Who stands to gain?

What is the real score with this PEA-Amari land controversy? Is this just a case of competitive elimination? Is the Amari deal being singled out? Who stands to gain?

The Supreme Court is about to come with its decision on Amari soon. Like the Kuratong case of Lacson, this Amari land deal had been through so much scrutiny it begs the question what else has not been unearthed? Two very important implications and consequences.

One, if the Supreme Court (SC) upholds the contract between Public Estates Authority (PEA) and Cyber Bay (formerly Amari) as void ab initio due to possible violation of the constitutional provision that prohibits private corporations from acquiring lands of public domain, then simply put all contracts that PEA signed since 1981 are null and void.

Documents obtained from PEA pointed out that all the previous contracts entered into by PEA entailed transferring to the developer or private corporation the reclaimed lands as payment for undertaking the reclamation or the development of reclaimed properties. Right now most if not all the developers of these reclaimed areas already have their titles to these reclaimed lands. Most if not all them have mortgaged these to finance their projects.

A span of 12 years translates to a lot of land deals that will be obliterated if such is the case. A spate of banks and financial institutions would have to declare some sort of bankruptcy.

Would these mean that the SM mall being built along Roxas Blvd. will suffer the same fate? By virtue of the SC decision, yes. And all the other developers could now be called losers. The list is long, but those joining are Henry Sy and Cyber Bay are DM Wenceslao & Jan de Nul Consortium, Royal Asia, TOA Corp., FF Cruz, SEAOIL, Bacolod Real Estate Development Corp., Construction Development Corporation and Ramon Chuanico.

It would seem now that PD 1084 which created PEA, the order that tasked the agency "to develop, improve, acquire, lease and sell any and all kinds of lands," was from the start flawed as it violates the Constitution. How could it be that it is only after 12 years that this matter was brought up?

The 13 justices at the SC led no other than Justice Antonio Carpio are adamant in settling the Amari issue by reducing the argument into alienable lands. Lands of public domain can only be sold to private individuals and leased to private corporations for a period of 25 years. Justice Carpio insists that since the Amari land in question falls into this category, then simply put, the deal is off, the contract is null and void. Even if the reclaimed lands have been titled, they remain to be lands of the public domain and can never be transferred to private corporations.

Of course the present SC is correct in its arguments.

But is there anyone looking into why all of a sudden, there is this vigorous and relentless drive to prove all the other probers and investigators before as wrong. Who wants this Amari deal nullified? Who wants to kick out Cyber Bay from the picture? Who wants to call for another bidding or a new round of negotiations? Who stands to lose is clear. But what the public needs to know is who stands to gain.

For comments, e-mail at [email protected]