasting economic and social effects. The
delicate balance of nature having been upset, a vicious cycle of floods and droughts has been
triggered and the supply of food and energy resources required by the people seriously depleted.
While there is a desire to harness natural resources to amass profit and to meet the country's
immediate financial requirements, the more essential need to ensure future generations of Filipinos
of their survival in a viable environment demands effective and circumspect action from the
government to check further denudation of whatever remains of the forest lands. Nothing less is
expected of the government, in view of the clear constitutional command to maintain a balanced and
healthful ecology. Section 16 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides:
SEC. 16. The State shall protect and promote the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
Thus, while the administration grapples with the complex and multifarious problems caused by
unbridled exploitation of these resources, the judiciary will stand clear. A long line of cases establish
the basic rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion
of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical
knowledge and training of such agencies [See Espinosa v. Makalintal, 79 Phil. 134 (1947); Coloso v.
Board of Accountancy, 92 Phil. 938 (1953); Pajo v. Ago, 108 Phil. 905 (1960); Suarez v. Reyes, G.R.
No. L-19828, February 28, 1963, 7 SCRA 461; Ganitano v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, G. R. No. L-21167, March 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 543; Villegas v. Auditor General, G.R. No.
L-21352, November 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 877; Manuel v. Villena, G.R. No. L-28218, February 27,
1971, 37 SCRA 745; Lacuesta v. Herrera, G.R. No. L-33646, January 28, 1975, 62 SCRA 115;
Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. v. Enage, G.R. No. L-30637, July 16, 1987, 152 SCRA 80]. More so
where, as in the present case, the interests of a private logging company are pitted against that of
the public at large on the pressing public policy issue of forest conservation. For this Court
recognizes the wide latitude of discretion possessed by the government in determining the
appropriate actions to be taken to preserve and manage natural resources, and the proper parties
who should enjoy the privilege of utilizing these resources [Director of Forestry v. Munoz, G.R. No.
L-24796, June 28, 1968, 23 SCRA 1183; Lim, Sr. v. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, G.R. No. L-26990, August 31, 1970, 34 SCRA 751]. 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].
In fine, the legal precepts highlighted in the foregoing discussion more than suffice to justify the
Court's refusal to interfere in the DENR evaluation of timber licenses and permits issued under the
previous regime, or to pre-empt the adoption of appropriate corrective measures by the department.
Nevertheless, the Court cannot help but express its concern regarding alleged irregularities in the
issuance of timber license agreements to a number of logging concessionaires.
The grant of licenses or permits to exploit the country's timber resources, if done in contravention of
the procedure outlined in the law, or as a result of fraud and undue influence exerted on department
officials, is indicative of an arbitrary and whimsical exercise of the State's power to regulate the use
and exploitation of forest resources. The alleged practice of bestowing "special favors" to preferred
individuals, regardless of merit, would be an abuse of this power. And this Court will not be a party to
a flagrant mockery of the avowed public policy of conservation enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.
Therefore, should the appropriate case be brought showing a clear grave abuse of discretion on the
part of officials in the DENR and related bureaus with respect to the implementation of this public
policy, the Court win not hesitate to step in and wield its authority, when invoked, in the exercise of
judicial powers under the Constitution [Section 1, Article VIII].
However, petitioner having failed to make out a case showing grave abuse of discretion on the part
of public respondents herein, the Court finds no basis to issue a writ of certiorari and to grant any of
the affirmative reliefs sought.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
U.S. Supreme Court

Cariño v. Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449 (1909)
Cariño v. Insular Government of the Philippine Islands
No. 72
Argued January 13, 1909
Decided February 23, 1909
212 U.S. 449
Syllabus
Writ of error is the general, and appeal the exceptional, method of bringing Cases to this
Court. The latter method is in the main confined to equity cases, and the former is
proper to bring up a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands affirming a
judgment of the Court of Land Registration dismissing an application for registration of
land.
Although a province may be excepted from the operation of Act No. 926 of 1903 of the
Philippine Commission which provides for the registration and perfecting of new titles,
one who actually owns property in such province is entitled to registration under Act No.
496 of 1902, which applies to the whole archipelago.
While, in legal theory and as against foreign nations, sovereignty is absolute, practically
it is a question of strength and of varying degree, and it is for a new sovereign to decide
how far it will insist upon theoretical relations of the subject to the former sovereign and
how far it will recognize actual facts.
Page 212 U. S. 450
The acquisition of the Philippines was not for the purpose of acquiring the lands
occupied by the inhabitants, and under the Organic Act of July 1, 1902, c. 1369, 32 Stat.
691, providing that property rights are to be administered for the benefit of the
inhabitants, one who actually owned land for many years cannot be deprived of it for
failure to comply with certain ceremonies prescribed either by the acts of the Philippine
Commission or by Spanish law.
The Organic Act of the Philippines made a bill of rights embodying safeguards of the
Constitution, and, like the Constitution, extends those safeguards to all.
Every presumption of ownership is in favor of one actually occupying land for many
years, and against the government which seeks to deprive him of it, for failure to comply
with provisions of a subsequently enacted registration act.
Title by prescription against the crown existed under Spanish law in force in the
Philippine Islands prior to their acquisition by the United States, and one occupying land
in the Province of Benguet for more than fifty years before the Treaty of Paris is entitled
to the continued possession thereof.
7 Phil. 132 reversed.
U.S. Supreme Court

Cariño v. Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449 (1909)
Cariño v. Insular Government of the Philippine Islands
No. 72
Argued January 13, 1909
Decided February 23, 1909
212 U.S. 449
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
Syllabus
Writ of error is the general, and appeal the exceptional, method of bringing Cases to this
Court. The latter method is in the main confined to equity cases, and the former is
proper to bring up a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands affirming a
judgment of the Court of Land Registration dismissing an application for registration of
land.
Although a province may be excepted from the operation of Act No. 926 of 1903 of the
Philippine Commission which provides for the registration and perfecting of new titles,
one who actually owns property in such province is entitled to registration under Act No.
496 of 1902, which applies to the whole archipelago.
While, in legal theory and as against foreign nations, sovereignty is absolute, practically
it is a question of strength and of varying degree, and it is for a new sovereign to decide
how far it will insist upon theoretical relations of the subject to the former sovereign and
how far it will recognize actual facts.
Page 212 U. S. 450
The acquisition of the Philippines was not for the purpose of acquiring the lands
occupied by the inhabitants, and under the Organic Act of July 1, 1902, c. 1369, 32 Stat.
691, providing that property rights are to be administered for the benefit of the
inhabitants, one who actually owned land for many years cannot be deprived of it for
failure to comply with certain ceremonies prescribed either by the acts of the Philippine
Commission or by Spanish law.
The Organic Act of the Philippines made a bill of rights embodying safeguards of the
Constitution, and, like the Constitution, extends those safeguards to all.
Every presumption of ownership is in favor of one actually occupying land for many
years, and against the government which seeks to deprive him of it, for failure to comply
with provisions of a subsequently enacted registration act.
Title by prescription against the crown existed under Spanish law in force in the
Philippine Islands prior to their acquisition by the United States, and one occupying land
in the Province of Benguet for more than fifty years before the Treaty of Paris is entitled
to the continued possession thereof.
7 Phil. 132 reversed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Page 212 U. S. 455
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an application to the Philippine Court of Land Registration for the registration
of certain land. The application was granted by the court on March 4, 1904. An appeal
was taken to the Court of First Instance of the Province of Benguet on behalf of the
government of the Philippines, and also on behalf of the United States, those
governments having taken possession of the property for public and military purposes.
The Court of First Instance found the facts and dismissed the application upon grounds
of law. This judgment was affirmed by the supreme court, 7 Phil. 132, and the case then
was brought here by writ of error.
The material facts found are very few. The applicant and plaintiff in error is an Igorot of
the Province of Benguet, where the land lies. For more than fifty years before the Treaty
of
Page 212 U. S. 456
Paris, April 11, 1899, as far back as the findings go, the plaintiff and his ancestors had
held the land as owners. His grandfather had lived upon it, and had maintained fences
sufficient for the holding of cattle, according to the custom of the country, some of the
fences, it seems, having been of much earlier date. His father had cultivated parts and
had used parts for pasturing cattle, and he had used it for pasture in his turn. They all
had been recognized as owners by the Igorots, and he had inherited or received the
land from his father in accordance with Igorot custom. No document of title, however,
had issued from the Spanish Crown, and although, in 1893-1894 and again in 1896-
1897, he made application for one under the royal decrees then in force, nothing seems
to have come of it, unless, perhaps, information that lands in Benguet could not be
conceded until those to be occupied for a sanatorium, etc., had been designated -- a
purpose that has been carried out by the Philippine government and the United States.
In 1901, the plaintiff filed a petition, alleging ownership, under the mortgage law, and the
lands were registered to him, that process, however, establishing only a possessory
title, it is said.
Before we deal with the merits, we must dispose of a technical point. The government
has spent some energy in maintaining that this case should have been brought up by
appeal, and not by writ of error. We are of opinion, however, that the mode adopted was
right. The proceeding for registration is likened to bills in equity to quiet title, but it is
different in principle. It is a proceeding in rem under a statute of the type of the Torrens
Act, such as was discussed in Tyler v. Court of Registration, 175 Mass. 71. It is nearer
to law than to equity, and is an assertion of legal title; but we think it unnecessary to put
it into either pigeon hole. A writ of error is the general method of bringing cases to this
Court, an appeal the exception, confined to equity in the main. There is no reason for
not applying the general rule to this case. Ormsby v. Webb, 134 U. S. 47, 134 U. S.
65; Campbell v. Porter, 162 U. S. 478; Metropolitan R. Co. v. District of Columbia, 195
U. S. 322.
Page 212 U. S. 457

Another preliminary matter may as well be disposed of here. It is suggested that, even if
the applicant have title, he cannot have it registered, because the Philippine
Commission's Act No. 926, of 1903, excepts the Province of Benguet among others
from its operation. But that act deals with the acquisition of new titles by homestead
entries, purchase, etc., and the perfecting of titles begun under the Spanish law. The
applicant's claim is that he now owns the land, and is entitled to registration under the
Philippine Commission's Act No. 496, of 1902, which established a court for that
purpose with jurisdiction "throughout the Philippine Archipelago," § 2, and authorized in
general terms applications to be made by persons claiming to own the legal estate in
fee simple, as the applicant does. He is entitled to registration if his claim of ownership
can be maintained.
We come, then, to the question on which the case was decided below -- namely,
whether the plaintiff owns the land. The position of the government, shortly stated, is
that Spain assumed, asserted, and had title to all the land in the Philippines except so
far as it saw fit to permit private titles to be acquired; that there was no prescription
against the Crown, and that, if there was, a decree of June 25, 1880, required
registration within a limited time to make the title good; that the plaintiff's land was not
registered, and therefore became, if it was not always, public land; that the United
States succeeded to the title of Spain, and so that the plaintiff has no rights that the
Philippine government is bound to respect.
If we suppose for the moment that the government's contention is so far correct that the
Crown of Spain in form asserted a title to this land at the date of the Treaty of Paris, to
which the United States succeeded, it is not to be assumed without argument that the
plaintiff's case is at an end. It is true that Spain, in its earlier decrees, embodied the
universal feudal theory that all lands were held from the Crown, and perhaps the
general attitude of conquering nations toward people not recognized as entitled to the
treatment accorded to those
Page 212 U. S. 458
in the same zone of civilization with themselves. It is true also that, in legal theory,
sovereignty is absolute, and that, as against foreign nations, the United States may
assert, as Spain asserted, absolute power. But it does not follow that, as against the
inhabitants of the Philippines, the United States asserts that Spain had such power.
When theory is left on one side, sovereignty is a question of strength, and may vary in
degree. How far a new sovereign shall insist upon the theoretical relation of the subjects
to the head in the past, and how far it shall recognize actual facts, are matters for it to
decide.
The Province of Benguet was inhabited by a tribe that the Solicitor General, in his
argument, characterized as a savage tribe that never was brought under the civil or
military government of the Spanish Crown. It seems probable, if not certain, that the
Spanish officials would not have granted to anyone in that province the registration to
which formerly the plaintiff was entitled by the Spanish laws, and which would have
made his title beyond question good. Whatever may have been the technical position of
Spain, it does not follow that, in the view of the United States, he had lost all rights and
was a mere trespasser when the present government seized his land. The argument to
that effect seems to amount to a denial of native titles throughout an important part of
the island of Luzon, at least, for the want of ceremonies which the Spaniards would not
have permitted and had not the power to enforce.
The acquisition of the Philippines was not like the settlement of the white race in the
United States. Whatever consideration may have been shown to the North American
Indians, the dominant purpose of the whites in America was to occupy the land. It is
obvious that, however stated, the reason for our taking over the Philippines was
different. No one, we suppose, would deny that, so far as consistent with paramount
necessities, our first object in the internal administration of the islands is to do justice to
the natives, not to exploit their country for private gain. By the Organic Act of July 1,
1902, c. 1369, § 12, 32 Stat. 691, all the property and rights acquired there by the
Page 212 U. S. 459
United States are to be administered "for the benefit of the inhabitants thereof." It is
reasonable to suppose that the attitude thus assumed by the United States with regard
to what was unquestionably its own is also its attitude in deciding what it will claim for its
own. The same statute made a bill of rights, embodying the safeguards of the
Constitution, and, like the Constitution, extends those safeguards to all. It provides that
"no law shall be enacted in said islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, or deny to any person therein the equal protection
of the laws."
§ 5. In the light of the declaration that we have quoted from § 12, it is hard to believe
that the United States was ready to declare in the next breath that "any person" did not
embrace the inhabitants of Benguet, or that it meant by "property" only that which had
become such by ceremonies of which presumably a large part of the inhabitants never
had heard, and that it proposed to treat as public land what they, by native custom and
by long association -- one of the profoundest factors in human thought -- regarded as
their own.
It is true that, by § 14, the government of the Philippines is empowered to enact rules
and prescribe terms for perfecting titles to public lands where some, but not all, Spanish
conditions had been fulfilled, and to issue patents to natives for not more than sixteen
hectares of public lands actually occupied by the native or his ancestors before August
13, 1898. But this section perhaps might be satisfied if confined to cases where the
occupation was of land admitted to be public land, and had not continued for such a
length of time and under such circumstances as to give rise to the understanding that
the occupants were owners at that date. We hesitate to suppose that it was intended to
declare every native who had not a paper title a trespasser, and to set the claims of all
the wilder tribes afloat. It is true again that there is excepted from the provision that we
have quoted as to the administration of the property and rights acquired by the United
States such land and property as shall be designated by the President for military or
other reservations,
Page 212 U. S. 460
as this land since has been. But there still remains the question what property and rights
the United States asserted itself to have acquired.
Whatever the law upon these points may be, and we mean to go no further than the
necessities of decision demand, every presumption is and ought to be against the
government in a case like the present. It might, perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say
that when, as far back as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by
individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in
the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land.
Certainly, in a case like this, if there is doubt or ambiguity in the Spanish law, we ought
to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. Whether justice to the natives and the
import of the organic act ought not to carry us beyond a subtle examination of ancient
texts, or perhaps even beyond the attitude of Spanish law, humane though it was, it is
unnecessary to decide. If, in a tacit way, it was assumed that the wild tribes of the
Philippines were to be dealt with as the power and inclination of the conqueror might
dictate, Congress has not yet sanctioned the same course as the proper one "for the
benefit of the inhabitants thereof."
If the applicant's case is to be tried by the law of Spain, we do not discover such clear
proof that it was bad by that law as to satisfy us that he does not own the land. To begin
with, the older decrees and laws cited by the counsel for the plaintiff in error seem to
indicate pretty clearly that the natives were recognized as owning some lands,
irrespective of any royal grant. In other words, Spain did not assume to convert all the
native inhabitants of the Philippines into trespassers, or even into tenants at will. For
instance, Book 4, Title 12, Law 14 of the Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias, cited for a
contrary conclusion in Valenton v. Murciano, 3 Phil. 537, while it commands viceroys
and others, when it seems proper, to call for the exhibition of grants, directs them to
confirm those who hold by good grants or justa prescripcion. It is true that it
Page 212 U. S. 461
begins by the characteristic assertion of feudal overlordship and the origin of all titles in
the King or his predecessors. That was theory and discourse. The fact was that titles
were admitted to exist that owed nothing to the powers of Spain beyond this recognition
in their books.
Prescription is mentioned again in the royal cedula of October 15, 1754, cited in 3 Phil.
546:
"Where such possessors shall not be able to produce title deeds, it shall be sufficient if
they shall show that ancient possession, as a valid title by prescription."
It may be that this means possession from before 1700; but, at all events, the principle
is admitted. As prescription, even against Crown lands, was recognized by the laws of
Spain, we see no sufficient reason for hesitating to admit that it was recognized in the
Philippines in regard to lands over which Spain had only a paper sovereignty.
The question comes, however, on the decree of June 25, 1880, for the adjustment of
royal lands wrongfully occupied by private individuals in the Philippine Islands. This
begins with the usual theoretic assertion that, for private ownership, there must have
been a grant by competent authority; but instantly descends to fact by providing that, for
all legal effects, those who have been in possession for certain times shall be deemed
owners. For cultivated land, twenty years, uninterrupted, is enough. For uncultivated,
thirty. Art. 5. So that, when this decree went into effect, the applicant's father was owner
of the land by the very terms of the decree. But, it is said, the object of this law was to
require the adjustment or registration proceedings that it described, and in that way to
require everyone to get a document of title or lose his land. That purpose may have
been entertained, but it does not appear clearly to have been applicable to all. The
regulations purport to have been made "for the adjustment of royal lands wrongfully
occupied by private individuals." (We follow the translation in the government's brief.) It
does not appear that this land ever was royal land or wrongfully occupied. In Article 6, it
is provided that
"interested parties not included within the two preceding
Page 212 U. S. 462
articles [the articles recognizing prescription of twenty and thirty years] may legalize
their possession, and thereby acquire the full ownership of the said lands, by means of
adjustment proceedings, to be conducted in the following manner."
This seems, by its very terms, not to apply to those declared already to be owners by
lapse of time. Article 8 provides for the case of parties not asking an adjustment of the
lands of which they are unlawfully enjoying the possession, within one year, and
threatens that the treasury "will reassert the ownership of the state over the lands," and
will sell at auction such part as it does not reserve. The applicant's possession was not
unlawful, and no attempt at any such proceedings against him or his father ever was
made. Finally, it should be noted that the natural construction of the decree is confirmed
by the report of the council of state. That report puts forward as a reason for the
regulations that, in view of the condition of almost all property in the Philippines, it is
important to fix its status by general rules on the principle that the lapse of a fixed period
legalizes completely all possession, recommends in two articles twenty and thirty years,
as adopted in the decree, and then suggests that interested parties not included in
those articles may legalize their possession and acquire ownership by adjustment at a
certain price.
It is true that the language of Articles 4 and 5 attributes title to those "who may prove"
possession for the necessary time, and we do not overlook the argument that this
means may prove in registration proceedings. It may be that an English conveyancer
would have recommended an application under the foregoing decree, but certainly it
was not calculated to convey to the mind of an Igorot chief the notion that ancient family
possessions were in danger, if he had read every word of it. The words "may prove"
(acrediten), as well, or better, in view of the other provisions, might be taken to mean
when called upon to do so in any litigation. There are indications that registration was
expected from all, but none sufficient to show that, for want of it, ownership actually
gained would be lost.
Page 212 U. S. 463
The effect of the proof, wherever made, was not to confer title, but simply to establish it,
as already conferred by the decree, if not by earlier law. The royal decree of February
13, 1894, declaring forfeited titles that were capable of adjustment under the decree of
1880, for which adjustment had not been sought, should not be construed as a
confiscation, but as the withdrawal of a privilege. As a matter of fact, the applicant never
was disturbed. This same decree is quoted by the Court of Land Registration for
another recognition of the common law prescription of thirty years as still running
against alienable Crown land.
It will be perceived that the rights of the applicant under the Spanish law present a
problem not without difficulties for courts of a different legal tradition. We have deemed
it proper on that account to notice the possible effect of the change of sovereignty and
the act of Congress establishing the fundamental principles now to be observed. Upon a
consideration of the whole case, we are of opinion that law and justice require that the
applicant should be granted what he seeks, and should not be deprived of what, by the
practice and belief of those among whom he lived, was his property, through a refined
interpretation of an almost forgotten law of Spain.
Judgment reversed.
G.R. No. 127882 January 27, 2004
LA BUGAL-B'LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION, INC., represented by its Chairman F'LONG

MIGUEL M. LUMAYONG, WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, PONCIANO BENNAGEN, JAIME TADEO,
RENATO R. CONSTANTINO, JR., F'LONG AGUSTIN M. DABIE, ROBERTO P. AMLOY, RAQIM
L. DABIE, SIMEON H. DOLOJO, IMELDA M. GANDON, LENY B. GUSANAN, MARCELO L.
GUSANAN, QUINTOL A. LABUAYAN, LOMINGGES D. LAWAY, BENITA P. TACUAYAN, minors
JOLY L. BUGOY, represented by his father UNDERO D. BUGOY, ROGER M. DADING,
represented by his father ANTONIO L. DADING, ROMY M. LAGARO, represented by his father
TOTING A. LAGARO, MIKENY JONG B. LUMAYONG, represented by his father MIGUEL M.
LUMAYONG, RENE T. MIGUEL, represented by his mother EDITHA T. MIGUEL, ALDEMAR L.
SAL, represented by his father DANNY M. SAL, DAISY RECARSE, represented by her mother
LYDIA S. SANTOS, EDWARD M. EMUY, ALAN P. MAMPARAIR, MARIO L. MANGCAL, ALDEN
S. TUSAN, AMPARO S. YAP, VIRGILIO CULAR, MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN, JULIA REGINA
CULAR, GIAN CARLO CULAR, VIRGILIO CULAR, JR., represented by their father VIRGILIO
CULAR, PAUL ANTONIO P. VILLAMOR, represented by his parents JOSE VILLAMOR and
ELIZABETH PUA-VILLAMOR, ANA GININA R. TALJA, represented by her father MARIO JOSE
B. TALJA, SHARMAINE R. CUNANAN, represented by her father ALFREDO M. CUNANAN,
ANTONIO JOSE A. VITUG III, represented by his mother ANNALIZA A. VITUG, LEAN D.
NARVADEZ, represented by his father MANUEL E. NARVADEZ, JR., ROSERIO MARALAG
LINGATING, represented by her father RIO OLIMPIO A. LINGATING, MARIO JOSE B. TALJA,
DAVID E. DE VERA, MARIA MILAGROS L. SAN JOSE, SR., SUSAN O. BOLANIO, OND, LOLITA
G. DEMONTEVERDE, BENJIE L. NEQUINTO,1 ROSE LILIA S. ROMANO, ROBERTO S.
VERZOLA, EDUARDO AURELIO C. REYES, LEAN LOUEL A. PERIA, represented by his father
ELPIDIO V. PERIA,2 GREEN FORUM PHILIPPINES, GREEN FORUM WESTERN VISAYAS, (GF-
WV), ENVIRONMETAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE CENTER (ELAC), PHILIPPINE KAISAHAN TUNGO
SA KAUNLARAN NG KANAYUNAN AT REPORMANG PANSAKAHAN
(KAISAHAN),3 KAISAHAN TUNGO SA KAUNLARAN NG KANAYUNAN AT REPORMANG
PANSAKAHAN (KAISAHAN), PARTNERSHIP FOR AGRARIAN REFORM and RURAL
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. (PARRDS), PHILIPPINE PART`NERSHIP FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN THE RURAL AREAS, INC. (PHILDHRRA),
WOMEN'S LEGAL BUREAU (WLB), CENTER FOR ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVES, INC. (CADI), UPLAND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE (UDI), KINAIYAHAN
FOUNDATION, INC., SENTRO NG ALTERNATIBONG LINGAP PANLIGAL (SALIGAN), LEGAL
RIGHTS AND NATURAL RESOURCES CENTER, INC. (LRC), petitioners,
vs.
VICTOR O. RAMOS, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES (DENR), HORACIO RAMOS, DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOSCIENCES BUREAU
(MGB-DENR), RUBEN TORRES, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, and WMC (PHILIPPINES),
INC.4 respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
The present petition for mandamus and prohibition assails the constitutionality of Republic Act No.
7942,5 otherwise known as the PHILIPPINE MINING ACT OF 1995, along with the Implementing
Rules and Regulations issued pursuant thereto, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) Administrative Order 96-40, and of the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement
(FTAA) entered into on March 30, 1995 by the Republic of the Philippines and WMC (Philippines),
Inc. (WMCP), a corporation organized under Philippine laws.
On July 25, 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order (E.O.) No.
2796 authorizing the DENR Secretary to accept, consider and evaluate proposals from foreign-
owned corporations or foreign investors for contracts or agreements involving either technical or
financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, which, upon
appropriate recommendation of the Secretary, the President may execute with the foreign
proponent. In entering into such proposals, the President shall consider the real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the country that will be realized, as well as the development
and use of local scientific and technical resources that will be promoted by the proposed contract or
agreement. Until Congress shall determine otherwise, large-scale mining, for purpose of this
Section, shall mean those proposals for contracts or agreements for mineral resources exploration,
development, and utilization involving a committed capital investment in a single mining unit project
of at least Fifty Million Dollars in United States Currency (US $50,000,000.00).7
On March 3, 1995, then President Fidel V. Ramos approved R.A. No. 7942 to "govern the
exploration, development, utilization and processing of all mineral resources."8 R.A. No. 7942
defines the modes of mineral agreements for mining operations,9 outlines the procedure for their
filing and approval,10 assignment/transfer11 and withdrawal,12and fixes their terms.13 Similar
provisions govern financial or technical assistance agreements.14
The law prescribes the qualifications of contractors15 and grants them certain rights, including
timber,16 water17 and easement18 rights, and the right to possess explosives.19 Surface owners,
occupants, or concessionaires are forbidden from preventing holders of mining rights from entering
private lands and concession areas.20 A procedure for the settlement of conflicts is likewise provided
for.21
The Act restricts the conditions for exploration,22 quarry23 and other24 permits. It regulates the
transport, sale and processing of minerals,25 and promotes the development of mining communities,
science and mining technology,26and safety and environmental protection.27
The government's share in the agreements is spelled out and allocated,28 taxes and fees are
imposed,29 incentives granted.30 Aside from penalizing certain acts,31 the law likewise specifies
grounds for the cancellation, revocation and termination of agreements and permits.32
On April 9, 1995, 30 days following its publication on March 10, 1995 in Malaya and Manila Times,
two newspapers of general circulation, R.A. No. 7942 took effect.33 Shortly before the effectivity of
R.A. No. 7942, however, or on March 30, 1995, the President entered into an FTAA with WMCP
covering 99,387 hectares of land in South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Davao del Sur and North
Cotabato.34
On August 15, 1995, then DENR Secretary Victor O. Ramos issued DENR Administrative Order
(DAO) No. 95-23, s. 1995, otherwise known as the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No.
7942. This was later repealed by DAO No. 96-40, s. 1996 which was adopted on December 20,
1996.
On January 10, 1997, counsels for petitioners sent a letter to the DENR Secretary demanding that
the DENR stop the implementation of R.A. No. 7942 and DAO No. 96-40,35 giving the DENR fifteen
days from receipt36 to act thereon. The DENR, however, has yet to respond or act on petitioners'
letter.37
Petitioners thus filed the present petition for prohibition and mandamus, with a prayer for a
temporary restraining order. They allege that at the time of the filing of the petition, 100 FTAA
applications had already been filed, covering an area of 8.4 million hectares,38 64 of which
applications are by fully foreign-owned corporations covering a total of 5.8 million hectares, and at
least one by a fully foreign-owned mining company over offshore areas.39
Petitioners claim that the DENR Secretary acted without or in excess of jurisdiction:
x x x in signing and promulgating DENR Administrative Order No. 96-40 implementing Republic Act
No. 7942, the latter being unconstitutional in that it allows fully foreign owned corporations to
explore, develop, utilize and exploit mineral resources in a manner contrary to Section 2, paragraph
4, Article XII of the Constitution;
II
No. 7942, the latter being unconstitutional in that it allows the taking of private property without the
determination of public use and for just compensation;
III
No. 7942, the latter being unconstitutional in that it violates Sec. 1, Art. III of the Constitution;
IV
No. 7942, the latter being unconstitutional in that it allows enjoyment by foreign citizens as well as
fully foreign owned corporations of the nation's marine wealth contrary to Section 2, paragraph 2 of
Article XII of the Constitution;
No. 7942, the latter being unconstitutional in that it allows priority to foreign and fully foreign owned
corporations in the exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources contrary to Article
XII of the Constitution;
VI
No. 7942, the latter being unconstitutional in that it allows the inequitable sharing of wealth contrary
to Sections [sic] 1, paragraph 1, and Section 2, paragraph 4[,] [Article XII] of the Constitution;
VII
x x x in recommending approval of and implementing the Financial and Technical Assistance

