End of the road for Amari — SC official

The Amari Coastal Bay Development Corp. no longer has any legal recourse to overturn the Supreme Court’s final decision declaring its land deal with the Public Estates Authority (PEA) as unconstitutional, a Supreme Court official said yesterday.

The Supreme Court, voting 7-7-1, ruled with finality last Nov. 11 that Amari’s land deal with PEA is unconstitutional and void ab initio (from the beginning), junking a second motion for reconsideration by the two appellants.

A Supreme Court official, who asked not to be named, said the "split" voting by the justices may be interpreted by some sectors as grounds for another appeal by PEA and Amari, despite the high tribunal prohibiting the two appellants from filing further pleadings in connection with the case.

Amari lawyers are reportedly planning to file a third motion to overturn the final decision by the high court based on this "split" voting, a source said, but two possibly invalid dissenting votes mean that the decision was accepted by a clear majority of the justices.

Court insiders questioned the validity of the dissenting votes of Justices Renato Corona and Josue Bellosillo that, according to them, expressly violated court rules and the Constitution.

"Being invalid dissenting votes, the court’s resolution on the case must have carried a majority 7-5 in favor of sealing the coffin of the anomalous Amari land deal," the source said.

The source noted Corona’s dissenting vote should not be counted since it did not comply with the constitutional requirement for him to state his reasons for dissenting.

Bellosillo’s dissenting vote, on the other hand, should have been deemed void since it was submitted after the Supreme Court promulgated its decision on Nov. 11, the source added.

He cited Section 13, Article 8 of the Constitution mandating "any member (of the Supreme Court and all lower collegiate courts) who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason."

"It is clear that Justice Corona’s dissenting vote which merely stated that ‘I dissent’ without stating his reason for arriving at such a decision is in utter violation of Section 13, Article 8 of the Constitution," the source said.

Another source said Bellosillo’s dissenting vote, which stated, "I vote to grant reconsideration. Please see dissenting opinion," was submitted on Nov. 13, two days after the decision was promulgated and a day after he retired.

The source said Section 9, Rule 51 of the Rules of Court provides that a final resolution or decision becomes binding after it is promulgated, when the final resolution and separate and dissenting opinions are signed and delivered to the clerk of court for filing.

"This means that the dissenting opinion of Justice Bellosillo, which was signed and filed with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court when he was no longer a member of the Supreme Court should be invalidated," the source added.

On July 9, 2002, the Supreme Court ruled to permanently enjoin the government, through the PEA, and Amari from implementing their amended joint venture agreement for the Manila Bay reclamation project on the ground that the deal was invalid. Thirteen justices concurred with the decision penned by Justice Antonio Carpio.

Amari appealed the ruling but was denied with finality by the Court in a resolution dated May 6, 2003 with eight justices concurring and five dissenting.

The denial prompted PEA and Amari to file a second motion for reconsideration, and the Supreme Court threw it out for being a "prohibited pleading" and "without merit," with seven justices sustaining the nullification of the contract, while the other seven justices dissented. Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna took no part in the deliberation.

Those who voted in favor of sustaining the decision were Chief Justice Hilario Davide and Justices Jose Vitug, Artemio Panganiban, Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio-Morales and Romeo Callejo Sr., while those who dissented were Justices Bellosillo, Corona, Reynato Puno, Leonardo Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynarez-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez and Dante Tinga.

The Supreme Court said the PEA-Amari land deal violated the constitutional provisions expressly prohibiting the sale of foreshore and submerged areas of Manila Bay for being "inalienable lands of the public domain."

The high tribunal also noted the property was undervalued, based on official documents submitted by government agencies during a Senate investigation and that billions in bribe money were paid to secure the PEA-Amari deal.

"It is now time to write finis to this grandmother of all scams," the Supreme Court had said.

The high tribunal also said in its May 6 decision that, while the joint venture agreement is void, Amari can recover from PEA — in proper proceedings — reasonable compensation of the costs it incurred in implementing the agreement.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled last Nov. 11 that it cannot recover some P1.754 billion it paid to "bribe" various persons to secure the land deal in 1995.

PEA, the government agency in charge of public lands, entered into a joint venture deal with Amari in April 1995. Under the agreement, the Italian-Thai firm would develop and eventually gain title to 77.34 hectares of still submerged areas at Manila Bay.

But in November of the same year, former Senate president Ernesto Maceda delivered a privilege speech claiming that the contract involved a P50-billion anomaly and thus, called it the "mother of all scams."

Two Senate committees concluded in September 1997 that the deal was illegal and that the reclaimed lands cannot be transferred to Amari because these lands are public domain.

In December 1997, former President Fidel Ramos issued Presidential Administrative Order 365 creating a legal task force that would re-examine the contract.

In April 1998, however, then President Joseph Estrada ordered a renegotiation of the deal through a panel headed by then PEA chairman Arsenio Yulo, PEA director Nestor Kalaw and retired Navy officer Sergio Cruz.

Lawyer Antonio Zulueta filed a taxpayer’s suit before the SC seeking to nullify the renegotiation but this was dismissed by the court because Zulueta failed to observe the hierarchy of the court and filed his suit directly with the SC.

Former solicitor general Frank Chavez then filed a suit, arguing that the incident constitutional issues involved the civil right to information on a matter where the government stands to lose billions of pesos.

Despite the lawsuits, PEA and Amari signed in March 1999 the amended deal and Estrada approved the sale on May 28 of the same year.