G.R. No. 133250 ; May 6, 2003
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY and AMARI COASTAL BAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

This is a Resolution resolving various motions for reconsideration of the Court’s July 9, 2002 Decision. That Decision declared the Amended Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) between the Public Estates Authority (PEA) and Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation null and void ab initio. The Court ruled that the agreement violated constitutional provisions on alienable lands of the public domain. Specifically, it involved the transfer to Amari, a private corporation, of ownership over portions of the reclaimed Freedom Islands and over still-submerged areas of Manila Bay.
Among the pending motions, respondent Amari filed a Motion to Inhibit and for Re-Deliberation against Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the ponente of the assailed Decision. Amari grounded its motion on alleged bias and prejudgment, citing a newspaper column Justice Carpio wrote in 1997 while in private practice. In that column, he commented that the Amari-PEA contract was “legally flawed because it was not bid out.” Amari argued this demonstrated pre-formed opinions requiring his inhibition and a re-deliberation of the case.

ISSUE

The primary issue resolved in this Resolution is whether Justice Antonio T. Carpio should be inhibited from the case on grounds of bias due to his prior extra-judicial statements.

RULING

The Court denied the Motion to Inhibit. The denial was based on three key legal reasons. First, the motion was filed after Justice Carpio had already rendered his opinion on the merits of the case through the promulgated Decision. Jurisprudence establishes that a litigant cannot be permitted to speculate on a court’s action and raise an inhibition objection only after an unfavorable decision has been rendered. Second, the absence of public bidding, the subject of Justice Carpio’s past column, was not a ratio decidendi or the central legal ground of the Court’s Decision. The Decision was anchored squarely on violations of specific constitutional provisions (Sections 2 and 3, Article XII) regarding the alienation of land and natural resources to private corporations. The mention of public bidding was merely ancillary. Third, justices are not disqualified simply because they have previously written or commented on legal issues involved in a case. Prior academic or professional commentary on points of law does not equate to bias or an inability to adjudicate fairly. The Court also denied Amari’s other motions, including for oral argument, finding the issues exhaustively discussed in the pleadings.