BAGUIO CITY, Philippines – The long-running dispute over Camp John Hay has taken another turn as the Sobrepeña-led Camp John Hay Development Corporation (CJHDevCo) issued a new statement reaffirming its position on the rights of property owners, while the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) defended its enforcement of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
CJHDevCo, in its latest statement, asserts that property owners, who purchased homes, condotel units, and commercial spaces, should not be forcibly evicted from Camp John Hay. The company argues that these investors are not mere sub-lessees but legitimate owners of improvements they financed and built in good faith, based on assurances from the government’s Public-Private Partnership (PPP) initiative.
BCDA, however, refutes these claims, maintaining that CJHDevCo had no legal authority to sell these properties as real estate and that any transactions under its lease agreement were invalid once the lease was rescinded. The agency states that it is merely enforcing the Supreme Court decision, which affirmed the rescission of CJHDevCo’s lease and mandated the turnover of the 247-hectare property to BCDA.
A timeline of the Camp John Hay saga
To understand the depth of the dispute, it is crucial to revisit the key events leading to the current situation:
1991 – Following the withdrawal of the US military from its Philippine bases, Camp John Hay was initially turned over to the Department of Tourism (DOT) for redevelopment.
1992 – The BCDA was established through Republic Act 7227, taking over the responsibility of managing former military bases, including Camp John Hay.
1996 – BCDA signed a lease agreement with CJHDevCo, granting the private developer a 25-year lease over a 247-hectare portion of Camp John Hay. CJHDevCo was expected to develop the area into a world-class tourism and residential destination.
Early 2000s – CJHDevCo began selling residential units, condotel spaces, and commercial properties under various agreements, including “Contracts to Sell” and “Leaseback Agreements.”
2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a Cease and Desist Order against CJHDevCo, ruling that it was selling securities without proper registration. The Court of Appeals initially annulled the order, but the Supreme Court later upheld the SEC’s findings in 2016.
2012 – CJHDevCo filed a case with the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center Incorporated (PDRCI), seeking to rescind its lease agreement with BCDA and claim damages. This move was seen as an effort to terminate its contractual obligations while continuing to sell subleases and investment shares.
2015 – The arbitration panel ruled that both CJHDevCo and BCDA had violated their lease agreement, leading to the rescission of the contract. The ruling mandated that CJHDevCo vacate Camp John Hay while BCDA was ordered to return P1.4 billion in lease payments.
October 2024 – The Supreme Court upheld the arbitration ruling, making it final and executory. BCDA was granted full control over Camp John Hay, while CJHDevCo was ordered to vacate the premises.
January 6, 2025 – The Baguio Regional Trial Court enforced the Supreme Court decision, with court sheriffs serving Notices to Vacate. BCDA officially reclaimed Camp John Hay, including The Manor, The Forest Lodge, and the Camp John Hay Golf Course.
February 2025 – CJHDevCo issued new statements alleging that BCDA is unfairly evicting property owners without compensation, arguing that the Supreme Court ruling did not specifically mandate the eviction of unit owners.
CJHDevCo’s latest statement
In its statement on Tuesday, February 4, CJHDevCo reiterates that investors and property owners should not be forcibly removed from their homes and businesses. The company contends that:
• BCDA initially encouraged public investments in Camp John Hay under the government’s PPP program, leading investors to purchase homes, condotel units, and commercial spaces in good faith.
• Investors are not sub-lessees but rightful owners of improvements they financed and developed, meaning their properties should not be forfeited without due process.
• BCDA’s enforcement actions contradict the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling, which CJHDevCo claims did not explicitly order the eviction of third-party buyers.
• The Supreme Court’s decision acknowledged that BCDA was in breach of its obligations, as reflected in the P1.4 billion refund order, suggesting that BCDA should bear some responsibility for the situation.
CJHDevCo further claims that BCDA is unfairly profiting from the eviction process, as the government agency stands to gain control over high-value real estate assets without compensating previous investors.
BCDA’s response
The BCDA, in its latest statement on January 31, refuted CJHDevCo’s allegations and reaffirmed its position:
• Under the 1996 lease agreement, CJHDevCo was only a lessee and never had the authority to sell property outright. Any sales made under this agreement were unauthorized and invalid.
• The SEC’s 2012 Cease and Desist Order and subsequent Supreme Court rulings confirmed that CJHDevCo engaged in unauthorized transactions, reinforcing BCDA’s stance that these agreements cannot be honored.
• While some unit owners are appealing for humanitarian consideration, BCDA cannot validate contracts that were legally questionable from the beginning. Allowing these agreements to continue would mean legitimizing CJHDevCo’s unauthorized sales.
• The Supreme Court ruling explicitly upheld the arbitral decision, which included the rescission of CJHDevCo’s lease. This means BCDA has full legal authority to take possession of the property.
• BCDA emphasizes that it is implementing a court order, not executing a hostile takeover. The agency argues that the true accountability lies with CJHDevCo, which continued selling property even while its lease agreement was in legal jeopardy.
With both CJHDevCo and BCDA holding firm in their positions, the future of affected property owners remains uncertain. Some investors and unit owners have sought the intervention of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., calling for a compromise that would allow them to remain in their properties or receive compensation.
Meanwhile, BCDA has begun signing new lease agreements with commercial establishments and residential lessees under its direct oversight. The agency remains focused on its plan to redevelop Camp John Hay into a sustainable tourism and investment hub.
As the Camp John Hay dispute intensifies, a resolution remains elusive. Will affected property owners seek redress from CJHDevCo, the entity that sold them their investments? Or will they continue appealing to BCDA for an alternative solution?
One thing is certain: the outcome of this conflict will have lasting implications for the future of one of Baguio’s most historic landmarks. – Rappler.com
