Right to Information Case Digests

7/21/2019 Right to Information Case Digests

1/22

RIGHT TO INFORMATION CASE DIGESTS

Chavez v. Pea and Amari

Fact:

In 1973, the Comissioner on Public Highways entered into a contract to reclaim areas of anila !ay with

the Construction and "e#elo$ment Cor$ortion of the Phili$$ines %C"CP&'

P() %Public (states )uthority& was created by President arcos under P'"' 1*+, tas-ed with de#elo$ing

and leasing reclaimed lands' .hese lands were transferred to the care of P() under P'"' 1*+/ as $art of

the anila Ca#ite 0oad and 0eclamation Proect %C00P&' C"CP and P() entered into an agreement

that all future $roects under the C00P would be funded and owned by P()'

!y 19++, President )2uino issued $ecial Patent 4o' 3/17 transferring lands to P()' It was followed by

the transfer of three .itles %73*9, 7311 and 7315& by the 0egister of "eeds of Parana2ue to P() co#ering

the three reclaimed islands -nown as the F0(("6 I)4"'

ubs2uently, P() entered into a oint #enture agreement %8)& with ))0I, a .haiPhili$$inecor$oration to de#elo$ the Freedom Islands' )long with another 5/* hectares, P() and ))0I entered

the 8) which would later transfer said lands to ))0I' .his caused a stir es$ecially when en' aceda

assailed the agreement, claiming that such lands were $art of $ublic domain %famously -nown as the

;mother of all scams$ayer $raying for mandamus, a writ of $reliminary inunction

and a .06 against the sale of reclaimed lands by P() to ))0I and from im$lementing the 8)'

Following these e#ents, under President (strada?s admin, P() and ))0I entered into an )mended 8)

and r' Cha#es claim that the contract is null and #oid'

Issue:w@n: the transfer to ))0I lands reclaimed or to be reclaimed as $art of the sti$ulations in the

%)mended& 8) between ))0I and P() #iolate ec' 3 )rt' AII of the 19+7 Constitution

w@n: the court is the $ro$er forum for raising the issue of whether the amended oint #enture agreement is

grossly disad#antageous to the go#ernment'

Held:

6n the issue of )mended 8) as #iolating the constitution:

1' .he 1/7'+ hectares of reclaimed lands com$rising the Freedom Islands, now co#ered by certificates of

title in the name of P(), are alienable lands of the $ublic domain' P() may lease these lands to $ri#ate

cor$orations but may not sell or transfer ownershi$ of these lands to $ri#ate cor$orations' P() may only

sell these lands to Phili$$ine citi=ens, subect to the ownershi$ limitations in the 19+7 Constitution ande>isting laws'

5' .he /95'1/ hectares of submerged areas of anila !ay remain inalienable natural resources of the

$ublic domain until classified as alienable or dis$osable lands o$en to dis$osition and declared no longer

needed for $ublic ser#ice' .he go#ernment can ma-e such classification and declaration only after P()

has reclaimed these submerged areas' 6nly then can these lands 2ualify as agricultural lands of the $ublic


2/22

domain, which are the only natural resources the go#ernment can alienate' In their $resent state, the

/95'1/ hectares of submerged areas are inalienable and outside the commerce of man'

3' ince the )mended 8) see-s to transfer to ))0I, a $ri#ate cor$oration, ownershi$ of 77'3

hectares11* of the Freedom Islands, such transfer is #oid for being contrary to ection 3, )rticle AII of

the 19+7 Constitution which $rohibits $ri#ate cor$orations from ac2uiring any -ind of alienable land of

the $ublic domain'

' ince the )mended 8) also see-s to transfer to ))0I ownershi$ of 59*'1/B hectares111 of still

submerged areas of anila !ay, such transfer is #oid for being contrary to ection 5, )rticle AII of the

19+7 Constitution which $rohibits the alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the

$ublic domain'

P() may reclaim these submerged areas' .hereafter, the go#ernment can classify the reclaimed lands as

alienable or dis$osable, and further declare them no longer needed for $ublic ser#ice' till, the transfer of

such reclaimed alienable lands of the $ublic domain to ))0I will be #oid in #iew of ection 3, )rticle

AII of the 19+7Constitution which $rohibits $ri#ate cor$orations from ac2uiring any -ind of alienable

land of the $ublic domain'

)0CI) !6)0" 6F I4(.(4.