Agreement between the President of the Republic of the Philippines and Western Mining
Corporation Philippines Inc. because the same is illegal and unconstitutional.40
They pray that the Court issue an order:
(a) Permanently enjoining respondents from acting on any application for Financial or
Technical Assistance Agreements;
(b) Declaring the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 or Republic Act No. 7942 as unconstitutional
and null and void;
(c) Declaring the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Mining Act contained
in DENR Administrative Order No. 96-40 and all other similar administrative issuances as
unconstitutional and null and void; and
(d) Cancelling the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement issued to Western Mining
Philippines, Inc. as unconstitutional, illegal and null and void.41
Impleaded as public respondents are Ruben Torres, the then Executive Secretary, Victor O. Ramos,
the then DENR Secretary, and Horacio Ramos, Director of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau of
the DENR. Also impleaded is private respondent WMCP, which entered into the assailed FTAA with
the Philippine Government. WMCP is owned by WMC Resources International Pty., Ltd. (WMC), "a
wholly owned subsidiary of Western Mining Corporation Holdings Limited, a publicly listed major
Australian mining and exploration company."42 By WMCP's information, "it is a 100% owned
subsidiary of WMC LIMITED."43
Respondents, aside from meeting petitioners' contentions, argue that the requisites for judicial
inquiry have not been met and that the petition does not comply with the criteria for prohibition and
mandamus. Additionally, respondent WMCP argues that there has been a violation of the rule on
hierarchy of courts.
After petitioners filed their reply, this Court granted due course to the petition. The parties have since
filed their respective memoranda.
WMCP subsequently filed a Manifestation dated September 25, 2002 alleging that on January 23,
2001, WMC sold all its shares in WMCP to Sagittarius Mines, Inc. (Sagittarius), a corporation
organized under Philippine laws.44WMCP was subsequently renamed "Tampakan Mineral
Resources Corporation."45 WMCP claims that at least 60% of the equity of Sagittarius is owned by
Filipinos and/or Filipino-owned corporations while about 40% is owned by Indophil Resources NL, an
Australian company.46 It further claims that by such sale and transfer of shares, "WMCP has ceased
to be connected in any way with WMC."47
By virtue of such sale and transfer, the DENR Secretary, by Order of December 18,
2001,48 approved the transfer and registration of the subject FTAA from WMCP to Sagittarius. Said
Order, however, was appealed by Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. (Lepanto) to the Office of the
President which upheld it by Decision of July 23, 2002.49 Its motion for reconsideration having been
denied by the Office of the President by Resolution of November 12, 2002,50 Lepanto filed a petition
for review51 before the Court of Appeals. Incidentally, two other petitions for review related to the
approval of the transfer and registration of the FTAA to Sagittarius were recently resolved by this
Court.52
It bears stressing that this case has not been rendered moot either by the transfer and registration of
the FTAA to a Filipino-owned corporation or by the non-issuance of a temporary restraining order or
a preliminary injunction to stay the above-said July 23, 2002 decision of the Office of the
President.53 The validity of the transfer remains in dispute and awaits final judicial determination.
This assumes, of course, that such transfer cures the FTAA's alleged unconstitutionality, on which
question judgment is reserved.
WMCP also points out that the original claimowners of the major mineralized areas included in the
WMCP FTAA, namely, Sagittarius, Tampakan Mining Corporation, and Southcot Mining Corporation,
are all Filipino-owned corporations,54 each of which was a holder of an approved Mineral Production
Sharing Agreement awarded in 1994, albeit their respective mineral claims were subsumed in the
WMCP FTAA;55 and that these three companies are the same companies that consolidated their
interests in Sagittarius to whom WMC sold its 100% equity in WMCP.56 WMCP concludes that in the
event that the FTAA is invalidated, the MPSAs of the three corporations would be revived and the
mineral claims would revert to their original claimants.57
These circumstances, while informative, are hardly significant in the resolution of this case, it
involving the validity of the FTAA, not the possible consequences of its invalidation.
Of the above-enumerated seven grounds cited by petitioners, as will be shown later, only the first
and the last need be delved into; in the latter, the discussion shall dwell only insofar as it questions
the effectivity of E. O. No. 279 by virtue of which order the questioned FTAA was forged.
Before going into the substantive issues, the procedural questions posed by respondents shall first
be tackled.
REQUISITES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
When an issue of constitutionality is raised, this Court can exercise its power of judicial review only if
the following requisites are present:
(1) The existence of an actual and appropriate case;
(2) A personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question;
(3) The exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and
(4) The constitutional question is the lis mota of the case. 58
Respondents claim that the first three requisites are not present.
Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that "(j)udicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable."
The power of judicial review, therefore, is limited to the determination of actual cases and
controversies.59
An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for
determination, not conjectural or anticipatory,60 lest the decision of the court would amount to an
advisory opinion.61 The power does not extend to hypothetical questions62 since any attempt at
abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions
unrelated to actualities.63
"Legal standing" or locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case
such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that
is being challenged,64alleging more than a generalized grievance.65 The gist of the question of
standing is whether a party alleges "such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to
assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court
depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions."66 Unless a person is injuriously affected
in any of his constitutional rights by the operation of statute or ordinance, he has no standing.67
Petitioners traverse a wide range of sectors. Among them are La Bugal B'laan Tribal Association,
Inc., a farmers and indigenous people's cooperative organized under Philippine laws representing a
community actually affected by the mining activities of WMCP, members of said cooperative,68 as
well as other residents of areas also affected by the mining activities of WMCP.69 These petitioners
have standing to raise the constitutionality of the questioned FTAA as they allege a personal and
substantial injury. They claim that they would suffer "irremediable displacement"70 as a result of the
implementation of the FTAA allowing WMCP to conduct mining activities in their area of residence.
They thus meet the appropriate case requirement as they assert an interest adverse to that of
respondents who, on the other hand, insist on the FTAA's validity.
In view of the alleged impending injury, petitioners also have standing to assail the validity of E.O.
No. 279, by authority of which the FTAA was executed.
Public respondents maintain that petitioners, being strangers to the FTAA, cannot sue either or both
contracting parties to annul it.71 In other words, they contend that petitioners are not real parties in
interest in an action for the annulment of contract.
Public respondents' contention fails. The present action is not merely one for annulment of contract
but for prohibition and mandamus. Petitioners allege that public respondents acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction in implementing the FTAA, which they submit is unconstitutional. As the case
involves constitutional questions, this Court is not concerned with whether petitioners are real parties
in interest, but with whether they have legal standing. As held in Kilosbayan v. Morato:72
x x x. "It is important to note . . . that standing because of its constitutional and public policy
underpinnings, is very different from questions relating to whether a particular plaintiff is the real
party in interest or has capacity to sue. Although all three requirements are directed towards
ensuring that only certain parties can maintain an action, standing restrictions require a partial
consideration of the merits, as well as broader policy concerns relating to the proper role of the
judiciary in certain areas.["] (FRIEDENTHAL, KANE AND MILLER, CIVIL PROCEDURE 328 [1985])
Standing is a special concern in constitutional law because in some cases suits are brought not by
parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law or by official action taken, but by
concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest. Hence, the question
in standing is whether such parties have "alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon
which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions." (Baker v.
Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 7 L.Ed.2d 633 [1962].)
As earlier stated, petitioners meet this requirement.
The challenge against the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7942 and DAO No. 96-40 likewise fulfills the
requisites of justiciability. Although these laws were not in force when the subject FTAA was entered
into, the question as to their validity is ripe for adjudication.
The WMCP FTAA provides:
14.3 Future Legislation
Any term and condition more favourable to Financial &Technical Assistance Agreement contractors
resulting from repeal or amendment of any existing law or regulation or from the enactment of a law,
regulation or administrative order shall be considered a part of this Agreement.
It is undisputed that R.A. No. 7942 and DAO No. 96-40 contain provisions that are more favorable to
WMCP, hence, these laws, to the extent that they are favorable to WMCP, govern the FTAA.
In addition, R.A. No. 7942 explicitly makes certain provisions apply to pre-existing agreements.
SEC. 112. Non-impairment of Existing Mining/Quarrying Rights. – x x x That the provisions of
Chapter XIV on government share in mineral production-sharing agreement and of Chapter XVI on
incentives of this Act shall immediately govern and apply to a mining lessee or contractor unless the
mining lessee or contractor indicates his intention to the secretary, in writing, not to avail of said
provisions x x x Provided, finally, That such leases, production-sharing agreements, financial or
technical assistance agreements shall comply with the applicable provisions of this Act and its
implementing rules and regulations.
As there is no suggestion that WMCP has indicated its intention not to avail of the provisions of
Chapter XVI of R.A. No. 7942, it can safely be presumed that they apply to the WMCP FTAA.
Misconstruing the application of the third requisite for judicial review – that the exercise of the review
is pleaded at the earliest opportunity – WMCP points out that the petition was filed only almost two
years after the execution of the FTAA, hence, not raised at the earliest opportunity.
The third requisite should not be taken to mean that the question of constitutionality must be raised
immediately after the execution of the state action complained of. That the question of
constitutionality has not been raised before is not a valid reason for refusing to allow it to be raised
later.73 A contrary rule would mean that a law, otherwise unconstitutional, would lapse into
constitutionality by the mere failure of the proper party to promptly file a case to challenge the same.
PROPRIETY OF PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
Before the effectivity in July 1997 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 2 of Rule 65 read:
SEC. 2. Petition for prohibition. – When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, or
person, whether exercising functions judicial or ministerial, are without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
commanding the defendant to desist from further proceeding in the action or matter specified
therein.
Prohibition is a preventive remedy.74 It seeks a judgment ordering the defendant to desist from
continuing with the commission of an act perceived to be illegal.75
The petition for prohibition at bar is thus an appropriate remedy. While the execution of the contract
itself may be fait accompli, its implementation is not. Public respondents, in behalf of the
Government, have obligations to fulfill under said contract. Petitioners seek to prevent them from
fulfilling such obligations on the theory that the contract is unconstitutional and, therefore, void.
The propriety of a petition for prohibition being upheld, discussion of the propriety of the mandamus
aspect of the petition is rendered unnecessary.
HIERARCHY OF COURTS
The contention that the filing of this petition violated the rule on hierarchy of courts does not likewise
lie. The rule has been explained thus:
Between two courts of concurrent original jurisdiction, it is the lower court that should initially pass
upon the issues of a case. That way, as a particular case goes through the hierarchy of courts, it is
shorn of all but the important legal issues or those of first impression, which are the proper subject of
attention of the appellate court. This is a procedural rule borne of experience and adopted to
improve the administration of justice.
This Court has consistently enjoined litigants to respect the hierarchy of courts. Although this Court
has concurrent jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals to issue writs of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence
does not give a party unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. The resort to this Court's primary
jurisdiction to issue said writs shall be allowed only where the redress desired cannot be obtained in
the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify such invocation.
We held in People v. Cuaresma that:
A becoming regard for 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 where 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 x x x.76 [Emphasis supplied.]
The repercussions of the issues in this case on the Philippine mining industry, if not the national
economy, as well as the novelty thereof, constitute exceptional and compelling circumstances to
justify resort to this Court in the first instance.
In all events, this Court has the discretion to take cognizance of a suit which does not satisfy the
requirements of an actual case or legal standing when paramount public interest is involved.77 When
the issues raised are of paramount importance to the public, this Court may brush aside
technicalities of procedure.78
II
Petitioners contend that E.O. No. 279 did not take effect because its supposed date of effectivity
came after President Aquino had already lost her legislative powers under the Provisional
Constitution.
And they likewise claim that the WMC FTAA, which was entered into pursuant to E.O. No. 279,
violates Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution because, among other reasons:
(1) It allows foreign-owned companies to extend more than mere financial or technical
assistance to the State in the exploitation, development, and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, and even permits foreign owned companies to "operate
and manage mining activities."
(2) It allows foreign-owned companies to extend both technical and financial assistance,
instead of "either technical or financial assistance."
To appreciate the import of these issues, a visit to the history of the pertinent constitutional provision,
the concepts contained therein, and the laws enacted pursuant thereto, is in order.
Section 2, Article XII reads in full:

Sec. 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. The State may directly undertake such
activities or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with
Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned
by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable
for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by
law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
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.
resources.
provision, within thirty days from its execution.
THE SPANISH REGIME AND THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE
The first sentence of Section 2 embodies the Regalian doctrine or jura regalia. Introduced by Spain
into these Islands, this feudal concept is based on the State's power of dominium, which is the
capacity of the State to own or acquire property.79
In its broad sense, the term "jura regalia" refers to royal rights, or those rights which the King has by
virtue of his prerogatives. In Spanish law, it refers to a right which the sovereign has over anything in
which a subject has a right of property or propriedad. These were rights enjoyed during feudal times
by the king as the sovereign.
The theory of the feudal system was that title to all lands was originally held by the King, and while
the use of lands was granted out to others who were permitted to hold them under certain
conditions, the King theoretically retained the title. By fiction of law, the King was regarded as the
original proprietor of all lands, and the true and only source of title, and from him all lands were held.
The theory of jura regalia was therefore nothing more than a natural fruit of conquest.80
The Philippines having passed to Spain by virtue of discovery and conquest,81 earlier Spanish
decrees declared that "all lands were held from the Crown."82
The Regalian doctrine extends not only to land but also to "all natural wealth that may be found in
the bowels of the earth."83 Spain, in particular, recognized the unique value of natural resources,
viewing them, especially minerals, as an abundant source of revenue to finance its wars against
other nations.84 Mining laws during the Spanish regime reflected this perspective.85
THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION AND THE CONCESSION REGIME
By the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, Spain ceded "the archipelago known as the Philippine
Islands" to the United States. The Philippines was hence governed by means of organic acts that
were in the nature of charters serving as a Constitution of the occupied territory from 1900 to
1935.86 Among the principal organic acts of the Philippines was the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902,
more commonly known as the Philippine Bill of 1902, through which the United States Congress
assumed the administration of the Philippine Islands.87 Section 20 of said Bill reserved the
disposition of mineral lands of the public domain from sale. Section 21 thereof allowed the free and
open exploration, occupation and purchase of mineral deposits not only to citizens of the Philippine
Islands but to those of the United States as well:
Sec. 21. That all valuable mineral deposits in public lands in the Philippine Islands, both surveyed
and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration, occupation and purchase,
and the land in which they are found, to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States or
of said Islands: Provided, That when on any lands in said Islands entered and occupied as
agricultural lands under the provisions of this Act, but not patented, mineral deposits have been
found, the working of such mineral deposits is forbidden until the person, association, or corporation
who or which has entered and is occupying such lands shall have paid to the Government of said
Islands such additional sum or sums as will make the total amount paid for the mineral claim or
claims in which said deposits are located equal to the amount charged by the Government for the
same as mineral claims.
Unlike Spain, the United States considered natural resources as a source of wealth for its nationals
and saw fit to allow both Filipino and American citizens to explore and exploit minerals in public
lands, and to grant patents to private mineral lands.88 A person who acquired ownership over a
parcel of private mineral land pursuant to the laws then prevailing could exclude other persons, even
the State, from exploiting minerals within his property.89 Thus, earlier jurisprudence90 held that:
A valid and subsisting location of mineral land, made and kept up in accordance with the provisions
of the statutes of the United States, has the effect of a grant by the United States of the present and
exclusive possession of the lands located, and this exclusive right of possession and enjoyment
continues during the entire life of the location. x x x.
x x x.
The discovery of minerals in the ground by one who has a valid mineral location perfects his claim
and his location not only against third persons, but also against the Government. x x x. [Italics in the
original.]
The Regalian doctrine and the American system, therefore, differ in one essential respect. Under the
Regalian theory, mineral rights are not included in a grant of land by the state; under the American
doctrine, mineral rights are included in a grant of land by the government.91
Section 21 also made possible the concession (frequently styled "permit", license" or
"lease")92 system.93 This was the traditional regime imposed by the colonial administrators for the
exploitation of natural resources in the extractive sector (petroleum, hard minerals, timber, etc.).94
Under the concession system, the concessionaire makes a direct equity investment for the purpose
of exploiting a particular natural resource within a given area.95 Thus, the concession amounts to
complete control by the concessionaire over the country's natural resource, for it is given exclusive
and plenary rights to exploit a particular resource at the point of extraction.96 In consideration for the
right to exploit a natural resource, the concessionaire either pays rent or royalty, which is a fixed
percentage of the gross proceeds.97
Later statutory enactments by the legislative bodies set up in the Philippines adopted the contractual
framework of the concession.98 For instance, Act No. 2932,99 approved on August 31, 1920, which
provided for the exploration, location, and lease of lands containing petroleum and other mineral oils
and gas in the Philippines, and Act No. 2719,100 approved on May 14, 1917, which provided for the
leasing and development of coal lands in the Philippines, both utilized the concession system.101
THE 1935 CONSTITUTION AND THE NATIONALIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
By the Act of United States Congress of March 24, 1934, popularly known as the Tydings-McDuffie
Law, the People of the Philippine Islands were authorized to adopt a constitution.102 On July 30,
1934, the Constitutional Convention met for the purpose of drafting a constitution, and the
Constitution subsequently drafted was approved by the Convention on February 8, 1935.103 The
Constitution was submitted to the President of the United States on March 18, 1935.104 On March 23,
1935, the President of the United States certified that the Constitution conformed substantially with
the provisions of the Act of Congress approved on March 24, 1934.105 On May 14, 1935, the
Constitution was ratified by the Filipino people.106
The 1935 Constitution adopted the Regalian doctrine, declaring all natural resources of the
Philippines, including mineral lands and minerals, to be property belonging to the State.107 As
adopted in a republican system, the medieval concept of jura regalia is stripped of royal overtones
and ownership of the land is vested in the State.108
Section 1, Article XIII, on Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources, of the 1935 Constitution
provided:
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, 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.
The nationalization and conservation of the natural resources of the country was one of the fixed and
dominating objectives of the 1935 Constitutional Convention.109 One delegate relates:
There was an overwhelming sentiment in the Convention in favor of the principle of state ownership
of natural resources and the adoption of the Regalian doctrine. State ownership of natural resources
was seen as a necessary starting point to secure recognition of the state's power to control their
disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization. The delegates of the Constitutional Convention
very well knew that the concept of State ownership of land and natural resources was introduced by
the Spaniards, however, they were not certain whether it was continued and applied by the
Americans. To remove all doubts, the Convention approved the provision in the Constitution
affirming the Regalian doctrine.
The adoption of the principle of state ownership of the natural resources and of the Regalian
doctrine was considered to be a necessary starting point for the plan of nationalizing and conserving
the natural resources of the country. For with the establishment of the principle of state ownership of
the natural resources, it would not be hard to secure the recognition of the power of the State to
control their disposition, exploitation, development or utilization.110
The nationalization of the natural resources was intended (1) to insure their conservation for Filipino
posterity; (2) to serve as an instrument of national defense, helping prevent the extension to the
country of foreign control through peaceful economic penetration; and (3) to avoid making the
Philippines a source of international conflicts with the consequent danger to its internal security and
independence.111
The same Section 1, Article XIII also adopted the concession system, expressly permitting the State
to grant licenses, concessions, or leases for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the
natural resources. Grants, however, were limited to Filipinos or entities at least 60% of the capital of
which is owned by Filipinos. lawph!l.ne+
The swell of nationalism that suffused the 1935 Constitution was radically diluted when on
November 1946, the Parity Amendment, which came in the form of an "Ordinance Appended to the
Constitution," was ratified in a plebiscite.112 The Amendment extended, from July 4, 1946 to July 3,
1974, the right to utilize and exploit our natural resources to citizens of the United States and
business enterprises owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by citizens of the United States:113
Notwithstanding the provision of section one, Article Thirteen, and section eight, Article Fourteen, of
the foregoing Constitution, during the effectivity of the Executive Agreement entered into by the
President of the Philippines with the President of the United States on the fourth of July, nineteen
hundred and forty-six, pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act Numbered Seven hundred
and thirty-three, but in no case to extend beyond the third of July, nineteen hundred and seventy-
four, the disposition, exploitation, development, and utilization of all agricultural, timber, and mineral
lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coals, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces and
sources of potential energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines, and the operation of
public utilities, shall, if open to any person, be open to citizens of the United States and to all forms
of business enterprise owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by citizens of the United States in
the same manner as to, and under the same conditions imposed upon, citizens of the Philippines or
corporations or associations owned or controlled by citizens of the Philippines.
The Parity Amendment was subsequently modified by the 1954 Revised Trade Agreement, also
known as the Laurel-Langley Agreement, embodied in Republic Act No. 1355.114
THE PETROLEUM ACT OF 1949 AND THE CONCESSION SYSTEM
In the meantime, Republic Act No. 387,115 also known as the Petroleum Act of 1949, was approved
on June 18, 1949.
The Petroleum Act of 1949 employed the concession system for the exploitation of the nation's
petroleum resources. Among the kinds of concessions it sanctioned were exploration and
exploitation concessions, which respectively granted to the concessionaire the exclusive right to
explore for116 or develop117 petroleum within specified areas.
Concessions may be granted only to duly qualified persons118 who have sufficient finances,
organization, resources, technical competence, and skills necessary to conduct the operations to be
undertaken.119
Nevertheless, the Government reserved the right to undertake such work itself.120 This proceeded
from the theory that all natural deposits or occurrences of petroleum or natural gas in public and/or
private lands in the Philippines belong to the State.121 Exploration and exploitation concessions did
not confer upon the concessionaire ownership over the petroleum lands and petroleum
deposits.122 However, they did grant concessionaires the right to explore, develop, exploit, and utilize
them for the period and under the conditions determined by the law.123
Concessions were granted at the complete risk of the concessionaire; the Government did not
guarantee the existence of petroleum or undertake, in any case, title warranty.124
Concessionaires were required to submit information as maybe required by the Secretary of

