7/23/2019 Cases Public Suit

1/3

CHAVEZ v. PCGG

Petitioner, invoking his constitutional right to information 3and the correlative duty of thestate to disclose pulicly all its transactions involving the national interest,4demands thatrespondents make pulic any and all negotiations and agreements pertaining to PCGG!s taskof recovering the "arcoses! ill#gotten $ealth. He claims that any compromise on the alleged

illions of ill#gotten $ealth involves an issue of %paramount pulic interest,% since it has a%deilitating e&ect on the country!s economy% that $ould e greatly pre'udicial to thenational interest of the (ilipino people. Hence, the people in general have a right to kno$ thetransactions or deals eing contrived and e&ected y the government.Petitioner, on the one hand, e)plains that as a ta)payer and citi*en, he has the legalpersonality to +le the instant petition. He sumits that since ill#gotten $ealth %elongs to the(ilipino people and is-, in truth hand in fact, part of the pulic treasury,% any compromise inrelation to it $ould constitute a diminution of the pulic funds, $hich can e en'oined y ata)payer $hose interest is for a full, if not sustantial, recovery of such assets.

esides, petitioner emphasi*e, the matter of recovering the ill#gotten $ealth of the "arcosesis an issue %of transcendental importance the pulic.% He asserts that ordinary ta)payershave a right to initiate and prosecute actions /uestioning the validity of acts or orders of

government agencies or instrumentalities, if the issues raised are %of paramount pulicinterest0% and if they %immeasuraly a&ect the social, economic, and moral $ell#eing of thepeople.%

Moreover, the mere fact that he is a citizen satises the requirement of personalinterest, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, 14 such asin this case. He invoes several decisions 1! of this "ourt which have set aside theprocedural matter of locus standi, when the sub#ect of the case involved publicinterest.

1n the other hand, the solicitor general, on ehalf of respondents, contends that petitionerhas no standing to institute the present action, ecause no e)penditure of pulic funds isinvolved and said petitioner has no actual interest in the alleged agreement. 2espondents

further insist that the instant petition is premature, since there is no sho$ing that petitionerhas re/uested PCGG to disclose any such negotiations and agreements0 or that, if he has,the Commission has refused to do so.

3ndeed, the arguments cited y petitioner constitute the controlling decisional rule asregards his legal standing to institute the instant petition. $ccess to public documentsand records is a public right, and the real parties in interest are the peoplethemselves. 1%

3nTaada v. Tuvera, 1&the Court asserted that $hen the issue concerns a pulic a right andthe o'ect ofmandamus is to otain the enforcement of a pulic duty, the people areregarded as the real parties in interest0 and ecause it is su4cient that petitioner is a citi*enand as such is interested in the e)ecution of the la$s, he need not sho$ that he has any

legal or special interest in the result of the action. 1'(n the aforesaid case, thepetitioners sought to enforce their right to be informed on matters of publicconcern, a right then recognized in )ection %, $rticle (* of the 1+&3"onstitution, 1+ in connection with the rule that laws in order to be valid andenforceable must be published in the -cial azette or otherwise e/ectivel0promulgated. (n ruling for the petitioners legal standing, the "ourt declared thatthe right the0 sought to be enforced 2is a public right recognized b0 no less thanthe fundamental law of the land.2

7/23/2019 Cases Public Suit

2/3

Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, $hile reiteratingTaada, further declared that %$hena mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the requirementof personal interest is satised b0 the mere fact that petitioner is a citizen and,therefore, part of the general public which possesses the right.2 1

(urther, inAlbano v. Reyes, $e said that $hile e)penditure of pulic funds may not have

een involved under the /uestioned contract for the development, the management and theoperation of the "anila 3nternational Container 5erminal, %pulic interest $as- de+nitelyinvolved considering the important role of the su'ect contract- . . . in the economicdevelopment of the country and the magnitude of the +nancial consideration involved.% 6econcluded that, as a conse/uence, the disclosure provision in the Constitution $ouldconstitute su4cient authority for upholding the petitioner!s standing.

)imilarl0, the instant petition is anchored on the right of the people toinformation and access to o-cial records, documents and papers 5 a rightguaranteed under )ection &, $rticle ((( of the 1+'& "onstitution. 6etitioner, aformer solicitor general, is a 7ilipino citizen. 8ecause of the satisfaction of thetwo basic requisites laid down b0 decisional law to sustain petitioners legalstanding, i.e. 91: the enforcement of a public right 9: espoused b0 a 7ilipino

citizen, we rule that the petition at bar should be allowed.

Chave* v. PEA

5he petitioner has standing to ring this ta)payer!s suit ecause the petition seeks tocompel PEA to comply $ith its constitutional duties. 5here are t$o constitutional issuesinvolved here. (irst is the right of citi*ens to information on matters of pulic concern.7econd is the application of a constitutional provision intended to insure the e/uitaledistriution of alienale lands of the pulic domain among (ilipino citi*ens. ;he thrust ofthe rst issue is to compel 6

7/23/2019 Cases Public Suit

3/3

of citizens including petitioners?members of the House of @epresentatives whoadditionall0 are suing in their capacit0 as such, the standing of petitioners to lethe present suit is grounded in #urisprudence.