'0' 4o' 95*5 4o#ember 9 199*

F)C.:

.he !ataan Petrochemical Cor$oration %!PC&, a .aiwanese $ri#ate cor$oration, a$$lied for registration

with the !oard of In#estments %!6I& in February 19++ as a new domestic $roducer of $etrochemicals in

the Phili$$ines' It originally s$ecified the $ro#ince of !ataan as the site for the $ro$osed in#estment but

later submitted an amended a$$lication to change the site to !atangas' Dnha$$y with the change of the

site, Congressman (nri2ue arcia of the econd "istrict of !ataan re2uested a co$y of !PC?s original

and amended a$$lication documents' .he !oI denied the re2uest on the basis that the in#estors in !PC

had declined to gi#e their consent to the release of the documents re2uested, and that )rticle +1 of the

6mnibus In#estments Code $rotects the confidentiality of these documents absent consent to disclose'

.he !oI subse2uently a$$ro#ed the amended a$$lication without holding a second hearing or $ublishing

notice of the amended a$$lication' arcia filed a $etition before the u$reme Court'

ID(: Ehether or not the !oI committed gra#e abuse of discretion in yielding to the wishes of the

in#estor, national interest notwithstanding'

0DI4:
http://skinnycases.blogspot.com/2013/11/garcia-vs-board-of-investments.htmlhttp://skinnycases.blogspot.com/2013/11/garcia-vs-board-of-investments.html


3/22

.he Court ruled that the !oI #iolated arcia?s Constitutional right to ha#e access to information on

matters of $ublic concern under )rticle III, ection 7 of the Constitution' .he Court found that the

inhabitants of !ataan had an ;interest in the establishment of the $etrochemical $lant in their midst thatG

is actual, real, and #ital because it will affect not only their economic life, but e#en the air they breatheem$ted by law from the o$eration of the guarantee' .o hold otherwise will ser#e to dilute the

constitutional right' )s a$tly obser#ed, J' ' ' the go#ernment is in an ad#antageous $osition to marshall

and inter$ret arguments against release ' ' 'J %+7 Har#ard aw 0e#iew 1/11 197G&' .o safeguard the

constitutional right, e#ery denial of access by the go#ernment agency concerned is subect to re#iew by

the courts, and in the $ro$er case, access may be com$elled by a writ of andamus'

In determining whether or not a $articular information is of $ublic concern there is no rigid test which can

be a$$lied' JPublic concernJ li-e J$ublic interestJ is a term that eludes e>act definition' !oth terms

embrace a broad s$ectrum of subects which the $ublic may want to -now, either because these directlyaffect their li#es, or sim$ly because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citi=en' In the

final analysis, it is for the courts to determine in a case by case basis whether the matter at issue is of

interest or im$ortance, as it relates to or affects the $ublic'

b' In the instant, case while refusing to confirm or deny the claims of eligibility, the res$ondent

has failed to cite any $ro#ision in the Ci#il er#ice aw which would limit the $etitioners right to -now

who are, and who are not, ci#il ser#ice eligibles' Ee ta-e udicial notice of the fact that the names of those

who $ass the ci#il ser#ice e>aminations, as in bar e>aminations and licensure e>aminations for #arious

$rofessions, are released to the $ublic' Hence, there is nothing secret about ones ci#il ser#ice eligibility, if

actually $ossessed' Petitioners re2uest is, therefore, neither unusual nor unreasonable' )nd when, as in

this case, the go#ernment em$loyees concerned claim to be ci#il ser#ice eligibles, the $ublic, through anyciti=en, has a right to #erify their $rofessed eligibilities from the Ci#il er#ice Commission'

.he ci#il ser#ice eligibility of a sanitarian being of $ublic concern, and in the absence of e>$ress

limitations under the law u$on access to the register of ci#il ser#ice eligibles for said $osition, the duty of

the res$ondent Commission to confirm or deny the ci#il ser#ice eligibility of any $erson occu$ying the

$osition becomes im$erati#e' andamus, therefore lies'


5/22

EH(0(F60(, the Ci#il er#ice Commission is ordered to o$en its register of eligibles for the $osition

of sanitarian, and to confirm or deny, the ci#il ser#ice eligibility of 8ulian ibonghanoy and ariano

)gas, for said $osition in the Health "e$artment of Cebu City, as re2uested by the $etitioner alentin '

egas$i'

Chavez v. PCGG, 299 SCRA 7

F)C.: Petitioner as-s this Court to define the nature and the e>tent of the $eo$le?s constitutional right to

information on matters of $ublic concern' Petitioner, in#o-ing his constitutional right to information and

the correlati#e duty of the state to disclose $ublicly all its transactions in#ol#ing the national interest,

demands that res$ondents ma-e $ublic any and all negotiations and agreements $ertaining to PC?s

tas- of reco#ering the arcoses? illgotten wealth'

ID(: )re the negotiations leading to a settlement on illgotten wealth of the arcoses within the sco$e

of the constitutional guarantee of access to information

H(": Kes' Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution, it is incumbent u$on the PC and

its officers, as well as other go#ernment re$resentati#es, to disclose sufficient $ublic information on any

$ro$osed settlement they ha#e decided to ta-e u$ with the ostensible owners and holders of illgotten

wealth' uch information, though, must $ertain to definite $ro$ositions of the go#ernment, not necessarily

to intraagency or interagency recommendations or communications during the stage when common

assertions are still in the $rocess of being formulated or are in the ;e>$loratory< stage' .here is a need, of

course, to obser#e the same restrictions on disclosure of information in general such as on matters

in#ol#ing national security, di$lomatic or foreign relations, intelligence and other classified information'