Agriculture and Natural Resources, including reports of geological and geophysical examinations, as
well as production reports.125Exploration126 and exploitation127 concessionaires were also required to
submit work programs. lavvphi 1.net
Exploitation concessionaires, in particular, were obliged to pay an annual exploitation tax,128 the
object of which is to induce the concessionaire to actually produce petroleum, and not simply to sit
on the concession without developing or exploiting it.129 These concessionaires were also bound to
pay the Government royalty, which was not less than 12½% of the petroleum produced and saved,
less that consumed in the operations of the concessionaire.130 Under Article 66, R.A. No. 387, the
exploitation tax may be credited against the royalties so that if the concessionaire shall be actually
producing enough oil, it would not actually be paying the exploitation tax.131
Failure to pay the annual exploitation tax for two consecutive years,132 or the royalty due to the
Government within one year from the date it becomes due,133 constituted grounds for the
cancellation of the concession. In case of delay in the payment of the taxes or royalty imposed by
the law or by the concession, a surcharge of 1% per month is exacted until the same are paid.134
As a rule, title rights to all equipment and structures that the concessionaire placed on the land
belong to the exploration or exploitation concessionaire.135 Upon termination of such concession, the
concessionaire had a right to remove the same.136
The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources was tasked with carrying out the provisions of
the law, through the Director of Mines, who acted under the Secretary's immediate supervision and
control.137 The Act granted the Secretary the authority to inspect any operation of the concessionaire
and to examine all the books and accounts pertaining to operations or conditions related to payment
of taxes and royalties.138
The same law authorized the Secretary to create an Administration Unit and a Technical
Board.139 The Administration Unit was charged, inter alia, with the enforcement of the provisions of
the law.140 The Technical Board had, among other functions, the duty to check on the performance of
concessionaires and to determine whether the obligations imposed by the Act and its implementing
regulations were being complied with.141
Victorio Mario A. Dimagiba, Chief Legal Officer of the Bureau of Energy Development, analyzed the
benefits and drawbacks of the concession system insofar as it applied to the petroleum industry:
Advantages of Concession. Whether it emphasizes income tax or royalty, the most positive aspect of
the concession system is that the State's financial involvement is virtually risk free and administration
is simple and comparatively low in cost. Furthermore, if there is a competitive allocation of the
resource leading to substantial bonuses and/or greater royalty coupled with a relatively high level of
taxation, revenue accruing to the State under the concession system may compare favorably with
other financial arrangements.
Disadvantages of Concession. There are, however, major negative aspects to this system. Because
the Government's role in the traditional concession is passive, it is at a distinct disadvantage in
managing and developing policy for the nation's petroleum resource. This is true for several reasons.
First, even though most concession agreements contain covenants requiring diligence in operations
and production, this establishes only an indirect and passive control of the host country in resource
development. Second, and more importantly, the fact that the host country does not directly
participate in resource management decisions inhibits its ability to train and employ its nationals in
petroleum development. This factor could delay or prevent the country from effectively engaging in
the development of its resources. Lastly, a direct role in management is usually necessary in order
to obtain a knowledge of the international petroleum industry which is important to an appreciation of
the host country's resources in relation to those of other countries.142
Other liabilities of the system have also been noted:
x x x there are functional implications which give the concessionaire great economic power arising
from its exclusive equity holding. This includes, first, appropriation of the returns of the undertaking,
subject to a modest royalty; second, exclusive management of the project; third, control of
production of the natural resource, such as volume of production, expansion, research and
development; and fourth, exclusive responsibility for downstream operations, like processing,
marketing, and distribution. In short, even if nominally, the state is the sovereign and owner of the
natural resource being exploited, it has been shorn of all elements of control over such natural
resource because of the exclusive nature of the contractual regime of the concession. The
concession system, investing as it does ownership of natural resources, constitutes a consistent
inconsistency with the principle embodied in our Constitution that natural resources belong to the
state and shall not be alienated, not to mention the fact that the concession was the bedrock of the
colonial system in the exploitation of natural resources.143
Eventually, the concession system failed for reasons explained by Dimagiba:
Notwithstanding the good intentions of the Petroleum Act of 1949, the concession system could not
have properly spurred sustained oil exploration activities in the country, since it assumed that such a
capital-intensive, high risk venture could be successfully undertaken by a single individual or a small
company. In effect, concessionaires' funds were easily exhausted. Moreover, since the concession
system practically closed its doors to interested foreign investors, local capital was stretched to the
limits. The old system also failed to consider the highly sophisticated technology and expertise
required, which would be available only to multinational companies.144
A shift to a new regime for the development of natural resources thus seemed imminent.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 87, THE 1973 CONSTITUTION AND THE SERVICE CONTRACT
SYSTEM
The promulgation on December 31, 1972 of Presidential Decree No. 87,145 otherwise known as The
Oil Exploration and Development Act of 1972 signaled such a transformation. P.D. No. 87 permitted
the government to explore for and produce indigenous petroleum through "service contracts."146
"Service contracts" is a term that assumes varying meanings to different people, and it has carried
many names in different countries, like "work contracts" in Indonesia, "concession agreements" in
Africa, "production-sharing agreements" in the Middle East, and "participation agreements" in Latin
America.147 A functional definition of "service contracts" in the Philippines is provided as follows:
A service contract is a contractual arrangement for engaging in the exploitation and development of
petroleum, mineral, energy, land and other natural resources by which a government or its agency,
or a private person granted a right or privilege by the government authorizes the other party (service
contractor) to engage or participate in the exercise of such right or the enjoyment of the privilege, in
that the latter provides financial or technical resources, undertakes the exploitation or production of a
given resource, or directly manages the productive enterprise, operations of the exploration and
exploitation of the resources or the disposition of marketing or resources.148
In a service contract under P.D. No. 87, service and technology are furnished by the service
contractor for which it shall be entitled to the stipulated service fee.149 The contractor must be
technically competent and financially capable to undertake the operations required in the contract.150
Financing is supposed to be provided by the Government to which all petroleum produced

belongs.151 In case the Government is unable to finance petroleum exploration operations, the
contractor may furnish services, technology and financing, and the proceeds of sale of the petroleum
produced under the contract shall be the source of funds for payment of the service fee and the
operating expenses due the contractor.152 The contractor shall undertake, manage and execute
petroleum operations, subject to the government overseeing the management of the
operations.153 The contractor provides all necessary services and technology and the requisite
financing, performs the exploration work obligations, and assumes all exploration risks such that if
no petroleum is produced, it will not be entitled to reimbursement.154 Once petroleum in commercial
quantity is discovered, the contractor shall operate the field on behalf of the government.155
P.D. No. 87 prescribed minimum terms and conditions for every service contract.156 It also granted
the contractor certain privileges, including exemption from taxes and payment of tariff duties,157 and
permitted the repatriation of capital and retention of profits abroad.158
Ostensibly, the service contract system had certain advantages over the concession regime.159 It has
been opined, though, that, in the Philippines, our concept of a service contract, at least in the
petroleum industry, was basically a concession regime with a production-sharing element.160
On January 17, 1973, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos proclaimed the ratification of a new
Constitution.161Article XIV on the National Economy and Patrimony contained provisions similar to
the 1935 Constitution with regard to Filipino participation in the nation's natural resources. Section 8,
Article XIV thereof provides:
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.
While Section 9 of the same Article maintained the Filipino-only policy in the enjoyment of natural
resources, it also allowed Filipinos, upon authority of the Batasang Pambansa, to enter into service
contracts with any person or entity for the exploration or utilization of natural resources.
Sec. 9. The disposition, exploration, development, exploitation, or utilization of any of the natural
resources of the Philippines shall be limited to citizens, or to corporations or associations at least
sixty per centum of which is owned by such citizens. The Batasang Pambansa, in the national
interest, may allow such citizens, corporations or associations to enter into service contracts for
financial, technical, management, or other forms of assistance with any person or entity for the
exploration, or utilization of any of the natural resources. Existing valid and binding service contracts
for financial, technical, management, or other forms of assistance are hereby recognized as such.
[Emphasis supplied.]
The concept of service contracts, according to one delegate, was borrowed from the methods
followed by India, Pakistan and especially Indonesia in the exploration of petroleum and mineral
oils.162 The provision allowing such contracts, according to another, was intended to "enhance the
proper development of our natural resources since Filipino citizens lack the needed capital and
technical know-how which are essential in the proper exploration, development and exploitation of
the natural resources of the country."163
The original idea was to authorize the government, not private entities, to enter into service contracts
with foreign entities.164 As finally approved, however, a citizen or private entity could be allowed by
the National Assembly to enter into such service contract.165 The prior approval of the National
Assembly was deemed sufficient to protect the national interest.166 Notably, none of the laws
allowing service contracts were passed by the Batasang Pambansa. Indeed, all of them were
enacted by presidential decree.
On March 13, 1973, shortly after the ratification of the new Constitution, the President promulgated
Presidential Decree No. 151.167 The law allowed Filipino citizens or entities which have acquired
lands of the public domain or which own, hold or control such lands to enter into service contracts for
financial, technical, management or other forms of assistance with any foreign persons or entity for
the exploration, development, exploitation or utilization of said lands.168
Presidential Decree No. 463,169 also known as The Mineral Resources Development Decree of 1974,
was enacted on May 17, 1974. Section 44 of the decree, as amended, provided that a lessee of a
mining claim may enter into a service contract with a qualified domestic or foreign contractor for the
exploration, development and exploitation of his claims and the processing and marketing of the
product thereof.
Presidential Decree No. 704170 (The Fisheries Decree of 1975), approved on May 16, 1975, allowed
Filipinos engaged in commercial fishing to enter into contracts for financial, technical or other forms
of assistance with any foreign person, corporation or entity for the production, storage, marketing
and processing of fish and fishery/aquatic products.171
Presidential Decree No. 705172 (The Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines), approved on May 19,
1975, allowed "forest products licensees, lessees, or permitees to enter into service contracts for
financial, technical, management, or other forms of assistance . . . with any foreign person or entity
for the exploration, development, exploitation or utilization of the forest resources."173
Yet another law allowing service contracts, this time for geothermal resources, was Presidential
Decree No. 1442,174 which was signed into law on June 11, 1978. Section 1 thereof authorized the
Government to enter into service contracts for the exploration, exploitation and development of
geothermal resources with a foreign contractor who must be technically and financially capable of
undertaking the operations required in the service contract.
Thus, virtually the entire range of the country's natural resources –from petroleum and minerals to
geothermal energy, from public lands and forest resources to fishery products – was well covered by
apparent legal authority to engage in the direct participation or involvement of foreign persons or
corporations (otherwise disqualified) in the exploration and utilization of natural resources through
service contracts.175
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION AND TECHNICAL OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS
After the February 1986 Edsa Revolution, Corazon C. Aquino took the reins of power under a
revolutionary government. On March 25, 1986, President Aquino issued Proclamation No.
3,176 promulgating the Provisional Constitution, more popularly referred to as the Freedom
Constitution. By authority of the same Proclamation, the President created a Constitutional
Commission (CONCOM) to draft a new constitution, which took effect on the date of its ratification
on February 2, 1987.177
The 1987 Constitution retained the Regalian doctrine. The first sentence of Section 2, Article XII
states: "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."
Like the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions before it, the 1987 Constitution, in the second sentence of the
same provision, prohibits the alienation of natural resources, except agricultural lands.
The third sentence of the same paragraph is new: "The exploration, development and utilization of
natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State." The constitutional
policy of the State's "full control and supervision" over natural resources proceeds from the concept
of jura regalia, as well as the recognition of the importance of the country's natural resources, not
only for national economic development, but also for its security and national defense.178 Under this
provision, the State assumes "a more dynamic role" in the exploration, development and utilization of
natural resources.179
Conspicuously absent in Section 2 is the provision in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions authorizing
the State to grant licenses, concessions, or leases for the exploration, exploitation, development, or
utilization of natural resources. By such omission, the utilization of inalienable lands of public domain
through "license, concession or lease" is no longer allowed under the 1987 Constitution.180
Having omitted the provision on the concession system, Section 2 proceeded to introduce
"unfamiliar language":181
The State may directly undertake such activities or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or
production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty
per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens.
Consonant with the State's "full supervision and control" over natural resources, Section 2 offers the
State two "options."182 One, the State may directly undertake these activities itself; or two, it may
enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or
entities at least 60% of whose capital is owned by such citizens.
A third option is found in the third paragraph of the same section:
While the second and third options are limited only to Filipino citizens or, in the case of the former, to
corporations or associations at least 60% of the capital of which is owned by Filipinos, a fourth
allows the participation of foreign-owned corporations. The fourth and fifth paragraphs of Section 2
provide:
resources.
provision, within thirty days from its execution.
Although Section 2 sanctions the participation of foreign-owned corporations in the exploration,

development, and utilization of natural resources, it imposes certain limitations or conditions to
agreements with such corporations.
First, the parties to FTAAs. Only the President, in behalf of the State, may enter into these
agreements, and only with corporations. By contrast, under the 1973 Constitution, a Filipino
citizen, corporation or association may enter into a service contract with a "foreign person or
entity."
Second, the size of the activities: only large-scale exploration, development, and utilization is
allowed. The term "large-scale usually refers to very capital-intensive activities."183
Third, the natural resources subject of the activities is restricted to minerals, petroleum and
other mineral oils, the intent being to limit service contracts to those areas where Filipino
capital may not be sufficient.184
Fourth, consistency with the provisions of statute. The agreements must be in accordance
with the terms and conditions provided by law.
Fifth, Section 2 prescribes certain standards for entering into such agreements. The
agreements must be based on real contributions to economic growth and general welfare of
the country.
Sixth, the agreements must contain rudimentary stipulations for the promotion of the
development and use of local scientific and technical resources.
Seventh, the notification requirement. The President shall notify Congress of every financial
or technical assistance agreement entered into within thirty days from its execution.
Finally, the scope of the agreements. While the 1973 Constitution referred to "service
contracts for financial, technical, management, or other forms of assistance" the 1987
Constitution provides for "agreements. . . involving either financial or technical assistance." It
bears noting that the phrases "service contracts" and "management or other forms of
assistance" in the earlier constitution have been omitted.
By virtue of her legislative powers under the Provisional Constitution,185 President Aquino, on July
10, 1987, signed into law E.O. No. 211 prescribing the interim procedures in the processing and
approval of applications for the exploration, development and utilization of minerals. The omission in
the 1987 Constitution of the term "service contracts" notwithstanding, the said E.O. still referred to
them in Section 2 thereof:
Sec. 2. Applications for the exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources, including
renewal applications and applications for approval of operating agreements and mining service
contracts, shall be accepted and processed and may be approved x x x. [Emphasis supplied.]
The same law provided in its Section 3 that the "processing, evaluation and approval of all mining
applications . . . operating agreements and service contracts . . . shall be governed by Presidential
Decree No. 463, as amended, other existing mining laws, and their implementing rules and
regulations. . . ."
As earlier stated, on the 25th also of July 1987, the President issued E.O. No. 279 by authority of
which the subject WMCP FTAA was executed on March 30, 1995.
On March 3, 1995, President Ramos signed into law R.A. No. 7942. Section 15 thereof declares that
the Act "shall govern the exploration, development, utilization, and processing of all mineral
resources." Such declaration notwithstanding, R.A. No. 7942 does not actually cover all the modes
through which the State may undertake the exploration, development, and utilization of natural
resources.
The State, being the owner of the natural resources, is accorded the primary power and
responsibility in the exploration, development and utilization thereof. As such, it may undertake these
activities through four modes:
The State may directly undertake such activities.
(2) The State may enter into co-production, joint venture or production-sharing agreements
with Filipino citizens or qualified corporations.
(3) Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino
citizens.
(4) For the large-scale exploration, development and utilization of minerals, petroleum and
other mineral oils, the President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations
involving technical or financial assistance.186
Except to charge the Mines and Geosciences Bureau of the DENR with performing researches and
surveys,187 and a passing mention of government-owned or controlled corporations,188 R.A. No. 7942
does not specify how the State should go about the first mode. The third mode, on the other hand, is
governed by Republic Act No. 7076189(the People's Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991) and other
pertinent laws.190 R.A. No. 7942 primarily concerns itself with the second and fourth modes.
Mineral production sharing, co-production and joint venture agreements are collectively classified by
R.A. No. 7942 as "mineral agreements."191 The Government participates the least in a mineral
production sharing agreement (MPSA). In an MPSA, the Government grants the contractor192 the
exclusive right to conduct mining operations within a contract area193 and shares in the gross
output.194 The MPSA contractor provides the financing, technology, management and personnel
necessary for the agreement's implementation.195 The total government share in an MPSA is the
excise tax on mineral products under Republic Act No. 7729,196 amending Section 151(a) of the
National Internal Revenue Code, as amended.197
In a co-production agreement (CA),198 the Government provides inputs to the mining operations
other than the mineral resource,199 while in a joint venture agreement (JVA), where the Government
enjoys the greatest participation, the Government and the JVA contractor organize a company with
both parties having equity shares.200 Aside from earnings in equity, the Government in a JVA is also
entitled to a share in the gross output.201The Government may enter into a CA202 or JVA203 with one
or more contractors. The Government's share in a CA or JVA is set out in Section 81 of the law:
The share of the Government in co-production and joint venture agreements shall be negotiated by
the Government and the contractor taking into consideration the: (a) capital investment of the
project, (b) the risks involved, (c) contribution of the project to the economy, and (d) other factors
that will provide for a fair and equitable sharing between the Government and the contractor. The
Government shall also be entitled to compensations for its other contributions which shall be agreed
upon by the parties, and shall consist, among other things, the contractor's income tax, excise tax,
special allowance, withholding tax due from the contractor's foreign stockholders arising from
dividend or interest payments to the said foreign stockholders, in case of a foreign national and all
such other taxes, duties and fees as provided for under existing laws.
All mineral agreements grant the respective contractors the exclusive right to conduct mining
operations and to extract all mineral resources found in the contract area.204 A "qualified person" may
enter into any of the mineral agreements with the Government.205 A "qualified person" is
any citizen of the Philippines with capacity to contract, or a corporation, partnership, association, or
cooperative organized or authorized for the purpose of engaging in mining, with technical and
financial capability to undertake mineral resources development and duly registered in accordance
with law at least sixty per centum (60%) of the capital of which is owned by citizens of the Philippines
x x x.206
The fourth mode involves "financial or technical assistance agreements." An FTAA is defined as "a
contract involving financial or technical assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and
utilization of natural resources."207 Any qualified person with technical and financial capability to
undertake large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources in the
Philippines may enter into such agreement directly with the Government through the DENR.208 For
the purpose of granting an FTAA, a legally organized foreign-owned corporation (any corporation,
partnership, association, or cooperative duly registered in accordance with law in which less than
50% of the capital is owned by Filipino citizens)209 is deemed a "qualified person."210
Other than the difference in contractors' qualifications, the principal distinction between mineral
agreements and FTAAs is the maximum contract area to which a qualified person may hold or be
granted.211 "Large-scale" under R.A. No. 7942 is determined by the size of the contract area, as
opposed to the amount invested (US $50,000,000.00), which was the standard under E.O. 279.
Like a CA or a JVA, an FTAA is subject to negotiation.212 The Government's contributions, in the

form of taxes, in an FTAA is identical to its contributions in the two mineral agreements, save that in
an FTAA:
The collection of Government share in financial or technical assistance agreement shall commence
after the financial or technical assistance agreement contractor has fully recovered its pre-operating
expenses, exploration, and development expenditures, inclusive.213
III
Having examined the history of the constitutional provision and statutes enacted pursuant thereto, a
consideration of the substantive issues presented by the petition is now in order.
THE EFFECTIVITY OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 279
Petitioners argue that E.O. No. 279, the law in force when the WMC FTAA was executed, did not
come into effect.
E.O. No. 279 was signed into law by then President Aquino on July 25, 1987, two days before the
opening of Congress on July 27, 1987.214 Section 8 of the E.O. states that the same "shall take effect
immediately." This provision, according to petitioners, runs counter to Section 1 of E.O. No.
200,215 which provides:
SECTION 1. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication
either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is
otherwise provided.216 [Emphasis supplied.]
On that premise, petitioners contend that E.O. No. 279 could have only taken effect fifteen days after
its publication at which time Congress had already convened and the President's power to legislate
had ceased.
Respondents, on the other hand, counter that the validity of E.O. No. 279 was settled in Miners
Association of the Philippines v. Factoran, supra. This is of course incorrect for the issue in Miners
Association was not the validity of E.O. No. 279 but that of DAO Nos. 57 and 82 which were issued
pursuant thereto.
Nevertheless, petitioners' contentions have no merit.
It bears noting that there is nothing in E.O. No. 200 that prevents a law from taking effect on a date
other than – even before – the 15-day period after its publication. Where a law provides for its own
date of effectivity, such date prevails over that prescribed by E.O. No. 200. Indeed, this is the very
essence of the phrase "unless it is otherwise provided" in Section 1 thereof. Section 1, E.O. No. 200,
therefore, applies only when a statute does not provide for its own date of effectivity.
What is mandatory under E.O. No. 200, and what due process requires, as this Court held in Tañada
v. Tuvera,217is the publication of the law for without such notice and publication, there would be no
basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis n[eminem] excusat." It would be the height of
injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had no
notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.
While the effectivity clause of E.O. No. 279 does not require its publication, it is not a ground for its
invalidation since the Constitution, being "the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the
nation," is deemed written in the law.218 Hence, the due process clause,219 which, so Tañada held,
mandates the publication of statutes, is read into Section 8 of E.O. No. 279. Additionally, Section 1
of E.O. No. 200 which provides for publication "either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines," finds suppletory application. It is significant to note that E.O.
No. 279 was actually published in the Official Gazette220 on August 3, 1987.
From a reading then of Section 8 of E.O. No. 279, Section 1 of E.O. No. 200, and Tañada v. Tuvera,
this Court holds that E.O. No. 279 became effective immediately upon its publication in the Official
Gazette on August 3, 1987.
That such effectivity took place after the convening of the first Congress is irrelevant. At the time
President Aquino issued E.O. No. 279 on July 25, 1987, she was still validly exercising legislative
powers under the Provisional Constitution.221 Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of the 1987
Constitution explicitly states:
Sec. 6. The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the first Congress
is convened.
The convening of the first Congress merely precluded the exercise of legislative powers by President
Aquino; it did not prevent the effectivity of laws she had previously enacted.
There can be no question, therefore, that E.O. No. 279 is an effective, and a validly enacted, statute.
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE WMCP FTAA
Petitioners submit that, in accordance with the text of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution,
FTAAs should be limited to "technical or financial assistance" only. They observe, however, that,
contrary to the language of the Constitution, the WMCP FTAA allows WMCP, a fully foreign-owned
mining corporation, to extend more than mere financial or technical assistance to the State, for it
permits WMCP to manage and operate every aspect of the mining activity. 222
Petitioners' submission is well-taken. It is a cardinal rule in the interpretation of constitutions that the
instrument must be so construed as to give effect to the intention of the people who adopted
it.223 This intention is to be sought in the constitution itself, and the apparent meaning of the words is
to be taken as expressing it, except in cases where that assumption would lead to absurdity,
ambiguity, or contradiction.224 What the Constitution says according to the text of the provision,
therefore, compels acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter it, based on the
postulate that the framers and the people mean what they say.225 Accordingly, following the literal
text of the Constitution, assistance accorded by foreign-owned corporations in the large-scale
exploration, development, and utilization of petroleum, minerals and mineral oils should be limited to
"technical" or "financial" assistance only.
WMCP nevertheless submits that the word "technical" in the fourth paragraph of Section 2 of E.O.
No. 279 encompasses a "broad number of possible services," perhaps, "scientific and/or
technological in basis."226 It thus posits that it may also well include "the area of management or
operations . . . so long as such assistance requires specialized knowledge or skills, and are related
to the exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources."227
This Court is not persuaded. As priorly pointed out, the phrase "management or other forms of
assistance" in the 1973 Constitution was deleted in the 1987 Constitution, which allows only
"technical or financial assistance." Casus omisus pro omisso habendus est. A person, object or thing
omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally.228 As will be shown
later, the management or operation of mining activities by foreign contractors, which is the primary
feature of service contracts, was precisely the evil that the drafters of the 1987 Constitution sought to
eradicate.
Respondents insist that "agreements involving technical or financial assistance" is just another term
for service contracts. They contend that the proceedings of the CONCOM indicate "that although the
terminology 'service contract' was avoided [by the Constitution], the concept it represented was not."
They add that "[t]he concept is embodied in the phrase 'agreements involving financial or technical
assistance.'"229 And point out how members of the CONCOM referred to these agreements as
"service contracts." For instance:
SR. TAN. Am I correct in thinking that the only difference between these future service
contracts and the past service contracts under Mr. Marcos is the general law to be enacted
by the legislature and the notification of Congress by the President? That is the only
difference, is it not?
MR. VILLEGAS. That is right.
SR. TAN. So those are the safeguards[?]
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes. There was no law at all governing service contracts before.
SR. TAN. Thank you, Madam President.230 [Emphasis supplied.]
WMCP also cites the following statements of Commissioners Gascon, Garcia, Nolledo and
Tadeo who alluded to service contracts as they explained their respective votes in the
approval of the draft Article:
MR. GASCON. Mr. Presiding Officer, I vote no primarily because of two reasons: One, the
provision on service contracts. I felt that if we would constitutionalize any provision on
service contracts, this should always be with the concurrence of Congress and not guided
only by a general law to be promulgated by Congress. x x x.231 [Emphasis supplied.]
x x x.
MR. GARCIA. Thank you.
I vote no. x x x.
Service contracts are given constitutional legitimization in Section 3, even when they have
been proven to be inimical to the interests of the nation, providing as they do the legal
loophole for the exploitation of our natural resources for the benefit of foreign interests. They
constitute a serious negation of Filipino control on the use and disposition of the nation's
natural resources, especially with regard to those which are nonrenewable.232[Emphasis
supplied.]
xxx
MR. NOLLEDO. While there are objectionable provisions in the Article on National Economy
and Patrimony, going over said provisions meticulously, setting aside prejudice and
personalities will reveal that the article contains a balanced set of provisions. I hope the
forthcoming Congress will implement such provisions taking into account that Filipinos
should have real control over our economy and patrimony, and if foreign equity is permitted,
the same must be subordinated to the imperative demands of the national interest.
x x x.
It is also my understanding that service contracts involving foreign corporations or entities

are resorted to only when no Filipino enterprise or Filipino-controlled enterprise could
possibly undertake the exploration or exploitation of our natural resources and that
compensation under such contracts cannot and should not equal what should pertain to
ownership of capital. In other words, the service contract should not be an instrument to
circumvent the basic provision, that the exploration and exploitation of natural resources
should be truly for the benefit of Filipinos.
Thank you, and I vote yes.233 [Emphasis supplied.]
x x x.
MR. TADEO. Nais ko lamang ipaliwanag ang aking boto.
Matapos suriin ang kalagayan ng Pilipinas, ang saligang suliranin, pangunahin ang salitang
"imperyalismo." Ang ibig sabihin nito ay ang sistema ng lipunang pinaghaharian ng iilang
monopolyong kapitalista at ang salitang "imperyalismo" ay buhay na buhay sa National
Economy and Patrimony na nating ginawa. Sa pamamagitan ng salitang "based on,"
naroroon na ang free trade sapagkat tayo ay mananatiling tagapagluwas ng hilaw na
sangkap at tagaangkat ng yaring produkto. Pangalawa, naroroon pa rin ang parity rights, ang
service contract, ang 60-40 equity sa natural resources. Habang naghihirap ang
sambayanang Pilipino, ginagalugad naman ng mga dayuhan ang ating likas na yaman.
Kailan man ang Article on National Economy and Patrimony ay hindi nagpaalis sa
pagkaalipin ng ating ekonomiya sa kamay ng mga dayuhan. Ang solusyon sa suliranin ng
bansa ay dalawa lamang: ang pagpapatupad ng tunay na reporma sa lupa at ang national
industrialization. Ito ang tinatawag naming pagsikat ng araw sa Silangan. Ngunit ang mga
landlords and big businessmen at ang mga komprador ay nagsasabi na ang free trade na
ito, ang kahulugan para sa amin, ay ipinipilit sa ating sambayanan na ang araw ay sisikat sa
Kanluran. Kailan man hindi puwedeng sumikat ang araw sa Kanluran. I vote
no.234 [Emphasis supplied.]
This Court is likewise not persuaded.
As earlier noted, the phrase "service contracts" has been deleted in the 1987 Constitution's Article
on National Economy and Patrimony. If the CONCOM intended to retain the concept of service
contracts under the 1973 Constitution, it could have simply adopted the old terminology ("service
contracts") instead of employing new and unfamiliar terms ("agreements . . . involving either
technical or financial assistance"). Such a difference between the language of a provision in a
revised constitution and that of a similar provision in the preceding constitution is viewed as
indicative of a difference in purpose.235 If, as respondents suggest, the concept of "technical or
financial assistance" agreements is identical to that of "service contracts," the CONCOM would not
have bothered to fit the same dog with a new collar. To uphold respondents' theory would reduce the
first to a mere euphemism for the second and render the change in phraseology meaningless.
An examination of the reason behind the change confirms that technical or financial assistance
agreements are not synonymous to service contracts.
[T]he Court in construing a Constitution should bear in mind the object sought to be accomplished by
its adoption, and the evils, if any, sought to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision will be
examined in light of the history of the times, and the condition and circumstances under which the
Constitution was framed. The object is to ascertain the reason which induced the framers of the
Constitution to enact the particular provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished thereby, in
order to construe the whole as to make the words consonant to that reason and calculated to effect
that purpose.236
As the following question of Commissioner Quesada and Commissioner Villegas' answer shows the
drafters intended to do away with service contracts which were used to circumvent the capitalization
(60%-40%) requirement:
MS. QUESADA. The 1973 Constitution used the words "service contracts." In this particular
Section 3, is there a safeguard against the possible control of foreign interests if the Filipinos
go into coproduction with them?
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes. In fact, the deletion of the phrase "service contracts" was our first
attempt to avoid some of the abuses in the past regime in the use of service contracts to go
around the 60-40 arrangement. The safeguard that has been introduced – and this, of course
can be refined – is found in Section 3, lines 25 to 30, where Congress will have to concur
with the President on any agreement entered into between a foreign-owned corporation and
the government involving technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration,
development and utilization of natural resources.237 [Emphasis supplied.]
In a subsequent discussion, Commissioner Villegas allayed the fears of Commissioner

