In a statement, Central Bay Reclamation and Development Corp. — formerly Amari Coastal Bay Development Corp. — said it had asked the high tribunal to disregard the petition from the Office of the Solicitor General, arguing that the OSG is not a party to the case.
It pointed out that since the Public Estates Authority (PEA) — with which Central Bay concluded the deal — relied on its own lawyers and filed its own appeal, the PEA appeared to be representing itself.
Central Bay added that the PEA relied on its own internal legal counsel "because of conflicting positions with the OSG" on the court’s decision to nullify the deal. It did not elaborate.
In early July, the Supreme Court junked Central Bay’s multibillion-peso contract with the PEA to develop 153 hectares of land reclaimed from Manila Bay along Roxas Boulevard.
It said the "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."
In its appeal for reconsideration, Central Bay – then known as Amari – said the decision "resulted in immeasurable damage" to investor confidence to do business in the country.
Last week, a Central Bay official, Ray Espinosa, said in a newspaper advertisement that the government should reimburse the P9.4 billion the company incurred in developing the land if the deal doesn’t push through.
Former solicitor general Francisco Chavez, who sought the nullification of the land deal in 1998, has filed a motion against Espinosa.
He asked the court to cite him for contempt for making the statement which, Chavez said, was tantamount to a threat.
"The statements are contumacious in character. He also attempts to bamboozle the high tribunal into reversing its decision by advancing a grim scenario of the company folding up," he said in his motion.
Likewise appealing the decision, the OSG had asked the court to clarify its July 9 ruling. Solicitor General Simeon Marcelo argued that the reclaimed lands were considered "patrimonial properties" of the PEA which can be sold to "qualified private corporations."
The decision "creates a state of uncertainty" on other major reclamation projects of the PEA, some of which have already been completed, he said in his appeal.
Being the legal counsel of the government, the OSG is mandated to defend the government and its agencies in court.
Questioning the appeal, Central Bay said the OSG appeared to be acting "on its own behalf rather than on behalf of the PEA."
"This is markedly different from the previous pleadings and motions filed by the OSG on behalf of the PEA," Central Bay said in its petition.
It also said the PEA "appears to be defending itself not only from petitioner but from its counsel of record as well."
"It goes without saying that there appears to be something fundamentally iniquitous when a client feels impelled to file its own pleadings to answer the pleading filed by its counsel supposedly on behalf of such client," Central Bay said.
In 1995, the PEA — the government agency in charge of public lands — entered into a joint venture deal with Amari in which the firm would develop and eventually gain title to the reclaimed land.
But in November of the same year, then Senate President Ernesto Maceda delivered a privilege speech describing the deal as the "mother of all scams" that shortchanged the government by about P50 billion.
In 1997, then President Fidel Ramos ordered a review of the contract after two Senate committees concluded that the deal was illegal and that the reclaimed lands cannot be transferred to Amari because these lands are public domain. — Delon Porcalla