GON!A"ES #S. NAR#ASA

G.R. N$. %&'(), A*+*- % 2&&&

F)C.:

Petitioner 0amon )' on=ales, in his ca$acity as a citi=en and ta>$ayer, filed a $etition for $rohibition

and mandamus filed on "ecember 9, 1999, assailing the constitutionality of the creation of the

Pre$aratory Commission on Constitutional 0eform %PCC0& and of the $ositions of $residential

consultants, ad#isers and assistants' .he Pre$aratory Commission on Constitutional 0eform %PCC0& was

created by President (strada on 4o#ember 5B, 199+ by #irtue of (>ecuti#e 6rder4o' 3 %('6' 4o' 3& in

order ;to study and recommend $ro$osed amendmentsand@or re#isions to the 19+7 Constitution, and

the manner of im$lementing the same'< Petitioner dis$utes the constitutionality of the PCC0 based on the

grounds that it is a $ublic office which only the legislature can create by way of a law'

ID(:

Ehether or not the $etitioner has a legal standing to assail the constitutionality of(>ecuti#e 6rder 4o' 3


6/22

H(":

.he Court dismissed the $etition' ) citi=en ac2uires standing only if he can establish that he has suffered

some actual or threatened inury as a result of theallegedly illegal conduct of the go#ernmentL the inury is

fairly traceable to the challenged actionL and the inury is li-ely to be redressed by a fa#orable action'

Petitioner has not shown that he has sustained or is in danger of sustaining any $ersonal

inury attributable to the creation of the PCC0' If at all, it is only Congress, not $etitioner, which

can claim any ;inury< in this case since, according to $etitioner, the President has encroached u$on the

legislature?s $owers to create a $ublic office and to $ro$ose amendments to the Charter by forming the

PCC0' Petitioner has sustained no direct, or e#en any indirect, inury' 4either does he claim that his

rights or $ri#ileges ha#e been or are in danger of being #iolated, nor that he shall be subected to any

$enalties or burdens as a result of the PCC0?s acti#ities' Clearly, $etitioner has failed to establish his

locus standi so as to enable him to see- udicial redress as a citi=en'

Furthermore, a ta>$ayer is deemed to ha#e the standing to raise a constitutional issue when it is

established that $ublic funds ha#e been disbursed in alleged contra#ention of the law or the Constitution'

It is readily a$$arent that there is no e>ercise by Congress of its ta>ing or s$ending $ower' .he PCC0was created by the President by #irtue of ('6' 4o' 3, as amended by ('6' 4o' 7*' Dnder section 7 of

('6' 4o' 3, the amount of P3 million is ;a$$ro$riated< for its o$erational e>$enses ;to be sourced from

the funds of the 6ffice of the President'< !eing that case, $etitioner must show that he is a real $arty in

interest that he will stand to be benefited or inured by the udgment or that he will be entitled to the

a#ails of the suit' 4owhere in his $leadings does $etitioner $resume to ma-e such a re$resentation'

#am$n-e v. /em$n-e 0GR 79(&, %( Fe1r*ar %9'93

Facts: 0icardo almonte wrote Feliciano !elmonte 8r' on 8une 19+B, re2uesting to be Jfurnished with

the list of names of the o$$osition members of %the& !atasang Pambansa who were able to secure a clean

loan of P5 million each on guaranty %sic& of rs' Imelda arcosJ and also to Jbe furnished with the

certified true co$ies of the documents e#idencing their loan' (>$enses in connection herewith shall be

borne byJ almonte, et' al' "ue to serious legal im$lications, President M eneral anager Feliciano

!elmonte, 8r' referred the letter to the "e$uty eneral Counsel of the I, eynardo )' .iro' .iro

re$lied that it is his o$inion Jthat a confidential relationshi$ e>ists between the I and all those who

borrow from it, whoe#er they may beL that the I has a duty to its customers to $reser#e this

confidentialityL and that it would not be $ro$er for the I to breach this confidentiality unless so

ordered by the courts'J 6n 5* 8une 19+B, a$$arently not ha#ing yet recei#ed the re$ly of the o#ernment

er#ice and Insurance ystem %I& "e$uty eneral Counsel, almonte wrote !elmonte another letter,

saying that for failure to recei#e a re$ly J%E&e are now considering oursel#es free to do whate#er actionnecessary within the $remises to $ursue our desired obecti#e in $ursuance of $ublic interest'J 6n 5B 8une

19+B, 0icardo almonte, 6swaldo Carbonell, "oy "el Castillo, 0olando !artolome, eo 6bligar, 8un

utierre=, 0eynaldo !agatsing, 8un J4inoyJ )lba, Percy a$id, 0ommel Corro, and 0olando Fadul filed

a s$ecial ci#il action for mandamus with $reliminary inunction in#o-e their right to information and $ray

that !elmonte be directed: %a& to furnish almonte, et' al' the list of the names of the !atasang Pambansa

members belonging to the D4I"6 and P"Paban who were able to secure clean loans immediately

before the February 7 election thru the intercession@marginal note of the then First ady Imelda arcosL