Quesada regarding the participation of foreign interests in Philippine natural resources,
which was supposed to be restricted to Filipinos.
MS. QUESADA. Another point of clarification is the phrase "and utilization of natural
resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State." In the 1973
Constitution, this was limited to citizens of the Philippines; but it was removed and
substituted by "shall be under the full control and supervision of the State." Was the concept
changed so that these particular resources would be limited to citizens of the Philippines? Or
would these resources only be under the full control and supervision of the State; meaning,
noncitizens would have access to these natural resources? Is that the understanding?
MR. VILLEGAS. No, Mr. Vice-President, if the Commissioner reads the next sentence, it
states:
Such activities may be directly undertaken by the State, or it may enter into co-production, joint
venture, production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens.
So we are still limiting it only to Filipino citizens.
x x x.
MS. QUESADA. Going back to Section 3, the section suggests that:

The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources… may be directly undertaken by
the State, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture or production-sharing agreement with . . .
corporations or associations at least sixty per cent of whose voting stock or controlling interest is
owned by such citizens.
Lines 25 to 30, on the other hand, suggest that in the large-scale exploration, development and
utilization of natural resources, the President with the concurrence of Congress may enter into
agreements with foreign-owned corporations even for technical or financial assistance.
I wonder if this part of Section 3 contradicts the second part. I am raising this point for fear that
foreign investors will use their enormous capital resources to facilitate the actual exploitation or
exploration, development and effective disposition of our natural resources to the detriment of
Filipino investors. I am not saying that we should not consider borrowing money from foreign
sources. What I refer to is that foreign interest should be allowed to participate only to the extent that
they lend us money and give us technical assistance with the appropriate government permit. In this
way, we can insure the enjoyment of our natural resources by our own people.
MR. VILLEGAS. Actually, the second provision about the President does not permit foreign investors
to participate. It is only technical or financial assistance – they do not own anything – but on
conditions that have to be determined by law with the concurrence of Congress. So, it is very
restrictive.
If the Commissioner will remember, this removes the possibility for service contracts which we said
yesterday were avenues used in the previous regime to go around the 60-40
requirement.238 [Emphasis supplied.]
The present Chief Justice, then a member of the CONCOM, also referred to this limitation in scope
in proposing an amendment to the 60-40 requirement:
MR. DAVIDE. May I be allowed to explain the proposal?
MR. MAAMBONG. Subject to the three-minute rule, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE. It will not take three minutes.
The Commission had just approved the Preamble. In the Preamble we clearly stated that the Filipino
people are sovereign and that one of the objectives for the creation or establishment of a
government is to conserve and develop the national patrimony. The implication is that the national
patrimony or our natural resources are exclusively reserved for the Filipino people. No alien must be
allowed to enjoy, exploit and develop our natural resources. As a matter of fact, that principle
proceeds from the fact that our natural resources are gifts from God to the Filipino people and it
would be a breach of that special blessing from God if we will allow aliens to exploit our natural
resources.
I voted in favor of the Jamir proposal because it is not really exploitation that we granted to the alien
corporations but only for them to render financial or technical assistance. It is not for them to enjoy
our natural resources. Madam President, our natural resources are depleting; our population is
increasing by leaps and bounds. Fifty years from now, if we will allow these aliens to exploit our
natural resources, there will be no more natural resources for the next generations of Filipinos. It
may last long if we will begin now. Since 1935 the aliens have been allowed to enjoy to a certain
extent the exploitation of our natural resources, and we became victims of foreign dominance and
control. The aliens are interested in coming to the Philippines because they would like to enjoy the
bounty of nature exclusively intended for Filipinos by God.
And so I appeal to all, for the sake of the future generations, that if we have to pray in the Preamble
"to preserve and develop the national patrimony for the sovereign Filipino people and for the
generations to come," we must at this time decide once and for all that our natural resources must
be reserved only to Filipino citizens.
Thank you.239 [Emphasis supplied.]
The opinion of another member of the CONCOM is persuasive240 and leaves no doubt as to the
intention of the framers to eliminate service contracts altogether. He writes:
Paragraph 4 of Section 2 specifies large-scale, capital-intensive, highly technological undertakings

for which the President may enter into contracts with foreign-owned corporations, and enunciates
strict conditions that should govern such contracts. x x x.
This provision balances the need for foreign capital and technology with the need to maintain the
national sovereignty. It recognizes the fact that as long as Filipinos can formulate their own terms in
their own territory, there is no danger of relinquishing sovereignty to foreign interests.
Are service contracts allowed under the new Constitution? No. Under the new Constitution, foreign
investors (fully alien-owned) can NOT participate in Filipino enterprises except to provide: (1)
Technical Assistance for highly technical enterprises; and (2) Financial Assistance for large-scale
enterprises.
The intent of this provision, as well as other provisions on foreign investments, is to prevent the
practice (prevalent in the Marcos government) of skirting the 60/40 equation using the cover of
service contracts.241 [Emphasis supplied.]
Furthermore, it appears that Proposed Resolution No. 496,242 which was the draft Article on National
Economy and Patrimony, adopted the concept of "agreements . . . involving either technical or
financial assistance" contained in the "Draft of the 1986 U.P. Law Constitution Project" (U.P. Law
draft) which was taken into consideration during the deliberation of the CONCOM.243 The former, as
well as Article XII, as adopted, employed the same terminology, as the comparative table below
shows:
DRAFT OF THE UP PROPOSED ARTICLE XII OF THE

LAW CONSTITUTION RESOLUTION NO. 496 1987 CONSTITUTION
PROJECT OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSION
Sec. 1. All lands of the Sec. 3. All lands of the Sec. 2. All lands of the
public domain, waters, public domain, waters, public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, minerals, coal, minerals, coal,
petroleum and other petroleum and other petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of mineral oils, all forces of mineral oils, all forces of
potential energy, potential energy, potential energy,
fisheries, flora and fauna fisheries, forests, flora fisheries, forests or
and other natural and fauna, and other timber, wildlife, flora and
resources of the natural resources are fauna, and other natural
Philippines are owned owned by the State. resources are owned by
by the State. With the With the exception of the State. With the
exception of agricultural agricultural lands, all exception of agricultural
lands, all other natural other natural resources lands, all other natural
resources shall not be shall not be alienated. resources shall not be
alienated. The The exploration, alienated. The
exploration, development, and exploration,
development and utilization of natural development, and
utilization of natural resources shall be under utilization of natural
resources shall be under the full control and resources shall be under
the full control and supervision of the State. the full control and
supervision of the State. Such activities may be supervision of the State.
Such activities may be directly undertaken by The State may directly
directly undertaken by the State, or it may enter undertake such activities
the state, or it may enter into co-production, joint or it may enter into co-
into co-production, joint venture, production- production, joint venture,
venture, production sharing agreements with or production-sharing
sharing agreements with Filipino citizens or agreements with Filipino
Filipino citizens or corporations or citizens, or corporations
corporations or associations at least or associations at least
associations sixty per sixty per cent of whose sixty per centum of
cent of whose voting voting stock or whose capital is owned
stock or controlling controlling interest is by such citizens. Such
interest is owned by owned by such citizens. agreements may be for
such citizens for a Such agreements shall a period not exceeding
period of not more than be for a period of twenty-five years,
twenty-five years, twenty-five years, renewable for not more
renewable for not more renewable for not more than twenty-five years,
than twenty-five years than twenty-five years, and under such terms
and under such terms and under such term and conditions as may
and conditions as may and conditions as may be provided by law. In
be provided by law. In be provided by law. In case of water rights for
case as to water rights cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply,
for irrigation, water irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial
supply, fisheries, or fisheries or industrial uses other than the
industrial uses other uses other than the development of water
than the development of development for water power, beneficial use
water power, beneficial power, beneficial use may be the measure
use may be the measure may be the measure and limit of the grant.
and limit of the grant. and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect
The National Assembly The Congress may by the nation's marine
may by law allow small law allow small-scale wealth in its archipelagic
scale utilization of utilization of natural waters, territorial sea,
natural resources by resources by Filipino and exclusive economic
Filipino citizens. citizens, as well as zone, and reserve its
cooperative fish farming use and enjoyment
The National Assembly, in rivers, lakes, bays, exclusively to Filipino
may, by two-thirds vote and lagoons. citizens.
of all its members by
special law provide the The President with the The Congress may, by
terms and conditions concurrence of law, allow small-scale
under which a foreign- Congress, by special utilization of natural
owned corporation may law, shall provide the resources by Filipino
enter into agreements terms and conditions citizens, as well as
with the government under which a foreign- cooperative fish farming,
involving either owned corporation may with priority to
technical or financial enter into agreements subsistence fishermen
assistance for large- with the government and fish-workers in
scale exploration, involving either rivers, lakes, bays, and
development, or technical or financial lagoons.
utilization of natural assistance for large-
resources. [Emphasis scale exploration, The President may enter
supplied.] development, and into agreements with
utilization of natural foreign-owned
resources. [Emphasis corporations
supplied.] involving either
technical or financial
assistance for large-
scale exploration,
development, and
utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other
mineral oils according to
the general terms and
conditions provided by
law, based on real
contributions to the
economic growth and
general welfare of the
country. In such
agreements, the State
shall promote the
development and use of
local scientific and
technical resources.
The President shall

notify the Congress of
every contract entered
into in accordance with
this provision, within
thirty days from its
execution.
The insights of the proponents of the U.P. Law draft are, therefore, instructive in interpreting the
phrase "technical or financial assistance."
In his position paper entitled Service Contracts: Old Wine in New Bottles?, Professor Pacifico A.
Agabin, who was a member of the working group that prepared the U.P. Law draft, criticized service
contracts for they "lodge exclusive management and control of the enterprise to the service
contractor, which is reminiscent of the old concession regime. Thus, notwithstanding the provision of
the Constitution that natural resources belong to the State, and that these shall not be alienated, the
service contract system renders nugatory the constitutional provisions cited."244 He elaborates:
Looking at the Philippine model, we can discern the following vestiges of the concession regime,
thus:
1. Bidding of a selected area, or leasing the choice of the area to the interested party and
then negotiating the terms and conditions of the contract; (Sec. 5, P.D. 87)
2. Management of the enterprise vested on the contractor, including operation of the field if
petroleum is discovered; (Sec. 8, P.D. 87)
3. Control of production and other matters such as expansion and development; (Sec. 8)
4. Responsibility for downstream operations – marketing, distribution, and processing may

be with the contractor (Sec. 8);
5. Ownership of equipment, machinery, fixed assets, and other properties remain with
contractor (Sec. 12, P.D. 87);
6. Repatriation of capital and retention of profits abroad guaranteed to the contractor (Sec.
13, P.D. 87); and
7. While title to the petroleum discovered may nominally be in the name of the government,
the contractor has almost unfettered control over its disposition and sale, and even the
domestic requirements of the country is relegated to a pro rata basis (Sec. 8).
In short, our version of the service contract is just a rehash of the old concession regime x x x. Some
people have pulled an old rabbit out of a magician's hat, and foisted it upon us as a new and
different animal.
The service contract as we know it here is antithetical to the principle of sovereignty over our natural
resources restated in the same article of the [1973] Constitution containing the provision for service
contracts. If the service contractor happens to be a foreign corporation, the contract would also run
counter to the constitutional provision on nationalization or Filipinization, of the exploitation of our
natural resources.245 [Emphasis supplied. Underscoring in the original.]
Professor Merlin M. Magallona, also a member of the working group, was harsher in his reproach of
the system:
x x x the nationalistic phraseology of the 1935 [Constitution] was retained by the [1973] Charter, but
the essence of nationalism was reduced to hollow rhetoric. The 1973 Charter still provided that the
exploitation or development of the country's natural resources be limited to Filipino citizens or
corporations owned or controlled by them. However, the martial-law Constitution allowed them, once
these resources are in their name, to enter into service contracts with foreign investors for financial,
technical, management, or other forms of assistance. Since foreign investors have the capital
resources, the actual exploitation and development, as well as the effective disposition, of the
country's natural resources, would be under their direction, and control, relegating the Filipino
investors to the role of second-rate partners in joint ventures.
Through the instrumentality of the service contract, the 1973 Constitution had legitimized at the
highest level of state policy that which was prohibited under the 1973 Constitution, namely: the
exploitation of the country's natural resources by foreign nationals. The drastic impact of [this]
constitutional change becomes more pronounced when it is considered that the active party to any
service contract may be a corporation wholly owned by foreign interests. In such a case, the
citizenship requirement is completely set aside, permitting foreign corporations to obtain actual
possession, control, and [enjoyment] of the country's natural resources.246 [Emphasis supplied.]
Accordingly, Professor Agabin recommends that:
Recognizing the service contract for what it is, we have to expunge it from the Constitution and
reaffirm ownership over our natural resources. That is the only way we can exercise effective control
over our natural resources.
This should not mean complete isolation of the country's natural resources from foreign investment.
Other contract forms which are less derogatory to our sovereignty and control over natural resources
– like technical assistance agreements, financial assistance [agreements], co-production
agreements, joint ventures, production-sharing – could still be utilized and adopted without violating
constitutional provisions. In other words, we can adopt contract forms which recognize and assert
our sovereignty and ownership over natural resources, and where the foreign entity is just a pure
contractor instead of the beneficial owner of our economic resources.247 [Emphasis supplied.]
Still another member of the working group, Professor Eduardo Labitag, proposed that:
2. Service contracts as practiced under the 1973 Constitution should be discouraged, instead the
government may be allowed, subject to authorization by special law passed by an extraordinary
majority to enter into either technical or financial assistance. This is justified by the fact that as
presently worded in the 1973 Constitution, a service contract gives full control over the contract area
to the service contractor, for him to work, manage and dispose of the proceeds or production. It was
a subterfuge to get around the nationality requirement of the constitution.248[Emphasis supplied.]
In the annotations on the proposed Article on National Economy and Patrimony, the U.P. Law draft
summarized the rationale therefor, thus:
5. The last paragraph is a modification of the service contract provision found in Section 9, Article
XIV of the 1973 Constitution as amended. This 1973 provision shattered the framework of
nationalism in our fundamental law (see Magallona, "Nationalism and its Subversion in the
Constitution"). Through the service contract, the 1973 Constitution had legitimized that which was
prohibited under the 1935 constitution—the exploitation of the country's natural resources by foreign
nationals. Through the service contract, acts prohibited by the Anti-Dummy Law were recognized as
legitimate arrangements. Service contracts lodge exclusive management and control of the
enterprise to the service contractor, not unlike the old concession regime where the concessionaire
had complete control over the country's natural resources, having been given exclusive and plenary
rights to exploit a particular resource and, in effect, having been assured of ownership of that
resource at the point of extraction (see Agabin, "Service Contracts: Old Wine in New Bottles").
Service contracts, hence, are antithetical to the principle of sovereignty over our natural resources,
as well as the constitutional provision on nationalization or Filipinization of the exploitation of our
natural resources.
Under the proposed provision, only technical assistance or financial assistance agreements may be
entered into, and only for large-scale activities. These are contract forms which recognize and assert
our sovereignty and ownership over natural resources since the foreign entity is just a pure
contractor and not a beneficial owner of our economic resources. The proposal recognizes the need
for capital and technology to develop our natural resources without sacrificing our sovereignty and
control over such resources by the safeguard of a special law which requires two-thirds vote of all
the members of the Legislature. This will ensure that such agreements will be debated upon
exhaustively and thoroughly in the National Assembly to avert prejudice to the nation.249 [Emphasis
supplied.]
The U.P. Law draft proponents viewed service contracts under the 1973 Constitution as grants of
beneficial ownership of the country's natural resources to foreign owned corporations. While, in
theory, the State owns these natural resources – and Filipino citizens, their beneficiaries – service
contracts actually vested foreigners with the right to dispose, explore for, develop, exploit, and utilize
the same. Foreigners, not Filipinos, became the beneficiaries of Philippine natural resources. This
arrangement is clearly incompatible with the constitutional ideal of nationalization of natural
resources, with the Regalian doctrine, and on a broader perspective, with Philippine sovereignty.
The proponents nevertheless acknowledged the need for capital and technical know-how in the
large-scale exploitation, development and utilization of natural resources – the second paragraph of
the proposed draft itself being an admission of such scarcity. Hence, they recommended a
compromise to reconcile the nationalistic provisions dating back to the 1935 Constitution, which
reserved all natural resources exclusively to Filipinos, and the more liberal 1973 Constitution, which
allowed foreigners to participate in these resources through service contracts. Such a compromise
called for the adoption of a new system in the exploration, development, and utilization of natural
resources in the form of technical agreements or financial agreements which, necessarily, are
distinct concepts from service contracts.
The replacement of "service contracts" with "agreements… involving either technical or financial
assistance," as well as the deletion of the phrase "management or other forms of assistance,"
assumes greater significance when note is taken that the U.P. Law draft proposed other equally
crucial changes that were obviously heeded by the CONCOM. These include the abrogation of the
concession system and the adoption of new "options" for the State in the exploration, development,
and utilization of natural resources. The proponents deemed these changes to be more consistent
with the State's ownership of, and its "full control and supervision" (a phrase also employed by the
framers) over, such resources. The Project explained:
3. In line with the State ownership of natural resources, the State should take a more active role in
the exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources, than the present practice of
granting licenses, concessions, or leases – hence the provision that said activities shall be under the
full control and supervision of the State. There are three major schemes by which the State could
undertake these activities: first, directly by itself; second, by virtue of co-production, joint venture,
production sharing agreements with Filipino citizens or corporations or associations sixty per cent
(60%) of the voting stock or controlling interests of which are owned by such citizens; or third, with a
foreign-owned corporation, in cases of large-scale exploration, development, or utilization of natural
resources through agreements involving either technical or financial assistance only. x x x.
At present, under the licensing concession or lease schemes, the government benefits from such
benefits only through fees, charges, ad valorem taxes and income taxes of the exploiters of our
natural resources. Such benefits are very minimal compared with the enormous profits reaped by
theses licensees, grantees, concessionaires. Moreover, some of them disregard the conservation of
natural resources and do not protect the environment from degradation. The proposed role of the
State will enable it to a greater share in the profits – it can also actively husband its natural
resources and engage in developmental programs that will be beneficial to them.
4. Aside from the three major schemes for the exploration, development, and utilization of our
natural resources, the State may, by law, allow Filipino citizens to explore, develop, utilize natural
resources in small-scale. This is in recognition of the plight of marginal fishermen, forest dwellers,
gold panners, and others similarly situated who exploit our natural resources for their daily
sustenance and survival.250
Professor Agabin, in particular, after taking pains to illustrate the similarities between the two
systems, concluded that the service contract regime was but a "rehash" of the concession system.
"Old wine in new bottles," as he put it. The rejection of the service contract regime, therefore, is in
consonance with the abolition of the concession system.
In light of the deliberations of the CONCOM, the text of the Constitution, and the adoption of other
proposed changes, there is no doubt that the framers considered and shared the intent of the U.P.
Law proponents in employing the phrase "agreements . . . involving either technical or financial
assistance."
While certain commissioners may have mentioned the term "service contracts" during the CONCOM
deliberations, they may not have been necessarily referring to the concept of service contracts under
the 1973 Constitution. As noted earlier, "service contracts" is a term that assumes different
meanings to different people.251 The commissioners may have been using the term loosely, and not
in its technical and legal sense, to refer, in general, to agreements concerning natural resources
entered into by the Government with foreign corporations. These loose statements do not
necessarily translate to the adoption of the 1973 Constitution provision allowing service contracts.
It is true that, as shown in the earlier quoted portions of the proceedings in CONCOM, in response to
Sr. Tan's question, Commissioner Villegas commented that, other than congressional notification,
the only difference between "future" and "past" "service contracts" is the requirement of a general
law as there were no laws previously authorizing the same.252 However, such remark is far
outweighed by his more categorical statement in his exchange with Commissioner Quesada that the
draft article "does not permit foreign investors to participate" in the nation's natural resources – which
was exactly what service contracts did – except to provide "technical or financial assistance."253
In the case of the other commissioners, Commissioner Nolledo himself clarified in his work that the
present charter prohibits service contracts.254 Commissioner Gascon was not totally averse to foreign
participation, but favored stricter restrictions in the form of majority congressional concurrence.255 On
the other hand, Commissioners Garcia and Tadeo may have veered to the extreme side of the
spectrum and their objections may be interpreted as votes against any foreign participation in our
natural resources whatsoever.
WMCP cites Opinion No. 75, s. 1987,256 and Opinion No. 175, s. 1990257 of the Secretary of Justice,
expressing the view that a financial or technical assistance agreement "is no different in concept"
from the service contract allowed under the 1973 Constitution. This Court is not, however, bound by
this interpretation. When an administrative or executive agency renders an opinion or issues a
statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law; and the administrative interpretation of the
law is at best advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means.258
In any case, the constitutional provision allowing the President to enter into FTAAs with foreign-
owned corporations is an exception to the rule that participation in the nation's natural resources is
reserved exclusively to Filipinos. Accordingly, such provision must be construed strictly against their
enjoyment by non-Filipinos. As Commissioner Villegas emphasized, the provision is "very
restrictive."259 Commissioner Nolledo also remarked that "entering into service contracts is an
exception to the rule on protection of natural resources for the interest of the nation and, therefore,
being an exception, it should be subject, whenever possible, to stringent rules."260 Indeed, exceptions
should be strictly but reasonably construed; they extend only so far as their language fairly warrants
and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than the exception.261
With the foregoing discussion in mind, this Court finds that R.A. No. 7942 is invalid insofar as said
Act authorizes service contracts. Although the statute employs the phrase "financial and technical
agreements" in accordance with the 1987 Constitution, it actually treats these agreements as service
contracts that grant beneficial ownership to foreign contractors contrary to the fundamental law.
Section 33, which is found under Chapter VI (Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement) of R.A.
No. 7942 states:
SEC. 33. Eligibility.—Any qualified person with technical and financial capability to undertake large-
scale exploration, development, and utilization of mineral resources in the Philippines may enter into
a financial or technical assistance agreement directly with the Government through the Department.
"Exploration," as defined by R.A. No. 7942,
means the searching or prospecting for mineral resources by geological, geochemical or

geophysical surveys, remote sensing, test pitting, trending, drilling, shaft sinking, tunneling or any
other means for the purpose of determining the existence, extent, quantity and quality thereof and
the feasibility of mining them for profit.262
A legally organized foreign-owned corporation may be granted an exploration permit,263 which vests
it with the right to conduct exploration for all minerals in specified areas,264 i.e., to enter, occupy and
explore the same.265Eventually, the foreign-owned corporation, as such permittee, may apply for a
financial and technical assistance agreement.266
"Development" is the work undertaken to explore and prepare an ore body or a mineral deposit for
mining, including the construction of necessary infrastructure and related facilities.267
"Utilization" "means the extraction or disposition of minerals."268 A stipulation that the proponent shall
dispose of the minerals and byproducts produced at the highest price and more advantageous terms
and conditions as provided for under the implementing rules and regulations is required to be
incorporated in every FTAA.269
A foreign-owned/-controlled corporation may likewise be granted a mineral processing
permit.270 "Mineral processing" is the milling, beneficiation or upgrading of ores or minerals and rocks
or by similar means to convert the same into marketable products.271
An FTAA contractor makes a warranty that the mining operations shall be conducted in accordance
with the provisions of R.A. No. 7942 and its implementing rules272 and for work programs and
minimum expenditures and commitments.273 And it obliges itself to furnish the Government records
of geologic, accounting, and other relevant data for its mining operation.274
"Mining operation," as the law defines it, means mining activities involving exploration, feasibility,
development, utilization, and processing.275
The underlying assumption in all these provisions is that the foreign contractor manages the mineral
resources, just like the foreign contractor in a service contract.
Furthermore, Chapter XII of the Act grants foreign contractors in FTAAs the same auxiliary mining
rights that it grants contractors in mineral agreements (MPSA, CA and JV).276 Parenthetically,
Sections 72 to 75 use the term "contractor," without distinguishing between FTAA and mineral
agreement contractors. And so does "holders of mining rights" in Section 76. A foreign contractor
may even convert its FTAA into a mineral agreement if the economic viability of the contract area is
found to be inadequate to justify large-scale mining operations,277 provided that it reduces its equity
in the corporation, partnership, association or cooperative to forty percent (40%).278
Finally, under the Act, an FTAA contractor warrants that it "has or has access to all the financing,
managerial, and technical expertise. . . ."279 This suggests that an FTAA contractor is bound to
provide some management assistance – a form of assistance that has been eliminated and,
therefore, proscribed by the present Charter.
By allowing foreign contractors to manage or operate all the aspects of the mining operation, the
above-cited provisions of R.A. No. 7942 have in effect conveyed beneficial ownership over the
nation's mineral resources to these contractors, leaving the State with nothing but bare title thereto.
Moreover, the same provisions, whether by design or inadvertence, permit a circumvention of the
constitutionally ordained 60%-40% capitalization requirement for corporations or associations
engaged in the exploitation, development and utilization of Philippine natural resources.
In sum, the Court finds the following provisions of R.A. No. 7942 to be violative of Section 2, Article
XII of the Constitution:
(1) The proviso in Section 3 (aq), which defines "qualified person," to wit:
Provided, That a legally organized foreign-owned corporation shall be deemed a qualified

