A PETITION has been filed with the Supreme Court (SC) to declare null and void for being unconstitutional the sale of the 41 hectares of reclaimed land in Parañaque City.
The petition was filed by Party-list Rep. Rodante D. Marcoleta of Sagip who claimed the property was illegally sold to private firm Manila Bay Development Corp. (MBDC) 30 years ago.
The petitioner also pleaded to the Court to compel the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), formerly Philippine Estates Authority (PEA), to repossess the property along Roxas Boulevard known as Central Business Park II where Entertainment City is located.
Marcoleta said it was sold to MBDC in August 1988 for P472,037,050 but is now worth P6 billion, citing a 2018 Department of Finance order fixing the zonal value of lands in Barangay Tambo and along Macapagal Avenue at P150,000 per square meter.
The petitioner also sought the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining the PRA from selling, transferring or conveying the property to any buyer of third-party purchaser, as well as the Parañaque City Register of Deeds from allowing registration of a new deed for any creditor or third party.
Marcoleta filed the suit as a member of the House committee on good government and public accountability and as a taxpayer.
He argued that the sale to MBDC violated the Constitution because the property is a reclaimed land supposed to be “inalienable land of public domain.”
Marcoleta said the sale was void primarily because the land, being reclaimed, has not been reclassified by the government as alienable and disposable.
He anchored his arguments on Section 2, Article XII, of the 1987 Constitution, which requires all lands of public domain to remain state-owned and not to be alienated—unless classified and declared otherwise by the government.
The petitioner also cited the 2002 decision of the SC involving the Amari Coastal Development Corp. where it held that reclaimed lands are lands of the public domain.
“Unless such lands are reclassified as alienable and disposable and declared no longer need for public use, these lands remain inalienable and, thus, are outside the commerce of man,” the 33-page petition read.
In the Amari case, the high court invalidated the conveyance by PEA of 368 hectares of reclaimed land in Manila Bay to a joint venture it formed with Amari.
“The subject reclaimed property is an inalienable land of the public domain and beyond the commerce of man. It had never become alienable nor disposable. Thus, the sale or conveyance thereof to respondent MBDC is undeniably null and void,” it added.
Marcoleta further argued that even if the subject property were properly converted to an alienable and disposable land, MBDC cannot validly purchase it since Section 3, Article XII, of the Constitution prohibits private companies from owning alienable lands of public domain.
“Undoubtedly, considering the foregoing, respondent PEA committed egregious constitutional transgressions when it sold the subject reclaimed property to respondent MBDC,” he said.