7/22

and@or %b& to furnish $etitioners with certified true co$ies of the documents e#idencing their res$ecti#e

loansL and@or %c& to allow $etitioners access to the $ublic records for the subect information'

Issue: Ehether almonte, et' al' may access I records $ertaining to behest loans secured by Imelda

arcos in fa#or of certain members of the o$$osition in the !atasang Pambansa'

Held: .he $ertinent $ro#ision under the 19+7 Constitution is )rt' 111, ec' 7 states that J.he right of the

$eo$le to information on matters of $ublic concern shall be recogni=ed' )ccess to official records, and to

documents, and $a$ers $ertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to go#ernment

research data used as basis for $olicy de#elo$ment, shall be afforded the citi=en, subect to such

limitations as may be $ro#ided by law'J )n informed citi=enry with access to the di#erse currents in

$olitical, moral and artistic thought and data relati#e to them, and the free e>change of ideas and

discussion of issues thereon, is #ital to the democratic go#ernment en#isioned under our Constitution' .he

cornerstone of this re$ublican system of go#ernment is delegation of $ower by the $eo$le to the tate' In

this system, go#ernmental agencies and institutions o$erate within the limits of the authority conferred by

the $eo$le' "enied access to information on the inner wor-ings of go#ernment, the citi=enry can become

$rey to the whims and ca$rices of those to whom the $ower had been delegated' .he $ostulate of $ublicoffice as a $ublic trust, institutionali=ed in the Constitution %in )rt' AI, ec' 1& to $rotect the $eo$le from

abuse of go#ernmental $ower, would certainly be mere em$ty words if access to such information of

$ublic concern is denied, e>ce$t under limitations $rescribed by im$lementing legislation ado$ted

$ursuant to the Constitution' .he right to information is an essential $remise of a meaningful right to

s$eech and e>$ression' !ut this is not to say that the right to information is merely an adunct of and

therefore restricted in a$$lication by the e>ercise of the freedoms of s$eech and of the $ress' Far from it'

.he right to information goes handinhand with the constitutional $olicies of full $ublic disclosure and

honesty in the $ublic ser#ice' It is meant to enhance the widening role of the citi=enry in go#ernmental

decisionma-ing as well in chec-ing abuse in go#ernment' Ket, li-e all the constitutional guarantees, the

right to information is not absolute' )s stated in egas$i, .he $eo$les right to information is limited to

Jmatters of $ublic concernJ, and is further Jsubect to such limitations as may be $ro#ided by law'J

imilarly, the tates $olicy of full disclosure is limited to Jtransactions in#ol#ing $ublic interestJ, and is

Jsubect to reasonable conditions $rescribed by law'J Hence, before mandamus may issue, it must be clear

that the information sought is of J$ublic interestJ or J$ublic concernJ, and is not e>em$ted by law from

the o$eration of the constitutional guarantee' Herein, the information sought by almonte, et' al' is the

truth of re$orts that certain embers of the !atasang Pambansa belonging to the o$$osition were able to

secure JcleanJ loans from the I immediately before the 7 February 19+B election through the

intercession of the former First ady, rs' Imelda 0' arcos' In sum, the $ublic nature of the loanable

funds of the I and the $ublic office held by the alleged borrowers ma-e the information sought

clearly a matter of $ublic interest and concern' Howe#er, a second re2uisite must be met before the right

to information may be enforced through mandamus $roceedings, #i=', that the information sought mustnot be among those e>cluded by law' 6n this matter, !elmonte has failed to cite any law granting the

I the $ri#ilege of confidentiality as regards the documents subect of the $etition' His $osition is

a$$arently based merely on considerations of $olicy' .he udiciary does not settle $olicy issues' .he

Court can only declare what the law is, and not what the law should be' Dnder our system of go#ernment,

$olicy issues are within the domain of the $olitical branches of the go#ernment, and of the $eo$le

themsel#es as the re$ository of all tate $ower' )lthough it may be true that when the information

re2uested from the go#ernment intrudes into the $ri#acy of a citi=en, a $otential conflict between the


8/22

rights to information and to $ri#acy may arise' uch com$eting interests of these rights need not be

resol#ed in the $resent case' .he right to $ri#acy belongs to the indi#idual in his $ri#ate ca$acity, and not

to $ublic and go#ernmental agencies li-e the I' oreo#er, the right cannot be in#o-ed by uridical

entities li-e the I' .hus, neither can the I through its eneral anager, !elmonte, in#o-e the

right to $ri#acy of its borrowers' .he right is $urely $ersonal in nature, and hence may be in#o-ed only by

the $erson whose $ri#acy is claimed to be #iolated' It may be obser#ed, howe#er, the concernedborrowers themsel#es may not succeed if they choose to in#o-e their right to $ri#acy, considering the