person for purposes of granting an exploration permit, financial or technical assistance
agreement or mineral processing permit.
(2) Section 23,280 which specifies the rights and obligations of an exploration permittee,
insofar as said section applies to a financial or technical assistance agreement,
(3) Section 33, which prescribes the eligibility of a contractor in a financial or technical
assistance agreement;
(4) Section 35,281 which enumerates the terms and conditions for every financial or technical
assistance agreement;
(5) Section 39,282 which allows the contractor in a financial and technical assistance
agreement to convert the same into a mineral production-sharing agreement;
(6) Section 56,283 which authorizes the issuance of a mineral processing permit to a
contractor in a financial and technical assistance agreement;
The following provisions of the same Act are likewise void as they are dependent on the foregoing
provisions and cannot stand on their own:
(1) Section 3 (g),284 which defines the term "contractor," insofar as it applies to a financial or
technical assistance agreement.
Section 34,285 which prescribes the maximum contract area in a financial or technical
assistance agreements;
Section 36,286 which allows negotiations for financial or technical assistance agreements;
Section 37,287 which prescribes the procedure for filing and evaluation of financial or
technical assistance agreement proposals;
Section 38,288 which limits the term of financial or technical assistance agreements;
Section 40,289 which allows the assignment or transfer of financial or technical assistance
agreements;
Section 41,290 which allows the withdrawal of the contractor in an FTAA;
The second and third paragraphs of Section 81,291 which provide for the Government's share
in a financial and technical assistance agreement; and
Section 90,292 which provides for incentives to contractors in FTAAs insofar as it applies to
said contractors;
When the parts of the statute are so mutually dependent and connected as conditions,
considerations, inducements, or compensations for each other, as to warrant a belief that the
legislature intended them as a whole, and that if all could not be carried into effect, the legislature
would not pass the residue independently, then, if some parts are unconstitutional, all the provisions
which are thus dependent, conditional, or connected, must fall with them.293
There can be little doubt that the WMCP FTAA itself is a service contract.
Section 1.3 of the WMCP FTAA grants WMCP "the exclusive right to explore, exploit, utilise[,]
process and dispose of all Minerals products and by-products thereof that may be produced from the
Contract Area."294 The FTAA also imbues WMCP with the following rights:
(b) to extract and carry away any Mineral samples from the Contract area for the purpose of
conducting tests and studies in respect thereof;
(c) to determine the mining and treatment processes to be utilised during the
Development/Operating Period and the project facilities to be constructed during the
Development and Construction Period;
(d) have the right of possession of the Contract Area, with full right of ingress and egress and
the right to occupy the same, subject to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 512 (if
applicable) and not be prevented from entry into private ands by surface owners and/or
occupants thereof when prospecting, exploring and exploiting for minerals therein;
xxx
(f) to construct roadways, mining, drainage, power generation and transmission facilities and
all other types of works on the Contract Area;
(g) to erect, install or place any type of improvements, supplies, machinery and other
equipment relating to the Mining Operations and to use, sell or otherwise dispose of, modify,
remove or diminish any and all parts thereof;
(h) enjoy, subject to pertinent laws, rules and regulations and the rights of third Parties,
easement rights and the use of timber, sand, clay, stone, water and other natural resources
in the Contract Area without cost for the purposes of the Mining Operations;
xxx
(i) have the right to mortgage, charge or encumber all or part of its interest and obligations
under this Agreement, the plant, equipment and infrastructure and the Minerals produced
from the Mining Operations;
x x x. 295
All materials, equipment, plant and other installations erected or placed on the Contract Area remain
the property of WMCP, which has the right to deal with and remove such items within twelve months
from the termination of the FTAA.296
Pursuant to Section 1.2 of the FTAA, WMCP shall provide "[all] financing, technology, management
and personnel necessary for the Mining Operations." The mining company binds itself to "perform all
Mining Operations . . . providing all necessary services, technology and financing in connection
therewith,"297 and to "furnish all materials, labour, equipment and other installations that may be
required for carrying on all Mining Operations."298> WMCP may make expansions, improvements
and replacements of the mining facilities and may add such new facilities as it considers necessary
for the mining operations.299
These contractual stipulations, taken together, grant WMCP beneficial ownership over natural
resources that properly belong to the State and are intended for the benefit of its citizens. These
stipulations are abhorrent to the 1987 Constitution. They are precisely the vices that the fundamental
law seeks to avoid, the evils that it aims to suppress. Consequently, the contract from which they
spring must be struck down.
In arguing against the annulment of the FTAA, WMCP invokes the Agreement on the Promotion and
Protection of Investments between the Philippine and Australian Governments, which was signed in
Manila on January 25, 1995 and which entered into force on December 8, 1995.
x x x. Article 2 (1) of said treaty states that it applies to investments whenever made and thus the
fact that [WMCP's] FTAA was entered into prior to the entry into force of the treaty does not preclude
the Philippine Government from protecting [WMCP's] investment in [that] FTAA. Likewise, Article 3
(1) of the treaty provides that "Each Party shall encourage and promote investments in its area by
investors of the other Party and shall [admit] such investments in accordance with its Constitution,
Laws, regulations and investment policies" and in Article 3 (2), it states that "Each Party shall ensure
that investments are accorded fair and equitable treatment." The latter stipulation indicates that it
was intended to impose an obligation upon a Party to afford fair and equitable treatment to the
investments of the other Party and that a failure to provide such treatment by or under the laws of
the Party may constitute a breach of the treaty. Simply stated, the Philippines could not, under said
treaty, rely upon the inadequacies of its own laws to deprive an Australian investor (like [WMCP]) of
fair and equitable treatment by invalidating [WMCP's] FTAA without likewise nullifying the service
contracts entered into before the enactment of RA 7942 such as those mentioned in PD 87 or EO
279.
This becomes more significant in the light of the fact that [WMCP's] FTAA was executed not by a
mere Filipino citizen, but by the Philippine Government itself, through its President no less, which, in
entering into said treaty is assumed to be aware of the existing Philippine laws on service contracts
over the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources. The execution of the FTAA by
the Philippine Government assures the Australian Government that the FTAA is in accordance with
existing Philippine laws.300 [Emphasis and italics by private respondents.]
The invalidation of the subject FTAA, it is argued, would constitute a breach of said treaty which, in
turn, would amount to a violation of Section 3, Article II of the Constitution adopting the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. One of these generally
accepted principles is pacta sunt servanda, which requires the performance in good faith of treaty
obligations.
Even assuming arguendo that WMCP is correct in its interpretation of the treaty and its assertion
that "the Philippines could not . . . deprive an Australian investor (like [WMCP]) of fair and equitable
treatment by invalidating [WMCP's] FTAA without likewise nullifying the service contracts entered
into before the enactment of RA 7942 . . .," the annulment of the FTAA would not constitute a breach
of the treaty invoked. For this decision herein invalidating the subject FTAA forms part of the legal
system of the Philippines.301 The equal protection clause302 guarantees that such decision shall apply
to all contracts belonging to the same class, hence, upholding rather than violating, the "fair and
equitable treatment" stipulation in said treaty.
One other matter requires clarification. Petitioners contend that, consistent with the provisions of
Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, the President may enter into agreements involving "either
technical or financial assistance" only. The agreement in question, however, is a technical and
financial assistance agreement.
Petitioners' contention does not lie. To adhere to the literal language of the Constitution would lead
to absurd consequences.303 As WMCP correctly put it:
x x x such a theory of petitioners would compel the government (through the President) to enter into
contract with two (2) foreign-owned corporations, one for financial assistance agreement and with
the other, for technical assistance over one and the same mining area or land; or to execute two (2)
contracts with only one foreign-owned corporation which has the capability to provide both financial
and technical assistance, one for financial assistance and another for technical assistance, over the
same mining area. Such an absurd result is definitely not sanctioned under the canons of
constitutional construction.304 [Underscoring in the original.]
Surely, the framers of the 1987 Charter did not contemplate such an absurd result from their use of
"either/or." A constitution is not to be interpreted as demanding the impossible or the impracticable;
and unreasonable or absurd consequences, if possible, should be avoided.305 Courts are not to give
words a meaning that would lead to absurd or unreasonable consequences and a literal
interpretation is to be rejected if it would be unjust or lead to absurd results.306 That is a strong
argument against its adoption.307 Accordingly, petitioners' interpretation must be rejected.
The foregoing discussion has rendered unnecessary the resolution of the other issues raised by the
petition.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court hereby declares unconstitutional and void:
(1) The following provisions of Republic Act No. 7942:
(a) The proviso in Section 3 (aq),
(b) Section 23,
(c) Section 33 to 41,
(d) Section 56,
(e) The second and third paragraphs of Section 81, and
(f) Section 90.
(2) All provisions of Department of Environment and Natural Resources Administrative Order
96-40, s. 1996 which are not in conformity with this Decision, and
(3) The Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement between the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines and WMC Philippines, Inc.
SO ORDERED.
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 Parañaque 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 Manila-Cavite Coastal Road, Parañaque 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 fast-tracking
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 Tañada 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 Tañada, 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 Tañada 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 Tañada 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 Tañada, 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 non-proprietary 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. 1âw phi 1.nêt
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 on-
going 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, which authorized 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 mandated public 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 non-
agricultural 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.
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.
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 from acquiring 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 in promoting 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.1âwphi 1.nêt
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-and-transfer 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 titles issued 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.
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 self-executing. 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 self-executing
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. 33A 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' etat where 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 the Filipino 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 non-
material 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 non-material
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.
Separate Opinions
PADILLA, J., concurring:

I concur with the ponencia of Mr. Justice Bellosillo. At the same time, I would like to expound a bit
more on the concept of national patrimony as including within its scope and meaning institutions
such as the Manila Hotel.
It is argued by petitioner that the Manila Hotel comes under "national patrimony" over which qualified
Filipinos have the preference, in ownership and operation. The Constitutional provision on point
states:
xxx xxx xxx
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and
patrimony, the State shall Give preference to qualified Filipinos.1
Petitioner's argument, I believe, is well taken. Under the 1987 Constitution, "national patrimony"
consists of the natural resources provided by Almighty God (Preamble) in our territory (Article I)
consisting of land, sea, and air.2study of the 1935 Constitution, where the concept of "national
patrimony" originated, would show that its framers decided to adopt the even more comprehensive
expression "Patrimony of the Nation" in the belief that the phrase encircles a concept embracing not
only their natural resources of the country but practically everything that belongs to the Filipino
people, the tangible and the material as well as the intangible and the spiritual assets and
possessions of the people. It is to be noted that the framers did not stop with conservation. They
knew that conservation alone does not spell progress; and that this may be achieved only through
development as a correlative factor to assure to the people not only the exclusive ownership, but
also the exclusive benefits of their national patrimony).3
Moreover, the concept of national patrimony has been viewed as referring not only to our rich natural
resources but also to the cultural heritage of our
race.4
There is no doubt in my mind that the Manila Hotel is very much a part of our national patrimony
and, as such, deserves constitutional protection as to who shall own it and benefit from its operation.
This institution has played an important role in our nation's history, having been the venue of many a
historical event, and serving as it did, and as it does, as the Philippine Guest House for visiting
foreign heads of state, dignitaries, celebrities, and others.5
It is therefore our duty to protect and preserve it for future generations of Filipinos. As President
Manuel L. Quezon once said, we must exploit the natural resources of our country, but we should do
so with. an eye to the welfare of the future generations. In other words, the leaders of today are the
trustees of the patrimony of our race. To preserve our national patrimony and reserve it for Filipinos
was the intent of the distinguished gentlemen who first framed our Constitution. Thus, in debating
the need for nationalization of our lands and natural resources, one expounded that we should "put
more teeth into our laws, and; not make the nationalization of our lands and natural resources a
subject of ordinary legislation but of constitutional enactment"6 To quote further: "Let not our children
be mere tenants and trespassers in their own country. Let us preserve and bequeath to them what is
rightfully theirs, free from all foreign liens and encumbrances".7
Now, a word on preference. In my view "preference to qualified Filipinos", to be meaningful, must

refer not only to things that are peripheral, collateral, or tangential. It must touch and affect the very
"heart of the existing order." In the field of public bidding in the acquisition of things that pertain to the
national patrimony, preference to qualified Filipinos must allow a qualified Filipino to match or equal
the higher bid of a non-Filipino; the preference shall not operate only when the bids of the qualified
Filipino and the non-Filipino are equal in which case, the award should undisputedly be made to the
qualified Filipino. The Constitutional preference should give the qualified Filipino an opportunity to
match or equal the higher bid of the non-Filipino bidder if the preference of the qualified Filipino
bidder is to be significant at all.
It is true that in this present age of globalization of attitude towards foreign investments in our
country, stress is on the elimination of barriers to foreign trade and investment in the country. While
government agencies, including the courts should re-condition their thinking to such a trend, and
make it easy and even attractive for foreign investors to come to our shores, yet we should not
preclude ourselves from reserving to us Filipinos certain areas where our national identity, culture
and heritage are involved. In the hotel industry, for instance, foreign investors have established
themselves creditably, such as in the Shangri-La, the Nikko, the Peninsula, and Mandarin Hotels.
This should not stop us from retaining 51% of the capital stock of the Manila Hotel Corporation in the
hands of Filipinos. This would be in keeping with the intent of the Filipino people to preserve our
national patrimony, including our historical and cultural heritage in the hands of Filipinos.
VITUG, J., concurring:
I agree with Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo on his clear-cut statements, shared by Mr. Justice
Reynato S. Puno in a well written separate (dissenting) opinion, that:
First, the provision in our fundamental law which provides that "(I)n the grant of rights, privileges, and
qualified Filipinos"1 is self-executory. The provision verily does not need, although it can obviously be
amplified or regulated by, an enabling law or a set of rules.
Second, the term "patrimony" does not merely refer to the country's natural resources but also to its
cultural heritage. A "historical landmark," to use the words of Mr. Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr., Manila
Hotel has now indeed become part of Philippine heritage.
Third, the act of the Government Service Insurance System ("GSIS"), a government entity which
derives its authority from the State, in selling 51% of its share in MHC should be considered an act
of the State subject to the Constitutional mandate.
On the pivotal issue of the degree of "preference to qualified Filipinos," I find it somewhat difficult to
take the same path traversed by the forceful reasoning of Justice Puno. In the particular case before
us, the only meaningful preference, it seems, would really be to allow the qualified Filipino to match
the foreign bid for, as a particular matter, I cannot see any bid that literally calls for millions of dollars
to be at par (to the last cent) with another. The magnitude of the magnitude of the bids is such that it
becomes hardly possible for the competing bids to stand exactly "equal" which alone, under the
dissenting view, could trigger the right of preference.
It is most unfortunate that Renong Berhad has not been spared this great disappointment, a letdown
that it did not deserve, by a simple and timely advise of the proper rules of bidding along with the
peculiar constitutional implications of the proposed transaction. It is also regrettable that the Court at
time is seen, to instead, be the refuge for bureaucratic inadequate which create the perception that it
even takes on non-justiciable controversies.
All told, I am constrained to vote for granting the petition.
MENDOZA, J., concurring in the judgment:

I take the view that in the context of the present controversy the only way to enforce the
constitutional mandate that "[i]n the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national
patrimony the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos"1 is to allow petitioner Philippine
corporation to equal the bid of the Malaysian firm Renong Berhad for the purchase of the controlling
shares of stocks in the Manila Hotel Corporation. Indeed, it is the only way a qualified Filipino of
Philippine corporation can be given preference in the enjoyment of a right, privilege or concession
given by the State, by favoring it over a foreign national corporation.
Under the rules on public bidding of the Government Service and Insurance System, if petitioner and
the Malaysian firm had offered the same price per share, "priority [would be given] to the bidder
seeking the larger ownership interest in MHC,"2 so that petitioner bid for more shares, it would be
preferred to the Malaysian corporation for that reason and not because it is a Philippine corporation.
Consequently, it is only in cases like the present one, where an alien corporation is the highest
bidder, that preferential treatment of the Philippine corporation is mandated not by declaring it winner
but by allowing it "to match the highest bid in terms of price per share" before it is awarded the
shares of stocks.3 That, to me, is what "preference to qualified Filipinos" means in the context of this
case — by favoring Filipinos whenever they are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis foreigners.
This was the meaning given in Co Chiong v. Cuaderno4 to a 1947 statute giving "preference to
Filipino citizens in the lease of public market stalls."5 This Court upheld the cancellation of existing
leases covering market stalls occupied by persons who were not Filipinos and the award thereafter
of the stalls to qualified Filipino vendors as ordered by the Department of Finance. Similarly,
in Vda. de Salgado v. De la Fuente,6 this Court sustained the validity of a municipal ordinance
passed pursuant to the statute (R.A. No. 37), terminating existing leases of public market stalls and
granting preference to Filipino citizens in the issuance of new licenses for the occupancy of the
stalls. In Chua Lao v. Raymundo,7 the preference granted under the statute was held to apply to
cases in which Filipino vendors sought the same stalls occupied by alien vendors in the public
markets even if there were available other stalls as good as those occupied by aliens. "The law,
apparently, is applicable whenever there is a conflict of interest between Filipino applicants and
aliens for lease of stalls in public markets, in which situation the right to preference immediately
arises."8
Our legislation on the matter thus antedated by a quarter of a century efforts began only in the 1970s
in America to realize the promise of equality, through affirmative action and reverse discrimination
programs designed to remedy past discrimination against colored people in such areas as
employment, contracting and licensing.9 Indeed, in vital areas of our national economy, there are
situations in which the only way to place Filipinos in control of the national economy as contemplated
in the Constitution 10 is to give them preferential treatment where they can at least stand on equal
footing with aliens.
There need be no fear that thus preferring Filipinos would either invite foreign retaliation or deprive
the country of the benefit of foreign capital or know-how. We are dealing here not with common
trades of common means of livelihood which are open to aliens in our midst, 11 but with the sale of
government property, which is like the grant of government largess of benefits and concessions
covering the national economy" and therefore no one should begrudge us if we give preferential
treatment to our citizens. That at any rate is the command of the Constitution. For the Manila Hotel is
a business owned by the Government. It is being privatized. Privatization should result in the
relinquishment of the business in favor of private individuals and groups who are Filipino citizens, not
in favor of aliens.
Nor should there be any doubt that by awarding the shares of stocks to petitioner we would be
trading competence and capability for nationalism. Both petitioner and the Malaysian firm are
qualified, having hurdled the prequalification process. 12 It is only the result of the public bidding that
is sought to be modified by enabling petitioner to up its bid to equal the highest bid.
Nor, finally, is there any basis for the suggestion that to allow a Filipino bidder to match the highest
bid of an alien could encourage speculation, since all that a Filipino entity would then do would be
not to make a bid or make only a token one and, after it is known that a foreign bidder has submitted
the highest bid, make an offer matching that of the foreign firm. This is not possible under the rules
on public bidding of the GSIS. Under these rules there is a minimum bid required (P36.87 per share
for a range of 9 to 15 million shares). 13 Bids below the minimum will not be considered. On the other
hand, if the Filipino entity, after passing the prequalification process, does not submit a bid, he will
not be allowed to match the highest bid of the foreign firm because this is a privilege allowed only to
those who have "validly submitted bids." 14 The suggestion is, to say the least, fanciful and has no
basis in fact.
For the foregoing reasons, I vote to grant the petition.
TORRES, JR., J., separate opinion:
Constancy in law is not an attribute of a judicious mind. I say this as we are not confronted in the
case at bar with legal and constitutional issues — and yet I am driven so to speak on the side of
history. The reason perhaps is due to the belief that in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
Jr., a "page of history is worth a volume of logic."
I will, however, attempt to share my thoughts on whether the Manila Hotel has a historical and
cultural aspect within the meaning of the constitution and thus, forming part of the "patrimony of the
nation".
Section 10, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
xxx xxx xxx
patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.
The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its
national goals and priorities.
The foregoing provisions should be read in conjunction with Article II of the same Constitution
pertaining to "Declaration of Principles and State Policies" which ordain —
The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively
by Filipinos. (Sec. 19).
Interestingly, the matter of giving preference to "qualified Filipinos" was one of the highlights in the
1987 Constitution Commission proceedings thus:
xxx xxx xxx
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 fully controlled by
Filipinos (Vol. III, Records of the Constitutional
Commission, p. 608).
MR. MONSOD. We also wanted to add, as

Commissioner Villegas said, this committee and this
body already approved what is known as the Filipino
First policy which was suggested by Commissioner de
Castro. So that it is now in our Constitution (Vol. IV,
Records of the Constitutional Commission, p. 225).
Commissioner Jose Nolledo explaining the provision adverted to above, said:
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 the Filipinos
enterprise is also qualified, will the Filipino enterprise
still be given a preference?
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". (Vol. III, p. 616,

Records of the Constitutional Commission).
The nationalistic provisions of the 1987 Constitution reflect the history and spirit of the Malolos
Constitution of 1898, the 1935 Constitution and the 1973 Constitutions. That we have no reneged on
this nationalist policy is articulated in one of the earliest case, this Court said —
The nationalistic tendency is manifested in various provisions of the Constitution. . . .

It cannot therefore be said that a law imbued with the same purpose and spirit
underlying many of the provisions of the Constitution is unreasonable, invalid or
unconstitutional (Ichong, et al. vs. Hernandez, et al., 101 Phil. 1155).
I subscribe to the view that history, culture, heritage, and traditions are not legislated and is the
product of events, customs, usages and practices. It is actually a product of growth and acceptance
by the collective mores of a race. It is the spirit and soul of a people.
The Manila Hotel is part of our history, culture and heritage. Every inch of the Manila Hotel is witness
to historic events (too numerous to mention) which shaped our history for almost 84 years.
As I intimated earlier, it is not my position in this opinion, to examine the single instances of the legal
largese which have given rise to this controversy. As I believe that has been exhaustively discussed
in the ponencia. Suffice it to say at this point that the history of the Manila Hotel should not be placed
in the auction block of a purely business transaction, where profits subverts the cherished historical
values of our people.
As a historical landmark in this "Pearl of the Orient Seas", it has its enviable tradition which, in the
words of the philosopher Salvador de Madarriaga tradition is "more of a river than a stone, it keeps
flowing, and one must view the flowing , and one must view the flow of both directions. If you look
towards the hill from which the river flows, you see tradition in the form of forceful currents that push
the river or people towards the future, and if you look the other way, you progress."
Indeed, tradition and progress are the same, for progress depends on the kind of tradition. Let us not
jettison the tradition of the Manila Hotel and thereby repeat our colonial history.
I grant, of course the men of the law can see the same subject in different lights.
I remember, however, a Spanish proverb which says — "He is always right who suspects that he
makes mistakes". On this note, I say that if I have to make a mistake, I would rather err upholding
the belief that the Filipino be first under his Constitution and in his own land.
I vote GRANT the petition.
PUNO, J., dissenting:
This is a. petition for prohibition and mandamus filed by the Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a
domestic corporation, to stop the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) from selling the
controlling shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation to a foreign corporation. Allegedly, the sale
violates the second paragraph of section 10, Article XII of the Constitution.
Respondent GSIS is a government-owned and controlled corporation. It is the sole owner of the
Manila Hotel which it operates through its subsidiary, the Manila Hotel Corporation. Manila Hotel was
included in the privatization program of the government. In 1995, GSIS proposed to sell to interested
buyers 30% to 51% of its shares, ranging from 9,000,000 to 15,300,000 shares, in the Manila Hotel
Corporation. After the absence of bids at the first public bidding, the block of shares offered for sale
was increased from a maximum of 30% to 51%. Also, the winning bidder, or the eventual "strategic
partner" of the GSIS was required to "provide management expertise and/or an international
marketing/reservation system, and financial support to strengthen the profitability and performance
of the Manila Hotel"1 The proposal was approved by respondent Committee on Privatization.
In July 1995, a conference was held where prequalification documents and the bidding rules were
furnished interested parties. Petitioner Manila Prince Hotel, a domestic corporation, and Renong
Berhad, Malaysian firm with ITT Sheraton as operator, prequalified.2
The bidding rules and procedures entitled "Guidelines and Procedures: Second Prequalification and
Public Bidding of the MHC Privatization" provide:
I INTRODUCTION AND HIGHLIGHTS

DETERMINING THE WINNING BIDDER/STRATEGIC PARTNER
The party that accomplishes the steps set forth below will be declared the Winning
Bidder/Strategic Partner and will be awarded the Block of Shares:
First — Pass the prequalification process;
Second — Submit the highest bid on a price per share basis for the Block of Shares;
Third — Negotiate and execute the necessary contracts with GSIS/MHC not later
than October 23, 1995;
xxx xxx xxx
IV GUIDELINES FOR PREQUALIFICATION
A. PARTIES WHO MAP APPLY FOR PREQUALIFICATION
The Winning Bidder/Strategic Partner will be expected to provide

management expertise and/or an international marketing reservation
system, and financial support to strengthen the profitability and
performance of The Manila Hotel. In this context, the GSIS is inviting
to the prequalification process any local and/or foreign corporation,
consortium/joint venture or juridical entity with at least one of the
following qualifications:
a. Proven management .expertise in the hotel

industry; or
b. Significant equity ownership (i.e. board

representation) in another hotel company; or
c. Overall management and marketing expertise to

successfully operate the Manila Hotel.
Parties interested in bidding for MHC should be able to provide

access to the requisite management expertise and/or international
marketing/reservation system for The Manila Hotel.
xxx xxx xxx
D. PREQUALIFICATION DOCUMENTS
xxx xxx xxx
E. APPLICATION PROCEDURE
1. DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE AT THE REGISTRATION OFFICE

The prequalification documents can be secured at the Registration
Office between 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM during working days within the
period specified in Section III. Each set of documents consists of the
following:
a. Guidelines and Procedures: Second

Prequalification and Public Bidding of the MHC
Privatization
b. Confidential Information Memorandum: The Manila

Hotel Corporation
c. Letter of Invitation. to the Prequalification and

Bidding Conference
xxx xxx xxx
4. PREQUALIFICATION AND BIDDING CONFERENCE
A prequalification and bidding conference will be held at The Manila

Hotel on the date specified in Section III to allow the Applicant to seek
clarifications and further information regarding the guidelines and
procedures. Only those who purchased the prequalification
documents will be allowed in this conference. Attendance to this
conference is strongly advised, although the Applicant will not be
penalized if it does not attend.
5. SUBMISSION OF PREQUALIFICATION DOCUMENTS
The applicant should submit 5 sets of the prequalification documents

