Camp John Hay Dispute: Who Is Really on Trial Here?

It’s been months since the serene mountain retreat of Camp John Hay turned into a battleground—but as the legal dust begins to rise, so too must the truth. As always in this country, truth can be obscured by narratives crafted in press statements and headlines.

Two stories now frame public perception. One claims homeowners are suing developer CJH Development Corporation (CJHDevCo) to recover hundreds of millions in investments. The other, more recent, reveals that homeowners and golf club members have instead filed formal cases—not against CJHDevCo—but against the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA), which they allege stripped them of property and contractual rights.

In January 2025, BCDA, armed with the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the 2015 Arbitral Award, forcibly took over Camp John Hay. Immediately after the takeover, homeowners who had purchased their units in good faith under government-approved agreements found themselves padlocked out or forced to sign new lease terms that were shorter and far more costly. They were required to post ₱1.5 million in new security deposits, accept higher fees and interest charges, and agree to reduced lease durations of just 25 years. On top of that, 2,500 golf club members lost their rights overnight after BCDA revoked their SEC-registered memberships.

This abrupt and aggressive shift triggered the current wave of lawsuits. Homeowners and club members—many of them long-standing residents, community leaders, and professionals—have gone to court. Petitions for Quieting of Title are ongoing, asserting that their leasehold rights are valid until 2046. A class suit, led by former Baguio Mayor Mauricio Domogan and several others, has also been filed with the Baguio Regional Trial Court to challenge BCDA’s unilateral cancellation of memberships and restrictions on access to properties.

Clearly, the legal actions point to BCDA—not CJHDevCo—as the respondent. And yet, conflicting narratives have confused the public. One article claims approximately 35 homeowners are suing CJHDevCo to recover ₱450 million. But a review of official court records shows that, as of this writing, no such cases have been filed against CJHDevCo.

What has been confirmed are active lawsuits against BCDA, the current estate administrator. This detail is important. It clarifies who the affected parties believe is responsible for the violations, and who they expect to be held accountable under the law. It’s also worth noting that CJHDevCo has publicly offered to waive its ₱1.42 billion arbitral award—granted after nearly two decades of legal proceedings—if government authorities simply agree to protect the rights of third-party homeowners and investors.

If anything, the developer has now found itself aligned, however unexpectedly, with those seeking to preserve what they see as rights guaranteed under long-standing public-private partnership (PPP) arrangements.

This brings us to the real issue at the heart of the matter. If citizens who purchase properties under government-approved programs can be evicted at will, is any property investment in the Philippines truly safe? If contracts honored for decades can be revoked overnight, what message does that send to the investment community? If government agencies can disregard third-party rights, how can we call ourselves a rule-of-law nation?

This isn’t just about Camp John Hay anymore. It’s about every public-private partnership project in the country and whether government-backed promises are still credible.

While the court cases play out in Baguio, the larger battle may be for the future of investor trust. BCDA’s actions have pitted government authority against individual property rights. Regardless of the eventual rulings, the damage to public confidence in PPPs may already be done.

CJHDevCo, like any developer, may not be without criticism. But based on the current legal filings, it is BCDA—not the former operator—that finds itself at the center of the lawsuits. And if we follow the facts instead of the headlines, it becomes clear that the question is not whether CJHDevCo is on trial, but whether the government’s conduct toward its own citizens will be.

Because if impunity becomes the standard, then no contract, no home, and no investment is ever truly secure.