$ublic offices they were holding at the time the loans were alleged to ha#e been granted' It cannot be

denied that because of the interest they generate and their newsworthiness, $ublic figures, most es$ecially

those holding res$onsible $ositions in go#ernment, enoy a more limited right to $ri#acy as com$ared to

ordinary indi#iduals, their actions being subect to closer $ublic scrutiny' In fine, almonte, et' al' are

entitled to access to the documents e#idencing loans granted by the I, subect to reasonable

regulations that the latter may $romulgate relating to the manner and hours of e>amination, to the end that

damage to or loss of the records may be a#oided, that undue interference with the duties of the custodian

of the records may be $re#ented and that the right of other $ersons entitled to ins$ect the records may be

insured'

A4*in$ # M$ra-$

F)C. : In February 19+9, $etitioner, herself a member of res$ondent o#ie and .ele#ision 0e#iew and

Classification !oard %.0C!&, wrote its records officer re2uesting that she be allowed to e>amine the

boards records $ertaining to the #oting sli$s accom$lished by the indi#idual board members after a

re#iew of the mo#ies and tele#ision $roductions' It is on the basis of said sli$s that films are either

banned, cut or classified accordingly' Petitioners re2uest was e#entually denied by res$ondent orato on

the ground that whene#er the members of the board sit in udgment o#er a film, their decisions as

reflected in the indi#idual #oting sli$s $arta-e the nature of conscience #otes and as such, are $urely and

com$letely $ri#ate and $ersonal 6n February 57, 19+9, res$ondent orato called an e>ecuti#e meeting of

the .0C! to discuss, among others, the issue raised by $etitioner' In said meeting, se#enteen %17&

members of the board #oted to declare their indi#idual #oting records as classified documents which

rendered the same inaccessible to the $ublic without clearance from the chairman' .hereafter, res$ondent

orato denied $etitioners re2uest to e>amine the #oting sli$s' Howe#er, it was only much later, i'e', on

8uly 57, 19+9, that res$ondent !oard issued 0esolution 4o' 1*+9 which declared as confidential, $ri#ate

and $ersonal, the decision of the re#iewing committee and the #oting sli$s of the members'

ID( : E64 0esolution 4o' 1*+9 is #alid

H(" : .he term $ri#ate has been defined as Jbelonging to or concerning, an indi#idual $erson,

com$any, or interestJL whereas, $ublic means J$ertaining to, or belonging to, or affecting a nation, state,

or community at large' )s may be gleaned from the decree %P" 19+B& creating the res$ondent

classification board, there is no doubt that its #ery e>istence is $ublic is character' it is an office created to

ser#e $ublic interest' It being the case, res$ondents can lay no #alid claim to $ri#acy' .he right to $ri#acy

belongs to the indi#idual acting in his $ri#ate ca$acity and not to a go#ernmental agency or officers

tas-ed with, and acting in, the discharge of $ublic duties' the decisions of the !oard and the indi#idual


9/22

#oting sli$s accom$lished by the members concerned are acts made $ursuant to their official functions,

and as such, are neither $ersonal nor $ri#ate in nature but rather $ublic in character' .hey are, therefore,

$ublic records access to which is guaranteed to the citi=enry by no less than the fundamental law of the

land'

Pe-i-i$ner5 "EO ECHEGARA6

Re$nden-5 SECRETAR6 OF 8STICE, ET A"

F)C.:

6n 8anuary , 1999, the C issued a .06 staying the e>ecution of $etitioner eo (chegaray scheduled on

that same day' .he $ublic res$ondent 8ustice ecretary assailed the issuance of the .06 arguing that the

action of the C not only #iolated the rule on finality of udgment but also encroached on the $ower of the

e>ecuti#e to grant re$rie#e'

ID(: Ehether or not the court abused its discretion in granting a .em$orary 0estraining 6rder %.06&

on the e>ecution of (chegaray des$ite the fact that the finality of udgment has already been renderedN

that by granting the .06, the Honorable Court has in effect granted re$rie#e which is an e>ecuti#efunction'

H(":

4o' 0es$ondents cited sec 19, art II' .he $ro#ision is sim$ly the source of $ower of the President to

grant re$rie#es, commutations, and $ardons and remit fines and forfeitures after con#iction by final

udgment' .he $ro#ision, howe#er, cannot be inter$reted as denying the $ower of courts to control the

enforcement of their decisions after their finality'

.he $owers of the (>ecuti#e, the egislati#e and the 8udiciary to sa#e the life of a death con#ict do not

e>clude each other for the sim$le reason that there is no higher right than the right to life'

For the $ublic res$ondents therefore to contend that only the (>ecuti#e can $rotect the right to life of an

accused after his final con#iction is to #iolate the $rinci$le of coe2ual and coordinate $owers of the threebranches of our go#ernment'

Petitioner: (6 (CH()0)K

0es$ondents: (C0(.)0K 6F 8D.IC(, (. )

Facts:

.he u$reme Court affirmed the con#iction of $etitioner eo (chegaray y Pilo for the crime of ra$e of

the 1* yearold daughter of his commonlaw s$ouse' .he su$reme $enalty of death was to be im$osed

u$on him' He then filed motion for recon and a su$$lemental motion for recon raising constitutionality of