(1 original set plus 4 copies) at the Registration Office between 9:00
AM to 4:00 PM during working days within the period specified in
Section III.
F. PREQUALIFICATION PROCESS
1. The Applicant will be evaluated by the PBAC with

the assistance of the TEC based on the Information
Package and other information available to the PBAC.
2. If the Applicant is a Consortium/Joint Venture, the

evaluation will consider the overall qualifications of
the group, taking into account the contribution of each
member to the venture.
3. The decision of the PBAC with respect to the

results of the PBAC evaluation will be final.
4. The Applicant shall be evaluated according to the

criteria set forth below:
a. Business management expertise,
track record, and experience
b. Financial capability.
c. Feasibility and acceptability of the

proposed strategic plan for the Manila
Hotel
5. The PBAC will shortlist such number of Applicants as it may deem

appropriate.
6. The parties that prequalified in the first MHC public bidding — ITT
Sheraton, Marriot International Inc., Renaissance Hotels International
Inc., consortium of RCBC Capital/Ritz Carlton — may participate in
the Public Bidding without having to undergo the prequalification
process again.
G. SHORTLIST OF QUALIFIED BIDDERS
1. A notice of prequalification results containing the shortlist of

Qualified Bidders will be posted at the Registration Office at the date
specified in Section III.
2. In the case of a Consortium/Joint Venture, the withdrawal by

member whose qualification was a material consideration for being
included in the shortlist is ground for disqualification of the Applicant.
V. GUIDELINES FOR THE PUBLIC BIDDING
A. PARTIES WHO MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC BIDDING
All parties in the shortlist of Qualified Bidders will be eligible to

participate in the Public Bidding.
B. BLOCK OF SHARES
A range of Nine Million (9,000,000) to Fifteen Million Three Hundred

Thousand (15,300,000) shares of stock representing Thirty Percent to
Fifty-One Percent (30%-51%) of the issued and outstanding shares of
MHC, will be offered in the Public Bidding by the GSIS. The Qualified
Bidders will have the Option of determining the number of shares
within the range to bid for. The range is intended to attract bidders
with different preferences and objectives for the operation and
management of The Manila Hotel.
C. MINIMUM BID REQUIRED ON A PRICE PER SHARE BASIS
1. Bids will be evaluated on a price per share basis. The minimum bid
required on a price per share basis for the Block of Shares is Thirty-
Six Pesos and Sixty-Seven Centavos (P36.67).
2. Bids should be in the Philippine currency payable to the GSIS.
3. Bids submitted with an equivalent price per share below the

minimum required will not considered.
D. TRANSFER COSTS
xxx xxx xxx
E. OFFICIAL BID FORM
1. Bids must be contained in the prescribed Official Bid Form, a copy

of which is attached as Annex IV. The Official Bid Form must be
properly accomplished in all details; improper accomplishment may
be a sufficient basis for disqualification.
2. During the Public Bidding, the Qualified Bidder will submit the
Official Bid Form, which will indicate the offered purchase price, in a
sealed envelope marked "OFFICIAL BID."
F. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
During the Public Bidding, the following documents should be

submitted along with the bid in a separate envelop marked
"SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS":
1. WRITTEN AUTHORITY TO BID (UNDER OATH).
If the Qualified Bidder is a corporation, the representative of the

Qualified Bidder should submit a Board resolution which adequately
authorizes such representative to bid for and in behalf of the
corporation with full authority to perform such acts necessary or
requisite to bind the Qualified Bidder.
If the Qualified Bidder is a Consortium/Joint Venture, each member of

the Consortium/Joint venture should submit a Board resolution
authorizing one of its members and such member's representative to
make the bid on behalf of the group with full authority to perform such
acts necessary or requisite to bind the Qualified Bidder.
2. BID SECURITY
a. The Qualified Bidder should deposit Thirty-Three Million Pesos

(P33,000,00), in Philippine currency as Bid Security in the form of:
i. Manager's check or unconditional demand draft

payable to the "Government Service Insurance
System" and issued by a reputable banking institution
duly licensed to do business in the Philippines and
acceptable to GSIS; or
ii. Standby-by letter of credit issued by a reputable
banking institution acceptable to the GSIS.
b. The GSIS will reject a bid if:
i. The bid does not have Bid Security; or
ii. The Bid Security accompanying the bid is for less

than the required amount.
c. If the Bid Security is in the form of a manager's check or

unconditional demand draft, the interest earned on the Bid Security
will be for the account of GSIS.
d. If the Qualified Bidder becomes the winning Bidder/Strategic

Partner, the Bid Security will be applied as the downpayment on the
Qualified Bidder's offered purchase price.
e. The Bid Security of the Qualified Bidder will be returned

immediately after the Public Bidding if the Qualified Bidder is not
declared the Highest Bidder.
f. The Bid Security will be returned by October 23, 1995 if the Highest
Bidder is unable to negotiate and execute with GSIS/MHC the
Management Contract, International Marketing/Reservation System
Contract or other types of contract specified by the Highest Bidder in
its strategic plan for The Manila Hotel.
g. The Bid Security of the Highest Bidder will be forfeited in favor of

GSIS if the Highest Bidder, after negotiating and executing the
Contract specified by the Highest Bidder or other types of contract in
its strategic plan for The Manila Hotel, fails or refuses to:
i. Execute the Stock Purchase and Sale Agreement

with GSIS not later than October 23, 1995; or
ii. Pay the full amount of the offered purchase price

not later than October 23, 1995; or
iii. Consummate the sale of the Block of Shares for

any other reason.
G. SUBMISSION OF BIDS
1. The Public Bidding will be held on September 7, 1995 at the

following location:
New GSIS Headquarters Building

Financial Center, Reclamation Area
Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, Metro Manila.
2. The Secretariat of the PBAC will be stationed at the Public Bidding
to accept any and all bids and supporting requirements.
Representatives from the Commission on Audit and COP will be
invited to witness the proceedings.
3. The Qualified Bidder should submit its bid using the Official Bid
Form. The accomplished Official Bid Form should be submitted in a
4. The Qualified Bidder should submit the following documents

in another sealed envelope marked "SUPPORTING BID
DOCUMENTS"
a. Written Authority Bid
b. Bid Security
5. The two sealed envelopes marked "OFFICIAL BID" and

"SUPPORTING BID DOCUMENTS" must be submitted
simultaneously to the Secretariat between 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM,
Philippine Standard Time, on the date of the Public Bidding. No bid
shall be accepted after the closing time. Opened or tampered bids
shall not be accepted.
6. The Secretariat will log and record the actual time of submission of
the two sealed envelopes. The actual time of submission will also be
indicated by the Secretariat on the face of the two envelopes.
7. After Step No. 6, the two sealed envelopes will be dropped in the
corresponding bid boxes provided for the purpose. These boxes will
be in full view of the invited public.
H. OPENING AND READING OF BIDS
1. After the closing time of 2:00 PM on the date of the Public Bidding,
the PBAC will open all sealed envelopes marked "SUPPORTING BID
DOCUMENTS" for screening, evaluation and acceptance. Those who
submitted incomplete/insufficient documents or document/s which
is/are not substantially in the form required by PBAC will be
disqualified. The envelope containing their Official Bid Form will be
immediately returned to the disqualified bidders.
2. The sealed envelopes marked "OFFICIAL BID" will be opened at

3:00 PM. The name of the bidder and the amount of its bid price will
be read publicly as the envelopes are opened.
3. Immediately following the reading of the bids, the PBAC will

formally announce the highest bid and the Highest Bidder.
4. The highest bid will be, determined on a price per share basis. In
the event of a tie wherein two or more bids have the same equivalent
price per share, priority will be given to the bidder seeking the larger
ownership interest in MHC.
5. The Public Bidding will be declared a failed bidding in case:
a. No single bid is submitted within the prescribed

period; or
b. There is only one (1) bid that is submitted and

acceptable to the PBAC.

GSIS/MHC
1. The Highest Bidder must comply with the conditions set forth below
by October 23, 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 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. If the
Highest Bidder is intending to provide only financial
support to The Manila Hotel, a separate institution
may enter into the aforementioned contract/s with
GSIS/MHC.
b. The Highest Bidder must execute the Stock

Purchase and Sale Agreement with GSIS, a copy of
which will be distributed to each of the Qualified
Bidder after the prequalification process is completed.
2. In the event that the Highest Bidder chooses a Management

Contract for The Manila Hotel, the maximum levels for the
management fee structure that GSIS/MHC are prepared to accept in
the Management Contract are as follows:
a. Basic management fee: Maximum of 2.5% of gross

revenues.(1)
b. Incentive fee: Maximum of 8.0% of gross operating

profit(1) after deducting undistributed overhead
expenses and the basic management fee.
c. Fixed component of the international

marketing/reservation system fee: Maximum of 2.0%
of gross room revenues.(1) The Applicant should
indicate in its Information Package if it is wishes to
charge this fee.
Note (1): As defined in the uniform system of account for hotels.
The GSIS/MHC have indicated above the acceptable parameters for

the hotel management fees to facilitate the negotiations with the
Highest Bidder for the Management Contract after the Public Bidding.
A Qualified Bidder envisioning a Management Contract for The

Manila Hotel should determine whether or not the management fee
structure above is acceptable before submitting their prequalification
documents to GSIS.
J. BLOCK SALE TO THE OTHER QUALIFIED BIDDERS
1. 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 are willing to
match the highest bid in terms of price per share.
2. The order of priority among the interested Qualified Bidders will be

in accordance wit the equivalent price per share of their respective
bids in their public Bidding, i.e., first and second priority will be given
to the Qualified Bidders that submitted the second and third highest
bids on the price per share basis, respectively, and so on.

PARTNER
The Highest Bidder will be declared the Winning Bidder/Strategic

Partner after the following conditions are met:
a. Execution of the necessary contract with

GSIS/MHC not later than October 23, 1995; and
b. Requisite approvals from the GSIS/MHC and

COP/OGCC are obtained.
I. FULL PAYMENT FOR THE BLOCK OF SHARES
1. Upon execution of the necessary contracts with GSIS/MHC, the

Winning Bidder/Strategic Partner must fully pay, not later than
October 23, 1995, the offered purchase price for the Block of Shares
after deducting the Bid Security applied as downpayment.
2. All payments should be made in the form of a Manager's Check or

unconditional Demand Draft, payable to the "Government Service
Insurance System," issued by a reputable banking institution licensed
to do business in the Philippines and acceptable to GSIS.
M. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. The GSIS unconditionally reserves the right to reject any or all
applications, waive any formality therein, or accept such application
as maybe considered most advantageous to the GSIS. The GSIS
similarly reserves the right to require the submission of any additional
information from the Applicant as the PBAC may deem necessary.
2. The GSIS further reserves the right to call off the Public Bidding
prior to acceptance of the bids and call for a new public bidding under
amended rules, and without any liability whatsoever to any or all the
Qualified Bidders, except the obligation to return the Bid Security.
3. The GSIS reserves the right to reset the date of the

prequalification/bidding conference, the deadline for the submission
of the prequalification documents, the date of the Public Bidding or
other pertinent activities at least three (3) calendar days prior to the
respective deadlines/target dates.
4. The GSIS sells only whatever rights, interest and participation it

has on the Block of Shares.
5. All documents and materials submitted by the Qualified Bidders,

except the Bid Security, may be returned upon request.
6. The decision of the PBAC/GSIS on the results of the Public

Bidding is final. The Qualified Bidders, by participating in the Public
Bidding, are deemed to have agreed to accept and abide by these
results.
7. The GSIS will be held free and harmless form any liability, suit or
allegation arising out of the Public Bidding by the Qualified Bidders
who have participated in the Public Bidding.3
The second public bidding was held on September 18, 1995. Petitioner bidded P41.00 per share for
15,300,000 shares and Renong Berhad bidded P44.00 per share also for 15,300,000 shares. The
GSIS declared Renong Berhad the highest bidder and immediately returned petitioner's bid security.
On September 28, 1995, ten days after the bidding, petitioner wrote to GSIS offering to match the
bid price of Renong Berhad. It requested that the award be made to itself citing the second
paragraph of Section 10, Article XII of the Constitution. It sent a manager's check for thirty-three
million pesos (P33,000,000.00) as bid security.
Respondent GSIS, then in the process of negotiating with Renong Berhad the terms and conditions
of the contract and technical agreements in the operation of the hotel, refused to entertain
petitioner's request.
Hence, petitioner filed the present petition. We issued a temporary restraining order on October 18,
1995.
Petitioner anchors its plea on the second paragraph of Article XII, Section 10 of the Constitution4 on
the "National Economy and Patrimony" which provides:
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
The vital issues can be summed up as follows:
(1) Whether section 10, paragraph 2 of Article XII of the Constitution is a self-
executing provision and does not need implementing legislation to carry it into effect;
(2) Assuming section 10 paragraph 2 of Article XII is self-executing whether the

controlling shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation form part of our patrimony as a
nation;
(3) Whether GSIS is included in the term "State," hence, mandated to implement
section 10, paragraph 2 of Article XII of the Constitution;
(4) Assuming GSIS is part of the State, whether it failed to give preference to
petitioner, a qualified Filipino corporation, over and above Renong Berhad, a foreign
corporation, in the sale of the controlling shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation;
(5) Whether petitioner is estopped from questioning the sale of the shares to Renong
Berhad, a foreign corporation.
Anent the first issue, it is now familiar learning that a Constitution provides the guiding policies and
principles upon which is built the substantial foundation and general framework of the law and
government.5 As a rule, its provisions are deemed self-executing and can be enforced without further
legislative action.6 Some of its provisions, however, can be implemented only through appropriate
laws enacted by the Legislature, hence not self-executing.
To determine whether a particular provision of a Constitution is self-executing is a hard row to hoe.

The key lies on the intent of the framers of the fundamental law oftentimes submerged in its
language. A searching inquiry should be made to find out if the provision is intended as a present
enactment, complete in itself as a definitive law, or if it needs future legislation for completion and
enforcement.7 The inquiry demands a micro-analysis of the text and the context of the provision in
question.8
Courts as a rule consider the provisions of the Constitution as self-executing,9 rather than as
requiring future legislation for their enforcement. 10 The reason is not difficult to discern. For if they
are not treated as self-executing, the mandate of the fundamental law ratified by the sovereign
people can be easily ignored and nullified by Congress. 11 Suffused with wisdom of the ages is the
unyielding rule that legislative actions may give breath to constitutional rights but congressional in
action should not suffocate them. 12
Thus, we have treated as self-executing the provisions in the Bill of Rights on arrests, searches and
seizures, 13 the rights of a person under custodial investigation, 14 the rights of an accused, 15 and the
privilege against self-incrimination, 16 It is recognize a that legislation is unnecessary to enable courts
to effectuate constitutional provisions guaranteeing the fundamental rights of life, liberty and the
protection of property. 17 The same treatment is accorded to constitutional provisions forbidding the
taking or damaging of property for public use without just compensation.18
Contrariwise, case law lays down the rule that a constitutional provision is not self-executing where it
merely announces a policy and its language empowers the Legislature to prescribe the means by
which the policy shall be carried into effect. 19 Accordingly, we have held that the provisions in Article
II of our Constitution entitled "Declaration of Principles and State Policies" should generally be
construed as mere statements of principles of the State. 20 We have also ruled that some provisions
of Article XIII on "Social Justice and Human Rights," 21 and Article XIV on "Education Science and
Technology, Arts, Culture end Sports" 22 cannot be the basis of judicially enforceable rights. Their
enforcement is addressed to the discretion of Congress though they provide the framework for
legislation 23 to effectuate their policy content. 24
Guided by this map of settled jurisprudence, we now consider whether Section 10, Article XII of the
1987 Constitution is self-executing or not. It reads:
Sec. 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning
agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by
such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas
of investments. The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the
formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.
national jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities.
The first paragraph directs Congress to reserve certain areas of investments in the
country 25 to Filipino citizens or to corporations sixty per
cent 26 of whose capital stock is owned by Filipinos. It further commands Congress to enact
laws that will encourage the formation and operation of one hundred percent Filipino-owned
enterprises. In checkered contrast, the second paragraph orders the entire State to give
preference to qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights and privileges covering the national
economy and patrimony. The third paragraph also directs the State to regulate foreign
investments in line with our national goals and well-set priorities.
The first paragraph of Section 10 is not self-executing. By its express text, there is a
categorical command for Congress to enact laws restricting foreign ownership in certain
areas of investments in the country and to encourage the formation and operation of wholly-
owned Filipino enterprises. The right granted by the provision is clearly still in esse.
Congress has to breathe life to the right by means of legislation. Parenthetically, this
paragraph was plucked from section 3, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution. 27 The provision
in the 1973 Constitution affirmed our ruling in the landmark case of Lao Ichong
v. Hernandez, 28where we upheld the discretionary authority of Congress to Filipinize certain
areas of investments. 29 By reenacting the 1973 provision, the first paragraph of section 10
affirmed the power of Congress to nationalize certain areas of investments in favor of
Filipinos.
The second and third paragraphs of Section 10 are different. They are directed to the State and not
to Congress alone which is but one of the three great branches of our government. Their coverage is
also broader for they cover "the national economy and patrimony" and "foreign investments within
[the] national jurisdiction" and not merely "certain areas of investments." Beyond debate, they cannot
be read as granting Congress the exclusive power to implement by law the policy of giving
preference to qualified Filipinos in the conferral of rights and privileges covering our national
economy and patrimony. Their language does not suggest that any of the State agency or
instrumentality has the privilege to hedge or to refuse its implementation for any reason whatsoever.
Their duty to implement is unconditional and it is now. The second and the third paragraphs of
Section 10, Article XII are thus self-executing.
This submission is strengthened by Article II of the Constitution entitled "Declaration of Principles

and State Policies." Its Section 19 provides that "[T]he State shall develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos." It engrafts the all-important Filipino
First policy in our fundamental law and by the use of the mandatory word "shall," directs its
enforcement by the whole State without any pause or a half- pause in time.
The second issue is whether the sale of a majority of the stocks of the Manila Hotel Corporation
involves the disposition of part of our national patrimony. The records of the Constitutional
Commission show that the Commissioners entertained the same view as to its meaning. According
to Commissioner Nolledo, "patrimony" refers not only to our rich natural resources but also to the
cultural heritage of our race. 30 By this yardstick, the sale of Manila Hotel falls within the coverage of
the constitutional provision giving preferential treatment to qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights
involving our national patrimony. The unique value of the Manila Hotel to our history and culture
cannot be viewed with a myopic eye. The value of the hotel goes beyond pesos and centavos. As
chronicled by Beth Day Romulo, 31 the hotel first opened on July 4, 1912 as a first-class hotel built by
the American Insular Government for Americans living in, or passing through, Manila while traveling
to the Orient. Indigenous materials and Filipino craftsmanship were utilized in its construction, For
sometime, it was exclusively used by American and Caucasian travelers and served as the "official
guesthouse" of the American Insular Government for visiting foreign dignitaries. Filipinos began
coming to the Hotel as guests during the Commonwealth period. When the Japanese occupied
Manila, it served as military headquarters and lodging for the highest-ranking officers from Tokyo. It
was at the Hotel and the Intramuros that the Japanese made their last stand during the Liberation of
Manila. After the war, the Hotel again served foreign guests and Filipinos alike. Presidents and
kings, premiers and potentates, as well as glamorous international film and sports celebrities were
housed in the Hotel. It was also the situs of international conventions and conferences. In the local
scene, it was the venue of historic meetings, parties and conventions of political parties. The Hotel
has reaped and continues reaping numerous recognitions and awards from international hotel and
travel award-giving bodies, a fitting acknowledgment of Filipino talent and ingenuity. These are
judicially cognizable facts which cannot be bent by a biased mind.
The Hotel may not, as yet, have been declared a national cultural treasure pursuant to Republic Act
No. 4846 but that does not exclude it from our national patrimony. Republic Act No. 4846, "The
Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act," merely provides a procedure whereby a
particular cultural property may be classified a "national cultural treasure" or an "important cultural
property. 32 Approved on June 18, 1966 and amended by P.D. 374 in 1974, the law is limited in its
reach and cannot be read as the exclusive law implementing section 10, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution. To be sure, the law does not equate cultural treasure and cultural property as
synonymous to the phrase "patrimony of the nation."
The third issue is whether the constitutional command to the State includes the respondent GSIS. A
look at its charter will reveal that GSIS is a government-owned and controlled corporation that
administers funds that come from the monthly contributions of government employees and the
government. 33 The funds are held in trust for a distinct purpose which cannot be disposed of
indifferently. 34 They are to be used to finance the retirement, disability and life insurance benefits of
the employees and the administrative and operational expenses of the GSIS, 35Excess funds,
however, are allowed to be invested in business and other ventures for the benefit of the
employees.36 It is thus contended that the GSIS investment in the Manila Hotel Corporation is a
simple business venture, hence, an act beyond the contemplation of section 10, paragraph 2 of
Article XII of the Constitution.
The submission is unimpressive. The GSIS is not a pure private corporation. It is essentially a public
corporation created by Congress and granted an original charter to serve a public purpose. It is
subject to the jurisdictions of the Civil Service Commission 37 and the Commission on Audit. 38 As
state-owned and controlled corporation, it is skin-bound to adhere to the policies spelled out in the
general welfare of the people. One of these policies is the Filipino First policy which the people
elevated as a constitutional command.
The fourth issue demands that we look at the content of phrase "qualified Filipinos" and their
"preferential right." The Constitution desisted from defining their contents. This is as it ought to be for
a Constitution only lays down flexible policies and principles which can bent to meet today's manifest
needs and tomorrow's unmanifested demands. Only a constitution strung with elasticity can grow as
a living constitution.
Thus, during the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission, Commissioner Nolledo to define the
phrase brushed aside a suggestion to define the phrase "qualified Filipinos." He explained that
present and prospective "laws" will take care of the problem of its interpretation, viz:
xxx xxx xxx
THE PRESIDENT. What is the suggestion 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 over aliens?
MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I think that is

understood. We use the word "QUALIFIED" because
the existing laws or the prospective laws will always
lay down conditions under which business map be
done, for example, qualifications on capital,
qualifications on the setting up of other financial
structures, et cetera.
MR. NOLLEDO Yes.
MR. RODRIGO. If we say, "PREFERENCE TO

QUALIFIED FILIPINOS," it can be understood as
giving preference to qualified Filipinos as against
Filipinos who are not qualified.
MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, that was the
intention of the proponents. The committee has
accepted the amendment.
xxx xxx xxx
As previously discussed, the constitutional command to enforce the Filipino First policy is
addressed to the State and not to Congress alone. Hence, the word "laws" should not be
understood as limited to legislations but all state actions which include applicable rules and
regulations adopted by agencies and instrumentalities of the State in the exercise of their
rule-making power. In the case at bar, the bidding rules and regulations set forth the
standards to measure the qualifications of bidders Filipinos and foreigners alike. It is not
seriously disputed that petitioner qualified to bid as did Renong Berhad. 39
Thus, we come to the critical issue of the degree of preference which GSIS should have accorded
petitioner, a qualified Filipino, over Renong Berhad, a foreigner, in the purchase of the controlling
shares of the Manila Hotel. Petitioner claims that after losing the bid, this right of preference gives it
a second chance to match the highest bid of Renong Berhad.
With due respect, I cannot sustain petitioner's submission. I prescind from the premise that the
second paragraph of section 10, Article XII of the Constitution is pro-Pilipino but not anti-alien. It is
pro-Filipino for it gives preference to Filipinos. It is not, however, anti-alien per se for it does not
absolutely bar aliens in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national
economy and patrimony. Indeed, in the absence of qualified Filipinos, the State is not prohibited
from granting these rights, privileges and concessions to foreigners if the act will promote the weal of
the nation.
In implementing the policy articulated in section 10, Article XII of the Constitution, the stellar task of
our State policy-makers is to maintain a creative tension between two desiderata — first, the need to
develop our economy and patrimony with the help of foreigners if necessary, and, second, the need
to keep our economy controlled by Filipinos. Rightfully, the framers of the Constitution did not define
the degree of the right of preference to be given to qualified Filipinos. They knew that for the right to
serve the general welfare, it must have a malleable content that can be adjusted by our policy-
makers to meet the changing needs of our people. In fine, the right of preference of qualified
Filipinos is to be determined by degree as time dictates and circumstances warrant. The lesser the
need for alien assistance, the greater the degree of the right of preference can be given to Filipinos
and vice verse.
Again, it should be stressed that the right and the duty to determine the degree of this privilege at
any given time is addressed to the entire State. While under our constitutional scheme, the right
primarily belongs to Congress as the lawmaking department of our government, other branches of
government, and all their agencies and instrumentalities, share the power to enforce this state
policy. Within the limits of their authority, they can act or promulgate rules and regulations defining
the degree of this right of preference in cases where they have to make grants involving the national
economy and judicial duty. On the other hand, our duty is to strike down acts of the state that violate
the policy.
To date, Congress has not enacted a law defining the degree of the preferential right. Consequently,
we must turn to the rules and regulations of on respondents Committee Privatization and GSIS to
determine the degree of preference that petitioner is entitled to as a qualified Filipino in the subject
sale. A tearless look at the rules and regulations will show that they are silent on the degree of
preferential right to be accorded qualified Filipino bidder. Despite their silence, however, they cannot
be read to mean that they do not grant any degree of preference to petitioner for paragraph 2,
section 10, Article XII of the Constitution is deemed part of said rules and regulations. Pursuant to
legal hermeneutics which demand that we interpret rules to save them from unconstitutionality, I
submit that the right of preference of petitioner arises only if it tied the bid of Benong Berhad. In that
instance, all things stand equal, and bidder, as a qualified Pilipino bidder, should be preferred.
It is with deep regret that I cannot subscribe to the view that petitioner has a right to match the bid of
Renong Berhad. Petitioner's submission must be supported by the rules but even if we examine the
rules inside-out .thousand times, they can not justify the claimed right. Under the rules, the right to
match the highest bid arises only "if for any reason, the highest bidder cannot be awarded block of
shares . . ." No reason has arisen that will prevent the award to Renong Berhad. It qualified as
bidder. It complied with the procedure of bidding. It tendered the highest bid. It was declared as the
highest bidder by the GSIS and the rules say this decision is final. It deserves the award as a matter
of right for the rules clearly did not give to the petitioner as a qualified Filipino privilege to match the
higher bid of a foreigner. What the rules did not grant, petitioner cannot demand. Our symphaties
may be with petitioner but the court has no power to extend the latitude and longtitude of the right of
preference as defined by the rules. The parameters of the right of preference depend on galaxy of
facts and factors whose determination belongs to the province of the policy-making branches and
agencies of the State. We are duty-bound to respect that determination even if we differ with the
wisdom of their judgment. The right they grant may be little but we must uphold the grant for as long
as the right of preference is not denied. It is only when a State action amounts to a denial of the right
that the Court can come in and strike down the denial as unconstitutional.
Finally, I submit that petitioner is estopped from assailing the winning bid of Renong Berhad.
Petitioner was aware of the rules and regulations of the bidding. It knew that the rules and
regulations do not provide that a qualified Filipino bidder can match the winning bid submitting an
inferior bid. It knew that the bid was open to foreigners and that foreigners qualified even during the
first bidding. Petitioner cannot be allowed to repudiate the rules which it agreed to respect. It cannot
be allowed to obey the rules when it wins and disregard them when it loses. If sustained, petitioners'
stance will wreak havoc on he essence of bidding. Our laws, rules and regulations require highest
bidding to raise as much funds as possible for the government to maximize its capacity to deliver
essential services to our people. This is a duty that must be discharged by Filipinos and foreigners
participating in a bidding contest and the rules are carefully written to attain this objective. Among
others, bidders are prequalified to insure their financial capability. The bidding is secret and the bids
are sealed to prevent collusion among the parties. This objective will be undermined if we grant
petitioner that privilege to know the winning bid and a chance to match it. For plainly, a second
chance to bid will encourage a bidder not to strive to give the highest bid in the first bidding.
We support the Filipino First policy without any reservation. The visionary nationalist Don Claro M.
Recto has warned us that the greatest tragedy that can befall a Filipino is to be an alien in his own
land. The Constitution has embodied Recto's counsel as a state policy. But while the Filipino First
policy requires that we incline to a Filipino, it does not demand that we wrong an alien. Our policy
makers can write laws and rules giving favored treatment to the Filipino but we are not free to be
unfair to a foreigner after writing the laws and the rules. After the laws are written, they must be
obeyed as written, by Filipinos and foreigners alike. The equal protection clause of the Constitution
protects all against unfairness. We can be pro-Filipino without unfairness to foreigner.
I vote to dismiss the petition.
Narvasa, C.J., and Melo, J., concur.

