|
THE
Supreme Court (SC) has spoken with finality, upholding
as legal and binding the 1993 contract to develop Smokey
Mountain into a low-cost housing project between the
National Housing Authority (NHA) and R-II Builders Inc.
(RBI).
The
resolution dismissed the motion for reconsideration (MR)
filed by former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez,
seeking the reversal of its August 15, 2007, decision
denying Chavez’s motion for a writ of prohibition,
because Chavez failed to raise new arguments to warrant
a reversal.
“An
examination of the issues raised in the motion for
reconsideration reveals that they are substantially the
same issues which have been sufficiently passed upon,
extensively discussed, and resolved in the assailed
decision. Thus, further discussion of the points raised
in the motion for reconsideration would be a mere
repetition of the decision already rendered.”
The
Court said the only new issue in the MR is the
contention of Chavez that the denial of his petition is
premature, considering that it granted his prayer for
mandamus to compel respondents to disclose all documents
and information relating to the project.
“Petitioner is saying that the petition will be
supported by the information that will be revealed from
the records of the NHA. Such should not be the case.
Petitioner must have a cause of action as basis for
filing a petition with this Court, anchored on
undisputed facts. With the admission that the facts to
prop up the petition will still have to be procured from
the NHA, then the petition is clearly baseless for want
of factual support,” said the SC.
Chavez’s
new argument, according to the High Tribunal, only
confirms its findings that the petition has no basis,
and thus should be dismissed.
Chavez
sought to scrutinize documents which include the March
19, 1993, joint venture agreement between the NHA and
RBI, and the subsequent agreements related to the JVA,
the revisions of the original plan, as well as the
additional works incurred on, and the transactions made,
the project.
In his
original petition, Chavez said the RBI cannot acquire
the reclaimed lands because no law authorized their
sale. The former solicitor general noted that NHA has no
legislative authority to sell and reclaim land, as such
power belongs to the Public Estates Authority (PEA).
The
Court held otherwise. The NHA “had more than enough
authority” to reclaim the lands under existing laws.
The SC
pointed out that while PEA, under Presidential Decree
1084, has the power to reclaim land and under Executive
Order 525 is primarily responsible for integrating,
directing and coordinating reclamation projects, such
authority is not exclusive and such power to reclaim may
be granted or delegated to another government agency or
entity or may even be undertaken by the national
government.
The
Court said the project met all three requirements for a
legal and valid reclamation project—approval by the
President, favorable endorsement granted by PEA and the
reclamation was undertaken by either the PEA or a
national government agency authorized under its charter
to reclaim lands, subject to consultation with PEA.
|