0e$ublic )ct 4o' 7B/9 and the death $enalty for ra$e' !oth were denied' Conse2uently, Congress

changed the mode of e>ecution of the death $enalty from electrocution to lethal inection, and $assed

0e$ublic )ct 4o' +177, designating death by lethal inection' (chegaray filed a Petition for $rohibition

from carrying out the lethal inection against him under the grounds that it constituted 1' cruel, degrading,

or unusual $unishment, 5' !eing #iolati#e of due $rocess, 3' a #iolation of the Phili$$ines? obligations

under international co#enants, ' an undue delegation of legislati#e $ower by Congress, an unlawful

e>ercise by res$ondent ecretary of the $ower to legislate, and an unlawful delegation of delegated


10/22

$owers by the ecretary of 8ustice' In his motion to amend, the $etitioner added e2ual $rotection as a

ground'

.he olicitor eneral stated that the u$reme Court has already u$held the constitutionality of the "eath

Penalty aw, and has declared that the death $enalty is not cruel, unust, e>cessi#e or unusual

$unishmentL e>ecution by lethal inection, as authori=ed under 0')' 4o' +177 and the 2uestioned rules, is

constitutional, lethal inection being the most modern, more humane, more economical, safer and easier to

a$$ly %than electrocution or the gas chamber&L in addition to that, the International Co#enant on Ci#il and

Political 0ights does not e>$ressly or im$liedly $rohibit the im$osition of the death $enalty'

Issues: 1' Is the lethal inection a cruel, degrading or inhuman $unishment 5' Is it a #iolation of our

international treaty obligations 3' Is it discriminatory %$ertaining to sec 17&

Held: 1' 4o 5' Kes 3rd' Petition denied'

1' Petitioner contends that death by lethal inection constitutes cruel, degrading and inhuman $unishment

because %1& 0')' 4o' +177 fails to $ro#ide for the drugs to be used in carrying out lethal inection, the

dosage for each drug to be administered, and the $rocedure in administering said drug@s into the accusedL%5& its im$lementing rules are uncertain as to the date of the e>ecution, time of notification, the court

which will fi> the date of e>ecution, which uncertainties cause the greatest $ain and suffering for the

con#ictL and %3& the $ossibility of mista-es in administering the drugs renders lethal inection inherently

cruel' It is wellsettled in uris$rudence that the death $enalty $er se is not a cruel, degrading or inhuman

$unishment' In Harden #' "irector of Prisons ;$unishments are cruel when they in#ol#e torture or a

lingering deathL but the $unishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used in the

constitution' It im$lies there something inhuman and barbarous, something more than the mere

e>tinguishment of life'< Eould the lac- in $articularity then as to the details in#ol#ed in the e>ecution by

lethal inection render said law ;cruel, degrading or inhumanecution is the trial court which con#icted the accused'

.he $rocedure is that the ;udgment is entered fifteen %1/& days after its $romulgation, and 1* days

thereafter, the records are remanded to the court below including a certified co$y of the udgment for

e>ecution' 4either is there any uncertainty as to the date of e>ecution nor the time of notification' )s to

the date of e>ecution, ection 1/ of the im$lementing rules must be read in conunction with the last

sentence of ection 1 of 0')' 4o' +177 which $ro#ides that the death sentence shall be carried out ;not

earlier than one %1& year nor later then eighteen %1+& months from the time the udgment im$osing the

death $enalty became final and e>ecutory, without $reudice to the e>ercise by the President of his

e>ecuti#e clemency $owers at all times'< Hence, the death con#ict is in effect assured of eighteen %1+&

months from the time the udgment im$osing the death $enalty became final and e>ecutor wherein he cansee- e>ecuti#e clemency and attend to all his tem$oral and s$iritual affairs' Petitioner also contends that

the infliction of ;wanton $ain< in case of $ossible com$lications in the intra#enous inection that

res$ondent "irector is an untrained and untested $erson insofar as the choice and administration of lethal

inection is concerned, renders lethal inection a cruel, degrading and inhuman $unishment' .his is

unsubstantiated' First' Petitioner has neither alleged nor $resented e#idence that lethal inection re2uired

the e>$ertise only of $hlebotomists and not trained $ersonnel and that the drugs to be administered are

unsafe or ineffecti#e' Petitioner sim$ly cites situations in the Dnited tates wherein e>ecution by lethal


11/22

inection allegedly resulted in $rolonged and agoni=ing death for the con#ict, without any other e#idence

whatsoe#er' econd' Petitioner o#erloo-ed ection 1, third $aragra$h of 0')' 4o' +177 which re2uires

that all $ersonnel in#ol#ed in the e>ecution $roceedings should be trained $rior to the $erformance of

such tas-' Ee must $resume that the $ublic officials entrusted with the im$lementation of the death