PANGANIBAN, J., dissenting:
I regret I cannot join the majority. To the incisive Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice Reynato S. Puno,
may I just add
1. The majority contends the Constitution should be interpreted to mean that, after a bidding process
is concluded, the losing Filipino bidder should be given the right to equal the highest foreign bid, and
thus to win. However, the Constitution [Sec. 10 (2), Art. XII] simply states that "in the grant of rights .
. . covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified
Filipinos." The majority concedes that there is no law defining the extent or degree of such
preference. Specifically, no statute empowers a losing Filipino bidder to increase his bid and equal
that of the winning foreigner. In the absence of such empowering law, the majority's strained
interpretation, I respectfully submit constitutes unadulterated judicial legislation, which makes
bidding a ridiculous sham where no Filipino can lose and where no foreigner can win. Only in the
Philippines!.
2. Aside from being prohibited by the Constitution, such judicial is short-sighted and, viewed
properly, gravely prejudicial to long-term Filipino interest. It encourages other countries — in the
guise of reverse comity or worse, unabashed retaliation — to discriminate against us in their own
jurisdictions by authorizing their own nationals to similarly equal and defeat the higher bids of Filipino
enterprises solely, while on the other hand, allowing similar bids of other foreigners to remain
unchallenged by their nationals. The majority's thesis will thus marginalize Filipinos as pariahs in the
global marketplace with absolute no chance of winning any bidding outside our country. Even
authoritarian regimes and hermit kingdoms have long ago found out unfairness, greed and isolation
are self-defeating and in the long-term, self-destructing.
The moral lesson here is simple: Do not do unto other what you dont want other to do unto you.
3. In the absence of a law specifying the degree or extent of the "Filipino First" policy of the
Constitution, the constitutional preference for the "qualified Filipinos" may be allowed only where all
the bids are equal. In this manner, we put the Filipino ahead without self-destructing him and without
being unfair to the foreigner.
In short, the Constitution mandates a victory for the qualified Filipino only when the scores are tied.
But not when the ballgame is over and the foreigner clearly posted the highest score.
Separate Opinions
PADILLA, J., concurring:
I concur with the ponencia of Mr. Justice Bellosillo. At the same time, I would like to expound a bit
more on the concept of national patrimony as including within its scope and meaning institutions
such as the Manila Hotel.
It is argued by petitioner that the Manila Hotel comes under "national patrimony" over which qualified
Filipinos have the preference, in ownership and operation. The Constitutional provision on point
states:
xxx xxx xxx

patrimony, the State shall Give preference to qualified Filipinos.1
Petitioner's argument, I believe, is well taken. Under the 1987 Constitution, "national patrimony"
consists of the natural resources provided by Almighty God (Preamble) in our territory (Article I)
consisting of land, sea, and air.2study of the 1935 Constitution, where the concept of "national
patrimony" originated, would show that its framers decided to adopt the even more comprehensive
expression "Patrimony of the Nation" in the belief that the phrase encircles a concept embracing not
only their natural resources of the country but practically everything that belongs to the Filipino
people, the tangible and the material as well as the intangible and the spiritual assets and
possessions of the people. It is to be noted that the framers did not stop with conservation. They
knew that conservation alone does not spell progress; and that this may be achieved only through
development as a correlative factor to assure to the people not only the exclusive ownership, but
also the exclusive benefits of their national patrimony).3
Moreover, the concept of national patrimony has been viewed as referring not only to our rich natural
resources but also to the cultural heritage of our
race.4
There is no doubt in my mind that the Manila Hotel is very much a part of our national patrimony
and, as such, deserves constitutional protection as to who shall own it and benefit from its operation.
This institution has played an important role in our nation's history, having been the venue of many a
historical event, and serving as it did, and as it does, as the Philippine Guest House for visiting
foreign heads of state, dignitaries, celebrities, and others.5
It is therefore our duty to protect and preserve it for future generations of Filipinos. As President
Manuel L. Quezon once said, we must exploit the natural resources of our country, but we should do
so with. an eye to the welfare of the future generations. In other words, the leaders of today are the
trustees of the patrimony of our race. To preserve our national patrimony and reserve it for Filipinos
was the intent of the distinguished gentlemen who first framed our Constitution. Thus, in debating
the need for nationalization of our lands and natural resources, one expounded that we should "put
more teeth into our laws, and; not make the nationalization of our lands and natural resources a
subject of ordinary legislation but of constitutional enactment"6 To quote further: "Let not our children
be mere tenants and trespassers in their own country. Let us preserve and bequeath to them what is
rightfully theirs, free from all foreign liens and encumbrances".7
Now, a word on preference. In my view "preference to qualified Filipinos", to be meaningful, must

refer not only to things that are peripheral, collateral, or tangential. It must touch and affect the very
"heart of the existing order." In the field of public bidding in the acquisition of things that pertain to the
national patrimony, preference to qualified Filipinos must allow a qualified Filipino to match or equal
the higher bid of a non-Filipino; the preference shall not operate only when the bids of the qualified
Filipino and the non-Filipino are equal in which case, the award should undisputedly be made to the
qualified Filipino. The Constitutional preference should give the qualified Filipino an opportunity to
match or equal the higher bid of the non-Filipino bidder if the preference of the qualified Filipino
bidder is to be significant at all.
It is true that in this present age of globalization of attitude towards foreign investments in our
country, stress is on the elimination of barriers to foreign trade and investment in the country. While
government agencies, including the courts should re-condition their thinking to such a trend, and
make it easy and even attractive for foreign investors to come to our shores, yet we should not
preclude ourselves from reserving to us Filipinos certain areas where our national identity, culture
and heritage are involved. In the hotel industry, for instance, foreign investors have established
themselves creditably, such as in the Shangri-La, the Nikko, the Peninsula, and Mandarin Hotels.
This should not stop us from retaining 51% of the capital stock of the Manila Hotel Corporation in the
hands of Filipinos. This would be in keeping with the intent of the Filipino people to preserve our
national patrimony, including our historical and cultural heritage in the hands of Filipinos.
VITUG, J., concurring:
I agree with Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo on his clear-cut statements, shared by Mr. Justice
Reynato S. Puno in a well written separate (dissenting) opinion, that:
First, the provision in our fundamental law which provides that "(I)n the grant of rights, privileges, and
qualified Filipinos"1 is self-executory. The provision verily does not need, although it can obviously be
amplified or regulated by, an enabling law or a set of rules.
Second, the term "patrimony" does not merely refer to the country's natural resources but also to its
cultural heritage. A "historical landmark," to use the words of Mr. Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr., Manila
Hotel has now indeed become part of Philippine heritage.
Third, the act of the Government Service Insurance System ("GSIS"), a government entity which
derives its authority from the State, in selling 51% of its share in MHC should be considered an act
of the State subject to the Constitutional mandate.
On the pivotal issue of the degree of "preference to qualified Filipinos," I find it somewhat difficult to
take the same path traversed by the forceful reasoning of Justice Puno. In the particular case before
us, the only meaningful preference, it seems, would really be to allow the qualified Filipino to match
the foreign bid for, as a particular matter, I cannot see any bid that literally calls for millions of dollars
to be at par (to the last cent) with another. The magnitude of the magnitude of the bids is such that it
becomes hardly possible for the competing bids to stand exactly "equal" which alone, under the
dissenting view, could trigger the right of preference.
It is most unfortunate that Renong Berhad has not been spared this great disappointment, a letdown
that it did not deserve, by a simple and timely advise of the proper rules of bidding along with the
peculiar constitutional implications of the proposed transaction. It is also regrettable that the Court at
time is seen, to instead, be the refuge for bureaucratic inadequate which create the perception that it
even takes on non-justiciable controversies.
All told, I am constrained to vote for granting the petition.
MENDOZA, J., concurring in the judgment:
I take the view that in the context of the present controversy the only way to enforce the
constitutional mandate that "[i]n the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national
patrimony the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos"1 is to allow petitioner Philippine
corporation to equal the bid of the Malaysian firm Renong Berhad for the purchase of the controlling
shares of stocks in the Manila Hotel Corporation. Indeed, it is the only way a qualified Filipino of
Philippine corporation can be given preference in the enjoyment of a right, privilege or concession
given by the State, by favoring it over a foreign national corporation.
Under the rules on public bidding of the Government Service and Insurance System, if petitioner and
the Malaysian firm had offered the same price per share, "priority [would be given] to the bidder
seeking the larger ownership interest in MHC,"2 so that petitioner bid for more shares, it would be
preferred to the Malaysian corporation for that reason and not because it is a Philippine corporation.
Consequently, it is only in cases like the present one, where an alien corporation is the highest
bidder, that preferential treatment of the Philippine corporation is mandated not by declaring it winner
but by allowing it "to match the highest bid in terms of price per share" before it is awarded the
shares of stocks.3 That, to me, is what "preference to qualified Filipinos" means in the context of this
case — by favoring Filipinos whenever they are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis foreigners.
This was the meaning given in Co Chiong v. Cuaderno4 to a 1947 statute giving "preference to
Filipino citizens in the lease of public market stalls."5 This Court upheld the cancellation of existing
leases covering market stalls occupied by persons who were not Filipinos and the award thereafter
of the stalls to qualified Filipino vendors as ordered by the Department of Finance. Similarly,
in Vda. de Salgado v. De la Fuente,6 this Court sustained the validity of a municipal ordinance
passed pursuant to the statute (R.A. No. 37), terminating existing leases of public market stalls and
granting preference to Filipino citizens in the issuance of new licenses for the occupancy of the
stalls. In Chua Lao v. Raymundo,7 the preference granted under the statute was held to apply to
cases in which Filipino vendors sought the same stalls occupied by alien vendors in the public
markets even if there were available other stalls as good as those occupied by aliens. "The law,
apparently, is applicable whenever there is a conflict of interest between Filipino applicants and
aliens for lease of stalls in public markets, in which situation the right to preference immediately
arises."8
Our legislation on the matter thus antedated by a quarter of a century efforts began only in the 1970s
in America to realize the promise of equality, through affirmative action and reverse discrimination
programs designed to remedy past discrimination against colored people in such areas as
employment, contracting and licensing.9 Indeed, in vital areas of our national economy, there are
situations in which the only way to place Filipinos in control of the national economy as contemplated
in the Constitution 10 is to give them preferential treatment where they can at least stand on equal
footing with aliens.
There need be no fear that thus preferring Filipinos would either invite foreign retaliation or deprive
the country of the benefit of foreign capital or know-how. We are dealing here not with common
trades of common means of livelihood which are open to aliens in our midst, 11 but with the sale of
government property, which is like the grant of government largess of benefits and concessions
covering the national economy" and therefore no one should begrudge us if we give preferential
treatment to our citizens. That at any rate is the command of the Constitution. For the Manila Hotel is
a business owned by the Government. It is being privatized. Privatization should result in the
relinquishment of the business in favor of private individuals and groups who are Filipino citizens, not
in favor of aliens.
Nor should there be any doubt that by awarding the shares of stocks to petitioner we would be
trading competence and capability for nationalism. Both petitioner and the Malaysian firm are
qualified, having hurdled the prequalification process. 12 It is only the result of the public bidding that
is sought to be modified by enabling petitioner to up its bid to equal the highest bid.
Nor, finally, is there any basis for the suggestion that to allow a Filipino bidder to match the highest
bid of an alien could encourage speculation, since all that a Filipino entity would then do would be
not to make a bid or make only a token one and, after it is known that a foreign bidder has submitted
the highest bid, make an offer matching that of the foreign firm. This is not possible under the rules
on public bidding of the GSIS. Under these rules there is a minimum bid required (P36.87 per share
for a range of 9 to 15 million shares). 13 Bids below the minimum will not be considered. On the other
hand, if the Filipino entity, after passing the prequalification process, does not submit a bid, he will
not be allowed to match the highest bid of the foreign firm because this is a privilege allowed only to
those who have "validly submitted bids." 14 The suggestion is, to say the least, fanciful and has no
basis in fact.
For the foregoing reasons, I vote to grant the petition.
TORRES, JR., J., separate opinion:
Constancy in law is not an attribute of a judicious mind. I say this as we are not confronted in the
case at bar with legal and constitutional issues — and yet I am driven so to speak on the side of
history. The reason perhaps is due to the belief that in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
Jr., a "page of history is worth a volume of logic."
I will, however, attempt to share my thoughts on whether the Manila Hotel has a historical and
cultural aspect within the meaning of the constitution and thus, forming part of the "patrimony of the
nation".
Section 10, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
xxx xxx xxx
national goals and priorities.
The foregoing provisions should be read in conjunction with Article II of the same Constitution
pertaining to "Declaration of Principles and State Policies" which ordain —
The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively
by Filipinos. (Sec. 19).
Interestingly, the matter of giving preference to "qualified Filipinos" was one of the highlights in the
1987 Constitution Commission proceedings thus:
xxx xxx xxx
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 fully controlled by
Filipinos (Vol. III, Records of the Constitutional
Commission, p. 608).
MR. MONSOD. We also wanted to add, as

Commissioner Villegas said, this committee and this
body already approved what is known as the Filipino
First policy which was suggested by Commissioner de
Castro. So that it is now in our Constitution (Vol. IV,
Records of the Constitutional Commission, p. 225).
Commissioner Jose Nolledo explaining the provision adverted to above, said:
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 the Filipinos
enterprise is also qualified, will the Filipino enterprise
still be given a preference?
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". (Vol. III, p. 616,

Records of the Constitutional Commission).
The nationalistic provisions of the 1987 Constitution reflect the history and spirit of the Malolos
Constitution of 1898, the 1935 Constitution and the 1973 Constitutions. That we have no reneged on
this nationalist policy is articulated in one of the earliest case, this Court said —
The nationalistic tendency is manifested in various provisions of the Constitution. . . .

It cannot therefore be said that a law imbued with the same purpose and spirit
underlying many of the provisions of the Constitution is unreasonable, invalid or
unconstitutional (Ichong, et al. vs. Hernandez, et al., 101 Phil. 1155).
I subscribe to the view that history, culture, heritage, and traditions are not legislated and is the
product of events, customs, usages and practices. It is actually a product of growth and acceptance
by the collective mores of a race. It is the spirit and soul of a people.
The Manila Hotel is part of our history, culture and heritage. Every inch of the Manila Hotel is witness
to historic events (too numerous to mention) which shaped our history for almost 84 years.
As I intimated earlier, it is not my position in this opinion, to examine the single instances of the legal
largese which have given rise to this controversy. As I believe that has been exhaustively discussed
in the ponencia. Suffice it to say at this point that the history of the Manila Hotel should not be placed
in the auction block of a purely business transaction, where profits subverts the cherished historical
values of our people.
As a historical landmark in this "Pearl of the Orient Seas", it has its enviable tradition which, in the
words of the philosopher Salvador de Madarriaga tradition is "more of a river than a stone, it keeps
flowing, and one must view the flowing , and one must view the flow of both directions. If you look
towards the hill from which the river flows, you see tradition in the form of forceful currents that push
the river or people towards the future, and if you look the other way, you progress."
Indeed, tradition and progress are the same, for progress depends on the kind of tradition. Let us not
jettison the tradition of the Manila Hotel and thereby repeat our colonial history.
I grant, of course the men of the law can see the same subject in different lights.
I remember, however, a Spanish proverb which says — "He is always right who suspects that he
makes mistakes". On this note, I say that if I have to make a mistake, I would rather err upholding
the belief that the Filipino be first under his Constitution and in his own land.
I vote GRANT the petition.
PUNO, J., dissenting:
This is a. petition for prohibition and mandamus filed by the Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a
domestic corporation, to stop the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) from selling the
controlling shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation to a foreign corporation. Allegedly, the sale
violates the second paragraph of section 10, Article XII of the Constitution.
Respondent GSIS is a government-owned and controlled corporation. It is the sole owner of the
Manila Hotel which it operates through its subsidiary, the Manila Hotel Corporation. Manila Hotel was
included in the privatization program of the government. In 1995, GSIS proposed to sell to interested
buyers 30% to 51% of its shares, ranging from 9,000,000 to 15,300,000 shares, in the Manila Hotel
Corporation. After the absence of bids at the first public bidding, the block of shares offered for sale
was increased from a maximum of 30% to 51%. Also, the winning bidder, or the eventual "strategic
partner" of the GSIS was required to "provide management expertise and/or an international
marketing/reservation system, and financial support to strengthen the profitability and performance
of the Manila Hotel"1 The proposal was approved by respondent Committee on Privatization.
In July 1995, a conference was held where prequalification documents and the bidding rules were
furnished interested parties. Petitioner Manila Prince Hotel, a domestic corporation, and Renong
Berhad, Malaysian firm with ITT Sheraton as operator, prequalified.2
The bidding rules and procedures entitled "Guidelines and Procedures: Second Prequalification and
Public Bidding of the MHC Privatization" provide:
I INTRODUCTION AND HIGHLIGHTS
DETERMINING THE WINNING BIDDER/STRATEGIC PARTNER
The party that accomplishes the steps set forth below will be declared the Winning
Bidder/Strategic Partner and will be awarded the Block of Shares:
First — Pass the prequalification process;
Second — Submit the highest bid on a price per share basis for the Block of Shares;
Third — Negotiate and execute the necessary contracts with GSIS/MHC not later
than October 23, 1995;
xxx xxx xxx
IV GUIDELINES FOR PREQUALIFICATION
A. PARTIES WHO MAP APPLY FOR PREQUALIFICATION
The Winning Bidder/Strategic Partner will be expected to provide

management expertise and/or an international marketing reservation
system, and financial support to strengthen the profitability and
performance of The Manila Hotel. In this context, the GSIS is inviting
to the prequalification process any local and/or foreign corporation,
consortium/joint venture or juridical entity with at least one of the
following qualifications:
a. Proven management .expertise in the hotel

industry; or
b. Significant equity ownership (i.e. board

representation) in another hotel company; or
c. Overall management and marketing expertise to

successfully operate the Manila Hotel.
Parties interested in bidding for MHC should be able to provide

access to the requisite management expertise and/or international
marketing/reservation system for The Manila Hotel.
xxx xxx xxx
D. PREQUALIFICATION DOCUMENTS
xxx xxx xxx
E. APPLICATION PROCEDURE
1. DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE AT THE REGISTRATION OFFICE
The prequalification documents can be secured at the Registration

Office between 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM during working days within the
period specified in Section III. Each set of documents consists of the
following:
a. Guidelines and Procedures: Second

Prequalification and Public Bidding of the MHC
Privatization
b. Confidential Information Memorandum: The Manila

Hotel Corporation
c. Letter of Invitation. to the Prequalification and
Bidding Conference
xxx xxx xxx
4. PREQUALIFICATION AND BIDDING CONFERENCE
A prequalification and bidding conference will be held at The Manila

Hotel on the date specified in Section III to allow the Applicant to seek
clarifications and further information regarding the guidelines and
procedures. Only those who purchased the prequalification
documents will be allowed in this conference. Attendance to this
conference is strongly advised, although the Applicant will not be
penalized if it does not attend.
5. SUBMISSION OF PREQUALIFICATION DOCUMENTS
The applicant should submit 5 sets of the prequalification documents

(1 original set plus 4 copies) at the Registration Office between 9:00
AM to 4:00 PM during working days within the period specified in
Section III.
F. PREQUALIFICATION PROCESS
1. The Applicant will be evaluated by the PBAC with

the assistance of the TEC based on the Information
Package and other information available to the PBAC.
2. If the Applicant is a Consortium/Joint Venture, the

evaluation will consider the overall qualifications of
the group, taking into account the contribution of each
member to the venture.
3. The decision of the PBAC with respect to the

results of the PBAC evaluation will be final.
4. The Applicant shall be evaluated according to the

criteria set forth below:
a. Business management expertise,

track record, and experience
b. Financial capability.
c. Feasibility and acceptability of the

proposed strategic plan for the Manila
Hotel
5. The PBAC will shortlist such number of Applicants as it may deem

appropriate.
6. The parties that prequalified in the first MHC public bidding — ITT
Sheraton, Marriot International Inc., Renaissance Hotels International
Inc., consortium of RCBC Capital/Ritz Carlton — may participate in
the Public Bidding without having to undergo the prequalification
process again.
G. SHORTLIST OF QUALIFIED BIDDERS
1. A notice of prequalification results containing the shortlist of

Qualified Bidders will be posted at the Registration Office at the date
specified in Section III.
2. In the case of a Consortium/Joint Venture, the withdrawal by

member whose qualification was a material consideration for being
included in the shortlist is ground for disqualification of the Applicant.
V. GUIDELINES FOR THE PUBLIC BIDDING
A. PARTIES WHO MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC BIDDING
All parties in the shortlist of Qualified Bidders will be eligible to

participate in the Public Bidding.
B. BLOCK OF SHARES
A range of Nine Million (9,000,000) to Fifteen Million Three Hundred

Thousand (15,300,000) shares of stock representing Thirty Percent to
Fifty-One Percent (30%-51%) of the issued and outstanding shares of
MHC, will be offered in the Public Bidding by the GSIS. The Qualified
Bidders will have the Option of determining the number of shares
within the range to bid for. The range is intended to attract bidders
with different preferences and objectives for the operation and
management of The Manila Hotel.
C. MINIMUM BID REQUIRED ON A PRICE PER SHARE BASIS
1. Bids will be evaluated on a price per share basis. The minimum bid
required on a price per share basis for the Block of Shares is Thirty-
Six Pesos and Sixty-Seven Centavos (P36.67).
2. Bids should be in the Philippine currency payable to the GSIS.
3. Bids submitted with an equivalent price per share below the

minimum required will not considered.
D. TRANSFER COSTS
xxx xxx xxx
E. OFFICIAL BID FORM

1. Bids must be contained in the prescribed Official Bid Form, a copy
of which is attached as Annex IV. The Official Bid Form must be
properly accomplished in all details; improper accomplishment may
be a sufficient basis for disqualification.
2. During the Public Bidding, the Qualified Bidder will submit the
Official Bid Form, which will indicate the offered purchase price, in a
F. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
During the Public Bidding, the following documents should be

submitted along with the bid in a separate envelop marked
"SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS":
1. WRITTEN AUTHORITY TO BID (UNDER OATH).
If the Qualified Bidder is a corporation, the representative of the

Qualified Bidder should submit a Board resolution which adequately
authorizes such representative to bid for and in behalf of the
corporation with full authority to perform such acts necessary or
requisite to bind the Qualified Bidder.
If the Qualified Bidder is a Consortium/Joint Venture, each member of

the Consortium/Joint venture should submit a Board resolution
authorizing one of its members and such member's representative to
make the bid on behalf of the group with full authority to perform such
acts necessary or requisite to bind the Qualified Bidder.
2. BID SECURITY
a. The Qualified Bidder should deposit Thirty-Three Million Pesos

(P33,000,00), in Philippine currency as Bid Security in the form of:
i. Manager's check or unconditional demand draft

payable to the "Government Service Insurance
System" and issued by a reputable banking institution
duly licensed to do business in the Philippines and
acceptable to GSIS; or
ii. Standby-by letter of credit issued by a reputable

banking institution acceptable to the GSIS.
b. The GSIS will reject a bid if:
i. The bid does not have Bid Security; or
ii. The Bid Security accompanying the bid is for less

than the required amount.
c. If the Bid Security is in the form of a manager's check or
unconditional demand draft, the interest earned on the Bid Security
will be for the account of GSIS.
d. If the Qualified Bidder becomes the winning Bidder/Strategic

Partner, the Bid Security will be applied as the downpayment on the
Qualified Bidder's offered purchase price.
e. The Bid Security of the Qualified Bidder will be returned

immediately after the Public Bidding if the Qualified Bidder is not
declared the Highest Bidder.
f. The Bid Security will be returned by October 23, 1995 if the Highest
Bidder is unable to negotiate and execute with GSIS/MHC the
Contract or other types of contract specified by the Highest Bidder in
its strategic plan for The Manila Hotel.
g. The Bid Security of the Highest Bidder will be forfeited in favor of

GSIS if the Highest Bidder, after negotiating and executing the
Contract specified by the Highest Bidder or other types of contract in
its strategic plan for The Manila Hotel, fails or refuses to:
i. Execute the Stock Purchase and Sale Agreement

with GSIS not later than October 23, 1995; or
ii. Pay the full amount of the offered purchase price

not later than October 23, 1995; or
iii. Consummate the sale of the Block of Shares for

any other reason.
G. SUBMISSION OF BIDS
1. The Public Bidding will be held on September 7, 1995 at the

following location:
New GSIS Headquarters Building

Financial Center, Reclamation Area
Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, Metro Manila.
2. The Secretariat of the PBAC will be stationed at the Public Bidding

to accept any and all bids and supporting requirements.
Representatives from the Commission on Audit and COP will be
invited to witness the proceedings.
3. The Qualified Bidder should submit its bid using the Official Bid
Form. The accomplished Official Bid Form should be submitted in a
4. The Qualified Bidder should submit the following documents
in another sealed envelope marked "SUPPORTING BID
DOCUMENTS"
a. Written Authority Bid
b. Bid Security
5. The two sealed envelopes marked "OFFICIAL BID" and

"SUPPORTING BID DOCUMENTS" must be submitted
simultaneously to the Secretariat between 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM,
Philippine Standard Time, on the date of the Public Bidding. No bid
shall be accepted after the closing time. Opened or tampered bids
shall not be accepted.
6. The Secretariat will log and record the actual time of submission of
the two sealed envelopes. The actual time of submission will also be
indicated by the Secretariat on the face of the two envelopes.
7. After Step No. 6, the two sealed envelopes will be dropped in the
corresponding bid boxes provided for the purpose. These boxes will
be in full view of the invited public.
H. OPENING AND READING OF BIDS
1. After the closing time of 2:00 PM on the date of the Public Bidding,
the PBAC will open all sealed envelopes marked "SUPPORTING BID
DOCUMENTS" for screening, evaluation and acceptance. Those who
submitted incomplete/insufficient documents or document/s which
is/are not substantially in the form required by PBAC will be
disqualified. The envelope containing their Official Bid Form will be
immediately returned to the disqualified bidders.
2. The sealed envelopes marked "OFFICIAL BID" will be opened at

3:00 PM. The name of the bidder and the amount of its bid price will
be read publicly as the envelopes are opened.
3. Immediately following the reading of the bids, the PBAC will

formally announce the highest bid and the Highest Bidder.
4. The highest bid will be, determined on a price per share basis. In
the event of a tie wherein two or more bids have the same equivalent
price per share, priority will be given to the bidder seeking the larger
ownership interest in MHC.
5. The Public Bidding will be declared a failed bidding in case:
a. No single bid is submitted within the prescribed

period; or
b. There is only one (1) bid that is submitted and
acceptable to the PBAC.

