Delay in the demolition of American-era structures inside Camp John Hay prevented CJHDC from commencing development.
Delay in the issuance of implementing rules deprived CJHDC of its SEZ tax benefits.
CJHDC dutifully paid the 1997 rental, but it did not agree to pay the 1998 rental until the BCDA delivered on its obligations.
Four years after the Supreme Court declared in 2003 as unconstitutional the grant of the tax and financial incentives to CJHDC, the government enacted remedial legislation to restore incentives to CJHDC.
Last month, after 10 years, the center ruled that CJHDC must vacate Camp John Hay, and so the BCDA apparently thought it wise to implement the ruling by itself right away, preferably through a forcible takeover with goons.
It did not matter to the BCDA that the PDRCI also ruled that, actually, it was the BCDA that violated the joint venture agreement with CJHDC and that the BCDA must pay CJHDC some P1.
4 billion to CJHDC, and on the other, the termination of the joint venture agreement.
Thus CJHDC claimed that, until then, while it should wait for the RTC confirmation and the BCDA payment of the P1.
The authority then filed several cases against CJHDC, including the "squatting" case and other inconsequential cases like "estafa.
At the center of all the legalese screaming in court, plus all the hemming and hawing in media, is this not-too-simple question: How much does CJHDC must pay the BCDA in rental.
To settle the issue once and for all, CJHDC filed an arbitration case, something that can force both sides to submit themselves to the decision of a knowledgeable referee like the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center (PDRCI).
In no time, the BCDA also manages to launch a media war against CJHDC, including expensive full-page advertisements in newspapers.