$enalty will carefully a#oid inflicting cruel $unishment' .hird' )ny infliction of $ain in lethal inection is

merely incidental in carrying out the e>ecution of death $enalty and does not fall within the constitutional$roscri$tion against cruel, degrading and inhuman $unishment' ;In a limited sense, anything is cruel

which is calculated to gi#e $ain or distress, and since $unishment im$orts $ain or suffering to the con#ict,

it may be said that all $unishments are cruel' !ut of course the Constitution does not mean that crime, for

this reason, is to go un$unished'< .he cruelty against which the Constitution $rotects a con#icted man is

cruelty inherent in the method of $unishment, not the necessary suffering in#ol#ed in any method

em$loyed to e>tinguish life humanely'

5' iolation of international treaties In countries which ha#e not abolished the death $enalty, sentence of

death may be im$osed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of

the commission of the crime and not contrary to the $ro#isions of the $resent Co#enant and to the

Con#ention on the Pre#ention and Punishment of the Crime of enocide' .his $enalty can only be carriedout $ursuant to a final udgment rendered by a com$etent court' .he $unishment was subect to the

limitation that it be im$osed for the ;most serious crimesecution by lethal inection shall not be inflicted u$on a woman within the three years ne>t following

the date of the sentence or while she is $regnant, nor u$on any $erson o#er se#enty %7*& years of age' In

this latter case, the death $enalty shall be commuted to the $enalty of reclusion $er$etua with the

accessory $enalties $ro#ided in )rticle * of the 0e#ised Penal Code'< Petitioner contends that ection 17

amends the instances when lethal inection may be sus$ended, without an e>$ress amendment of )rticle

+3 of the 0e#ised Penal Code, as amended by section 5/ of 0')' 4o' 7B/9, stating that the death sentence

shall not be inflicted u$on a woman while she is $regnant or within one %1& year after deli#ery, nor u$on

any $erson o#er se#enty years of age' Ehile )rticle +3 of the 0e#ised Penal Code, as amended by ection

5/ of 0e$ublic )ct 4o' 7B/9, sus$ends the im$lementation of the death $enalty while a woman is

$regnant or within one %1& year after deli#ery, ection 17 of the im$lementing rules omits the one %1& year

$eriod following deli#ery as an instance when the death sentence is sus$ended, and adds a ground for

sus$ension of sentence no longer found under )rticle +3 of the 0e#ised Penal Code as amended, which is

the threeyear re$rie#e after a woman is sentenced' .his addition is, in $etitioner?s #iew, tantamount to agenderbased discrimination' !eing an im$lementing rule, ection 17 must not o#erride, but instead

remain consistent and in harmony with the law it see-s to im$lement'

RE5 RE:EST FOR "I#E RADIO;T# CO#ERAGE OF THE TRIA" IN THE

SANDIGAN/A6AN OF THE P"NDER CASES AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT 8OSEPH E.

ESTRADAR E S O " T I O N


12/22

(4"6O), 8':

.his is a motion for reconsideration of the decision denying $etitioners? re2uest for $ermission to tele#ise

and broadcast li#e the trial of former President (strada before the andiganbayan' .he motion was filed

by the ecretary of 8ustice, as one of the $etitioners, who argues that there is really no conflict between

the right of the $eo$le to $ublic information and the freedom of the $ress, on the one hand, and, on the

other, the right of the accused to a fair trialL that if there is a clash between these rights, it must be

resol#ed in fa#or of the right of the $eo$le and the $ress because the $eo$le, as the re$ository of

so#ereignty, are entitled to informationL and that li#e media co#erage is a safeguard against attem$ts by

any $arty to use the courts as instruments for the $ursuit of selfish interests'

6n the other hand, former President 8ose$h (' (strada reiterates his obection to the li#e . and radio

co#erage of his trial on the ground that its allowance will #iolate the sub udice rule and that, based on his

e>$erience with the im$eachment trial, li#e media co#erage will only $a#e the way for socalled Je>$ert

commentaryJ which can trigger massi#e demonstrations aimed at $ressuring the andiganbayan to render

a decision one way or the other' r' (strada contends that the right of the $eo$le to information may be

ser#ed through other means less distracting, degrading, and $reudicial than li#e . and radio co#erage'

.he Court has considered the arguments of the $arties on this im$ortant issue and, after due deliberation,

finds no reason to alter or in any way modify its decision $rohibiting li#e or real time broadcast by radio

or tele#ision of the trial of the former $resident' !y a #ote of nine %9& to si> %B& of its members,1Gthe

Court denies the motion for reconsideration of the ecretary of 8ustice'

In lieu of li#e . and radio co#erage of the trial, the Court, by the #ote of eight %+& 8ustices,5Ghas

resol#ed to order the audio#isual recording of the trial for documentary $ur$oses' e#en %7&

8ustices3G#ote against the audio#isual recording of the trial'

Ehat follows is the o$inion of the maority'