GSIS/MHC
1. The Highest Bidder must comply with the conditions set forth below
by October 23, 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 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. If the
Highest Bidder is intending to provide only financial
support to The Manila Hotel, a separate institution
may enter into the aforementioned contract/s with
GSIS/MHC.
b. The Highest Bidder must execute the Stock

Purchase and Sale Agreement with GSIS, a copy of
which will be distributed to each of the Qualified
Bidder after the prequalification process is completed.
2. In the event that the Highest Bidder chooses a Management

Contract for The Manila Hotel, the maximum levels for the
management fee structure that GSIS/MHC are prepared to accept in
the Management Contract are as follows:
a. Basic management fee: Maximum of 2.5% of gross

revenues.(1)
b. Incentive fee: Maximum of 8.0% of gross operating

profit(1) after deducting undistributed overhead
expenses and the basic management fee.
c. Fixed component of the international

marketing/reservation system fee: Maximum of 2.0%
of gross room revenues.(1) The Applicant should
indicate in its Information Package if it is wishes to
charge this fee.
Note (1): As defined in the uniform system of account for hotels.
The GSIS/MHC have indicated above the acceptable parameters for

the hotel management fees to facilitate the negotiations with the
Highest Bidder for the Management Contract after the Public Bidding.
A Qualified Bidder envisioning a Management Contract for The
Manila Hotel should determine whether or not the management fee
structure above is acceptable before submitting their prequalification
documents to GSIS.
J. BLOCK SALE TO THE OTHER QUALIFIED BIDDERS
1. 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 are willing to
match the highest bid in terms of price per share.
2. The order of priority among the interested Qualified Bidders will be

in accordance wit the equivalent price per share of their respective
bids in their public Bidding, i.e., first and second priority will be given
to the Qualified Bidders that submitted the second and third highest
bids on the price per share basis, respectively, and so on.

PARTNER
The Highest Bidder will be declared the Winning Bidder/Strategic

Partner after the following conditions are met:
a. Execution of the necessary contract with

GSIS/MHC not later than October 23, 1995; and
b. Requisite approvals from the GSIS/MHC and

COP/OGCC are obtained.
I. FULL PAYMENT FOR THE BLOCK OF SHARES
1. Upon execution of the necessary contracts with GSIS/MHC, the

Winning Bidder/Strategic Partner must fully pay, not later than
October 23, 1995, the offered purchase price for the Block of Shares
after deducting the Bid Security applied as downpayment.
2. All payments should be made in the form of a Manager's Check or

unconditional Demand Draft, payable to the "Government Service
Insurance System," issued by a reputable banking institution licensed
to do business in the Philippines and acceptable to GSIS.
M. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. The GSIS unconditionally reserves the right to reject any or all

applications, waive any formality therein, or accept such application
as maybe considered most advantageous to the GSIS. The GSIS
similarly reserves the right to require the submission of any additional
information from the Applicant as the PBAC may deem necessary.
2. The GSIS further reserves the right to call off the Public Bidding
prior to acceptance of the bids and call for a new public bidding under
amended rules, and without any liability whatsoever to any or all the
Qualified Bidders, except the obligation to return the Bid Security.
3. The GSIS reserves the right to reset the date of the

prequalification/bidding conference, the deadline for the submission
of the prequalification documents, the date of the Public Bidding or
other pertinent activities at least three (3) calendar days prior to the
respective deadlines/target dates.
4. The GSIS sells only whatever rights, interest and participation it

has on the Block of Shares.
5. All documents and materials submitted by the Qualified Bidders,

except the Bid Security, may be returned upon request.
6. The decision of the PBAC/GSIS on the results of the Public

Bidding is final. The Qualified Bidders, by participating in the Public
Bidding, are deemed to have agreed to accept and abide by these
results.
7. The GSIS will be held free and harmless form any liability, suit or
allegation arising out of the Public Bidding by the Qualified Bidders
who have participated in the Public Bidding.3
The second public bidding was held on September 18, 1995. Petitioner bidded P41.00 per share for
15,300,000 shares and Renong Berhad bidded P44.00 per share also for 15,300,000 shares. The
GSIS declared Renong Berhad the highest bidder and immediately returned petitioner's bid security.
On September 28, 1995, ten days after the bidding, petitioner wrote to GSIS offering to match the
bid price of Renong Berhad. It requested that the award be made to itself citing the second
paragraph of Section 10, Article XII of the Constitution. It sent a manager's check for thirty-three
million pesos (P33,000,000.00) as bid security.
Respondent GSIS, then in the process of negotiating with Renong Berhad the terms and conditions
of the contract and technical agreements in the operation of the hotel, refused to entertain
petitioner's request.
Hence, petitioner filed the present petition. We issued a temporary restraining order on October 18,
1995.
Petitioner anchors its plea on the second paragraph of Article XII, Section 10 of the Constitution4 on
the "National Economy and Patrimony" which provides:
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx

The vital issues can be summed up as follows:
(1) Whether section 10, paragraph 2 of Article XII of the Constitution is a self-
executing provision and does not need implementing legislation to carry it into effect;
(2) Assuming section 10 paragraph 2 of Article XII is self-executing whether the

controlling shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation form part of our patrimony as a
nation;
(3) Whether GSIS is included in the term "State," hence, mandated to implement
section 10, paragraph 2 of Article XII of the Constitution;
(4) Assuming GSIS is part of the State, whether it failed to give preference to
petitioner, a qualified Filipino corporation, over and above Renong Berhad, a foreign
corporation, in the sale of the controlling shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation;
(5) Whether petitioner is estopped from questioning the sale of the shares to Renong
Berhad, a foreign corporation.
Anent the first issue, it is now familiar learning that a Constitution provides the guiding policies and
principles upon which is built the substantial foundation and general framework of the law and
government.5 As a rule, its provisions are deemed self-executing and can be enforced without further
legislative action.6 Some of its provisions, however, can be implemented only through appropriate
laws enacted by the Legislature, hence not self-executing.
To determine whether a particular provision of a Constitution is self-executing is a hard row to hoe.

The key lies on the intent of the framers of the fundamental law oftentimes submerged in its
language. A searching inquiry should be made to find out if the provision is intended as a present
enactment, complete in itself as a definitive law, or if it needs future legislation for completion and
enforcement.7 The inquiry demands a micro-analysis of the text and the context of the provision in
question.8
Courts as a rule consider the provisions of the Constitution as self-executing,9 rather than as
requiring future legislation for their enforcement. 10 The reason is not difficult to discern. For if they
are not treated as self-executing, the mandate of the fundamental law ratified by the sovereign
people can be easily ignored and nullified by Congress. 11 Suffused with wisdom of the ages is the
unyielding rule that legislative actions may give breath to constitutional rights but congressional in
action should not suffocate them. 12
Thus, we have treated as self-executing the provisions in the Bill of Rights on arrests, searches and
seizures, 13 the rights of a person under custodial investigation, 14 the rights of an accused, 15 and the
privilege against self-incrimination, 16 It is recognize a that legislation is unnecessary to enable courts
to effectuate constitutional provisions guaranteeing the fundamental rights of life, liberty and the
protection of property. 17 The same treatment is accorded to constitutional provisions forbidding the
taking or damaging of property for public use without just compensation.18
Contrariwise, case law lays down the rule that a constitutional provision is not self-executing where it
merely announces a policy and its language empowers the Legislature to prescribe the means by
which the policy shall be carried into effect. 19 Accordingly, we have held that the provisions in Article
II of our Constitution entitled "Declaration of Principles and State Policies" should generally be
construed as mere statements of principles of the State. 20 We have also ruled that some provisions
of Article XIII on "Social Justice and Human Rights," 21 and Article XIV on "Education Science and
Technology, Arts, Culture end Sports" 22 cannot be the basis of judicially enforceable rights. Their
enforcement is addressed to the discretion of Congress though they provide the framework for
legislation 23 to effectuate their policy content. 24
Guided by this map of settled jurisprudence, we now consider whether Section 10, Article XII of the
1987 Constitution is self-executing or not. It reads:
Sec. 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning
agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by
such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas
of investments. The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the
formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.
national jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities.
The first paragraph directs Congress to reserve certain areas of investments in the
country 25 to Filipino citizens or to corporations sixty per
cent 26 of whose capital stock is owned by Filipinos. It further commands Congress to enact
laws that will encourage the formation and operation of one hundred percent Filipino-owned
enterprises. In checkered contrast, the second paragraph orders the entire State to give
preference to qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights and privileges covering the national
economy and patrimony. The third paragraph also directs the State to regulate foreign
investments in line with our national goals and well-set priorities.
The first paragraph of Section 10 is not self-executing. By its express text, there is a
categorical command for Congress to enact laws restricting foreign ownership in certain
areas of investments in the country and to encourage the formation and operation of wholly-
owned Filipino enterprises. The right granted by the provision is clearly still in esse.
Congress has to breathe life to the right by means of legislation. Parenthetically, this
paragraph was plucked from section 3, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution. 27 The provision
in the 1973 Constitution affirmed our ruling in the landmark case of Lao Ichong
v. Hernandez, 28where we upheld the discretionary authority of Congress to Filipinize certain
areas of investments. 29 By reenacting the 1973 provision, the first paragraph of section 10
affirmed the power of Congress to nationalize certain areas of investments in favor of
Filipinos.
The second and third paragraphs of Section 10 are different. They are directed to the State and not
to Congress alone which is but one of the three great branches of our government. Their coverage is
also broader for they cover "the national economy and patrimony" and "foreign investments within
[the] national jurisdiction" and not merely "certain areas of investments." Beyond debate, they cannot
be read as granting Congress the exclusive power to implement by law the policy of giving
preference to qualified Filipinos in the conferral of rights and privileges covering our national
economy and patrimony. Their language does not suggest that any of the State agency or
instrumentality has the privilege to hedge or to refuse its implementation for any reason whatsoever.
Their duty to implement is unconditional and it is now. The second and the third paragraphs of
Section 10, Article XII are thus self-executing.
This submission is strengthened by Article II of the Constitution entitled "Declaration of Principles
and State Policies." Its Section 19 provides that "[T]he State shall develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos." It engrafts the all-important Filipino
First policy in our fundamental law and by the use of the mandatory word "shall," directs its
enforcement by the whole State without any pause or a half- pause in time.
The second issue is whether the sale of a majority of the stocks of the Manila Hotel Corporation
involves the disposition of part of our national patrimony. The records of the Constitutional
Commission show that the Commissioners entertained the same view as to its meaning. According
to Commissioner Nolledo, "patrimony" refers not only to our rich natural resources but also to the
cultural heritage of our race. 30 By this yardstick, the sale of Manila Hotel falls within the coverage of
the constitutional provision giving preferential treatment to qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights
involving our national patrimony. The unique value of the Manila Hotel to our history and culture
cannot be viewed with a myopic eye. The value of the hotel goes beyond pesos and centavos. As
chronicled by Beth Day Romulo, 31 the hotel first opened on July 4, 1912 as a first-class hotel built by
the American Insular Government for Americans living in, or passing through, Manila while traveling
to the Orient. Indigenous materials and Filipino craftsmanship were utilized in its construction, For
sometime, it was exclusively used by American and Caucasian travelers and served as the "official
guesthouse" of the American Insular Government for visiting foreign dignitaries. Filipinos began
coming to the Hotel as guests during the Commonwealth period. When the Japanese occupied
Manila, it served as military headquarters and lodging for the highest-ranking officers from Tokyo. It
was at the Hotel and the Intramuros that the Japanese made their last stand during the Liberation of
Manila. After the war, the Hotel again served foreign guests and Filipinos alike. Presidents and
kings, premiers and potentates, as well as glamorous international film and sports celebrities were
housed in the Hotel. It was also the situs of international conventions and conferences. In the local
scene, it was the venue of historic meetings, parties and conventions of political parties. The Hotel
has reaped and continues reaping numerous recognitions and awards from international hotel and
travel award-giving bodies, a fitting acknowledgment of Filipino talent and ingenuity. These are
judicially cognizable facts which cannot be bent by a biased mind.
The Hotel may not, as yet, have been declared a national cultural treasure pursuant to Republic Act
No. 4846 but that does not exclude it from our national patrimony. Republic Act No. 4846, "The
Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act," merely provides a procedure whereby a
particular cultural property may be classified a "national cultural treasure" or an "important cultural
property. 32 Approved on June 18, 1966 and amended by P.D. 374 in 1974, the law is limited in its
reach and cannot be read as the exclusive law implementing section 10, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution. To be sure, the law does not equate cultural treasure and cultural property as
synonymous to the phrase "patrimony of the nation."
The third issue is whether the constitutional command to the State includes the respondent GSIS. A
look at its charter will reveal that GSIS is a government-owned and controlled corporation that
administers funds that come from the monthly contributions of government employees and the
government. 33 The funds are held in trust for a distinct purpose which cannot be disposed of
indifferently. 34 They are to be used to finance the retirement, disability and life insurance benefits of
the employees and the administrative and operational expenses of the GSIS, 35Excess funds,
however, are allowed to be invested in business and other ventures for the benefit of the
employees.36 It is thus contended that the GSIS investment in the Manila Hotel Corporation is a
simple business venture, hence, an act beyond the contemplation of section 10, paragraph 2 of
Article XII of the Constitution.
The submission is unimpressive. The GSIS is not a pure private corporation. It is essentially a public
corporation created by Congress and granted an original charter to serve a public purpose. It is
subject to the jurisdictions of the Civil Service Commission 37 and the Commission on Audit. 38 As
state-owned and controlled corporation, it is skin-bound to adhere to the policies spelled out in the
general welfare of the people. One of these policies is the Filipino First policy which the people
elevated as a constitutional command.
The fourth issue demands that we look at the content of phrase "qualified Filipinos" and their
"preferential right." The Constitution desisted from defining their contents. This is as it ought to be for
a Constitution only lays down flexible policies and principles which can bent to meet today's manifest
needs and tomorrow's unmanifested demands. Only a constitution strung with elasticity can grow as
a living constitution.
Thus, during the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission, Commissioner Nolledo to define the
phrase brushed aside a suggestion to define the phrase "qualified Filipinos." He explained that
present and prospective "laws" will take care of the problem of its interpretation, viz:
xxx xxx xxx
THE PRESIDENT. What is the suggestion 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 over aliens?
MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I think that is

understood. We use the word "QUALIFIED" because
the existing laws or the prospective laws will always
lay down conditions under which business map be
done, for example, qualifications on capital,
qualifications on the setting up of other financial
structures, et cetera.
MR. NOLLEDO Yes.
MR. RODRIGO. If we say, "PREFERENCE TO

QUALIFIED FILIPINOS," it can be understood as
giving preference to qualified Filipinos as against
Filipinos who are not qualified.
MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, that was the

intention of the proponents. The committee has
accepted the amendment.
xxx xxx xxx
As previously discussed, the constitutional command to enforce the Filipino First policy is
addressed to the State and not to Congress alone. Hence, the word "laws" should not be
understood as limited to legislations but all state actions which include applicable rules and
regulations adopted by agencies and instrumentalities of the State in the exercise of their
rule-making power. In the case at bar, the bidding rules and regulations set forth the
standards to measure the qualifications of bidders Filipinos and foreigners alike. It is not
seriously disputed that petitioner qualified to bid as did Renong Berhad. 39
Thus, we come to the critical issue of the degree of preference which GSIS should have accorded
petitioner, a qualified Filipino, over Renong Berhad, a foreigner, in the purchase of the controlling
shares of the Manila Hotel. Petitioner claims that after losing the bid, this right of preference gives it
a second chance to match the highest bid of Renong Berhad.
With due respect, I cannot sustain petitioner's submission. I prescind from the premise that the
second paragraph of section 10, Article XII of the Constitution is pro-Pilipino but not anti-alien. It is
pro-Filipino for it gives preference to Filipinos. It is not, however, anti-alien per se for it does not
absolutely bar aliens in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national
economy and patrimony. Indeed, in the absence of qualified Filipinos, the State is not prohibited
from granting these rights, privileges and concessions to foreigners if the act will promote the weal of
the nation.
In implementing the policy articulated in section 10, Article XII of the Constitution, the stellar task of
our State policy-makers is to maintain a creative tension between two desiderata — first, the need to
develop our economy and patrimony with the help of foreigners if necessary, and, second, the need
to keep our economy controlled by Filipinos. Rightfully, the framers of the Constitution did not define
the degree of the right of preference to be given to qualified Filipinos. They knew that for the right to
serve the general welfare, it must have a malleable content that can be adjusted by our policy-
makers to meet the changing needs of our people. In fine, the right of preference of qualified
Filipinos is to be determined by degree as time dictates and circumstances warrant. The lesser the
need for alien assistance, the greater the degree of the right of preference can be given to Filipinos
and vice verse.
Again, it should be stressed that the right and the duty to determine the degree of this privilege at
any given time is addressed to the entire State. While under our constitutional scheme, the right
primarily belongs to Congress as the lawmaking department of our government, other branches of
government, and all their agencies and instrumentalities, share the power to enforce this state
policy. Within the limits of their authority, they can act or promulgate rules and regulations defining
the degree of this right of preference in cases where they have to make grants involving the national
economy and judicial duty. On the other hand, our duty is to strike down acts of the state that violate
the policy.
To date, Congress has not enacted a law defining the degree of the preferential right. Consequently,
we must turn to the rules and regulations of on respondents Committee Privatization and GSIS to
determine the degree of preference that petitioner is entitled to as a qualified Filipino in the subject
sale. A tearless look at the rules and regulations will show that they are silent on the degree of
preferential right to be accorded qualified Filipino bidder. Despite their silence, however, they cannot
be read to mean that they do not grant any degree of preference to petitioner for paragraph 2,
section 10, Article XII of the Constitution is deemed part of said rules and regulations. Pursuant to
legal hermeneutics which demand that we interpret rules to save them from unconstitutionality, I
submit that the right of preference of petitioner arises only if it tied the bid of Benong Berhad. In that
instance, all things stand equal, and bidder, as a qualified Pilipino bidder, should be preferred.
It is with deep regret that I cannot subscribe to the view that petitioner has a right to match the bid of
Renong Berhad. Petitioner's submission must be supported by the rules but even if we examine the
rules inside-out .thousand times, they can not justify the claimed right. Under the rules, the right to
match the highest bid arises only "if for any reason, the highest bidder cannot be awarded block of
shares . . ." No reason has arisen that will prevent the award to Renong Berhad. It qualified as
bidder. It complied with the procedure of bidding. It tendered the highest bid. It was declared as the
highest bidder by the GSIS and the rules say this decision is final. It deserves the award as a matter
of right for the rules clearly did not give to the petitioner as a qualified Filipino privilege to match the
higher bid of a foreigner. What the rules did not grant, petitioner cannot demand. Our symphaties
may be with petitioner but the court has no power to extend the latitude and longtitude of the right of
preference as defined by the rules. The parameters of the right of preference depend on galaxy of
facts and factors whose determination belongs to the province of the policy-making branches and
agencies of the State. We are duty-bound to respect that determination even if we differ with the
wisdom of their judgment. The right they grant may be little but we must uphold the grant for as long
as the right of preference is not denied. It is only when a State action amounts to a denial of the right
that the Court can come in and strike down the denial as unconstitutional.
Finally, I submit that petitioner is estopped from assailing the winning bid of Renong Berhad.
Petitioner was aware of the rules and regulations of the bidding. It knew that the rules and
regulations do not provide that a qualified Filipino bidder can match the winning bid submitting an
inferior bid. It knew that the bid was open to foreigners and that foreigners qualified even during the
first bidding. Petitioner cannot be allowed to repudiate the rules which it agreed to respect. It cannot
be allowed to obey the rules when it wins and disregard them when it loses. If sustained, petitioners'
stance will wreak havoc on he essence of bidding. Our laws, rules and regulations require highest
bidding to raise as much funds as possible for the government to maximize its capacity to deliver
essential services to our people. This is a duty that must be discharged by Filipinos and foreigners
participating in a bidding contest and the rules are carefully written to attain this objective. Among
others, bidders are prequalified to insure their financial capability. The bidding is secret and the bids
are sealed to prevent collusion among the parties. This objective will be undermined if we grant
petitioner that privilege to know the winning bid and a chance to match it. For plainly, a second
chance to bid will encourage a bidder not to strive to give the highest bid in the first bidding.
We support the Filipino First policy without any reservation. The visionary nationalist Don Claro M.
Recto has warned us that the greatest tragedy that can befall a Filipino is to be an alien in his own
land. The Constitution has embodied Recto's counsel as a state policy. But while the Filipino First
policy requires that we incline to a Filipino, it does not demand that we wrong an alien. Our policy
makers can write laws and rules giving favored treatment to the Filipino but we are not free to be
unfair to a foreigner after writing the laws and the rules. After the laws are written, they must be
obeyed as written, by Filipinos and foreigners alike. The equal protection clause of the Constitution
protects all against unfairness. We can be pro-Filipino without unfairness to foreigner.
I vote to dismiss the petition.
Narvasa, C.J., and Melo, J., concur.
PANGANIBAN, J., dissenting:
I regret I cannot join the majority. To the incisive Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice Reynato S. Puno,
may I just add
1. The majority contends the Constitution should be interpreted to mean that, after a bidding process
is concluded, the losing Filipino bidder should be given the right to equal the highest foreign bid, and
thus to win. However, the Constitution [Sec. 10 (2), Art. XII] simply states that "in the grant of rights .
. . covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified
Filipinos." The majority concedes that there is no law defining the extent or degree of such
preference. Specifically, no statute empowers a losing Filipino bidder to increase his bid and equal
that of the winning foreigner. In the absence of such empowering law, the majority's strained
interpretation, I respectfully submit constitutes unadulterated judicial legislation, which makes
bidding a ridiculous sham where no Filipino can lose and where no foreigner can win. Only in the
Philippines!.
2. Aside from being prohibited by the Constitution, such judicial is short-sighted and, viewed
properly, gravely prejudicial to long-term Filipino interest. It encourages other countries — in the
guise of reverse comity or worse, unabashed retaliation — to discriminate against us in their own
jurisdictions by authorizing their own nationals to similarly equal and defeat the higher bids of Filipino
enterprises solely, while on the other hand, allowing similar bids of other foreigners to remain
unchallenged by their nationals. The majority's thesis will thus marginalize Filipinos as pariahs in the
global marketplace with absolute no chance of winning any bidding outside our country. Even
authoritarian regimes and hermit kingdoms have long ago found out unfairness, greed and isolation
are self-defeating and in the long-term, self-destructing.
The moral lesson here is simple: Do not do unto other what you dont want other to do unto you.
3. In the absence of a law specifying the degree or extent of the "Filipino First" policy of the
Constitution, the constitutional preference for the "qualified Filipinos" may be allowed only where all
the bids are equal. In this manner, we put the Filipino ahead without self-destructing him and without
being unfair to the foreigner.
In short, the Constitution mandates a victory for the qualified Filipino only when the scores are tied.
But not when the ballgame is over and the foreigner clearly posted the highest score.

Natural Resources Day 1

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Natural Resources Day 1

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

G.R. No.

101083 July 30, 1993

Oposa Law Office for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;

As their cause of action, they specifically allege that:

7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.

This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural

19. Defendant's refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is manifestly contrary to

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

20. Furthermore, defendant's continued refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's

b. "protect the nation's marine wealth." (Section 2, ibid);

xxx xxx xxx

Yes, Madam President. The right to healthful (sic) environment

A cause of action is defined as:

A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and

Sec. 10. No law impairing, the obligation of contracts shall be passed. 27

The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not meant to be

Narvasa, C.J., Puno and Vitug, JJ., took no part.

FELICIANO, J., concurring

(a) air quality management;

(b) water quality management;

(c) land use management;

(d) natural resources management and conservation embracing:

(i) fisheries and aquatic resources;

(ii) wild life;

(iii) forestry and soil conservation;

(iv) flood control and natural calamities;

(v) energy development;

(vi) conservation and utilization of surface and ground water

(vii) mineral resources

The second is a broader-gauge consideration — where a specific violation of law or applicable

FELICIANO, J., concurring

(a) air quality management;

(b) water quality management;

(c) land use management;

(d) natural resources management and conservation embracing:

(i) fisheries and aquatic resources;

(ii) wild life;

(iii) forestry and soil conservation;

(iv) flood control and natural calamities;

(v) energy development;

(vi) conservation and utilization of surface and ground water

(vii) mineral resources

The second is a broader-gauge consideration — where a specific violation of law or applicable

RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PROTECTED SEASCAPE TAÑON STRAIT, e.g.,

G.R. No. 181527

CENTRAL VISAYAS FISHERFOLK DEVELOPMENT CENTER (FIDEC), CERILO D. ENGARCIAL,

"Until one has loved an animal,

I concur in the result, with the following additional reasons.

Rule 3, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, in part, provides:

Article 40 further defines natural persons in the following manner:

ARTICLE 44. The following are juridical persons:

(1) The State and its political subdivisions;

SEC. 3. Representatives as parties. - Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a

This Comment advocates a shift in contemporary standing doctrine to empower non-profit

Perhaps it is time to revisit the ruling in Oposa v. Factoran.

Creative approaches to fundamental problems should be welcome. However, they should be

Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution states:

SC-46 is neither a financial assistance nor a technical assistance agreement.

VII granting the project an Environmental Compliance Certificate on March 6, 2007.51

(b) to GRANT G.R. No. 181527; and