Considering the significance of the trial before the andiganbayan of former President (strada and the

im$ortance of $reser#ing the records thereof, the Court belie#es that there should be an audio#isual

recording of the $roceedings' .he recordings will not be for li#e or real time broadcast but for

documentary $ur$oses' 6nly later will they be a#ailable for $ublic showing, after the andiganbayan

shall ha#e $romulgated its decision in e#ery case to which the recording $ertains' .he master film shall

be de$osited in the 4ational useum and the 0ecords anagement and )rchi#es 6ffice for historical

$reser#ation and e>hibition $ursuant to law'G

For the $ur$ose of recording the $roceedings, cameras will be incons$icuously installed in the courtroom

and the mo#ement of . crews will be regulated, consistent with the dignity and solemnity of the

$roceedings' .he trial shall be recorded in its entirety, e>ce$t such $ortions thereof as the andiganbayanmay decide should not be held $ublic $ursuant to 0ule 119, 51 of the 0e#ised 0ules of Criminal

Procedure' 4o comment shall be included in the documentary e>ce$t annotations which may be

necessary to e>$lain certain scenes which are de$icted' .he audio#isual recordings shall be made under

the su$er#ision and control of the andiganbayan or its "i#ision as the case may be'

.here are se#eral reasons for such tele#ised recording' First, the hearings are of historic

significance' .hey are an affirmation of our commitment to the rule that Jthe Qing is under no man, but
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn4


13/22

he is under od and the law'J %Ruod 0e> non debet esse sub homine, sed sub "eo et ege'& econd, the

(strada cases in#ol#e matters of #ital concern to our $eo$le who ha#e a fundamental right to -now how

their go#ernment is conducted' .his right can be enhanced by audio#isual $resentation' .hird, audio

#isual $resentation is essential for the education and ci#ic training of the $eo$le'

)bo#e all, there is the need to -ee$ audio#isual records of the hearings for documentary $ur$oses' .he

recordings will be useful in $reser#ing the essence of the $roceedings in a way that the cold $rint cannot

2uite do because it cannot ca$ture the sights and sounds of e#ents' .hey will be $rimarily for the use of

a$$ellate courts in the e#ent a re#iew of the $roceedings, rulings, or decisions of the andiganbayan is

sought or becomes necessary' .he accuracy of the transcri$ts of stenogra$hic notes ta-en during the trial

can be chec-ed by reference to the ta$es'

6n the other hand, by delaying the release of the ta$es for broadcast, concerns that those ta-ing $art in the

$roceedings will be $laying to the cameras and will thus be distracted from the $ro$er $erformance of

their roles S whether as counsel, witnesses, court $ersonnel, or udges S will be allayed' .he $ossibility

that $arallel trials before the bar of ustice and the bar of $ublic o$inion may eo$ardi=e, or e#en $re#ent,

the ust determination of the cases can be minimi=ed' .he $ossibility that udgment will be rendered bythe $o$ular tribunal before the court of ustice can render its own will be a#oided'

)t the same time, concerns about the regularity and fairness of the trial which, it may be assumed, is the

concern of those o$$osed to, as much as of those in fa#or of, tele#ised trials will be addressed since the

ta$es will not be released for $ublic showing until after the decision of the cases by the

andiganbayan' !y delaying the release of the ta$es, much of the $roblem $osed by real time . and

radio broadcast will be a#oided'

.hus, many im$ortant $ur$oses for $reser#ing the record of the trials can be ser#ed by audio#isual

recordings without im$airing the right of the accused to a fair trial'

4or is the right of $ri#acy of the accused a bar to the $roduction of such documentary' In )yer

Productions Pty' td' #' Ca$ulong,/Gthis Court set aside a lower courts inunction restraining the filming

of JFour "ay 0e#olution,J a documentary film de$icting, among other things, the role of then inister of

4ational "efense 8uan Ponce (nrile in the 19+B (") $eo$le $ower' .his Court held: J) limited

intrusion into a $ersons $ri#acy has long been regarded as $ermissible where that $erson is a $ublic

figure and the information sought to be elicited from him or to be $ublished about him constitute matters

of a $ublic character'JBG

4o one can $re#ent the ma-ing of a mo#ie based on the trial' !ut, at least, if a documentary record is

made of the $roceedings, any mo#ie that may later be $roduced can be chec-ed for its accuracy against

such documentary and any attem$t to distort the truth can thus be a#erted'

Indeed, a somewhat similar $ro$osal for documentary recording of celebrated cases or causes

cTlUbres was made way bac- in 1971 by Paul Freund of the Har#ard aw chool' )s he e>$lained:

In fairness let me refer to an )merican e>$erience many of my lay friends found similarly mo#ing' )n

educational tele#ision networ- filmed a trial in "en#er of a !lac- Panther leader on charges of resisting

arrest, and broadcast the document in full, in four installments, se#eral months after the case was

concluded concluded incidentally, with a #erdict of ac2uittal'
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn6


14/22

4o one could witness the trial without a feeling of $rofound res$ect for the $ainsta-ing way in which the

truth was searched for, for the ways whereby law co$es with uncertainties and ambiguities through

$resum$tions and burden of $roof, and the sense of gra#ity with which udge and ury carried out their

res$onsibilities'

I agree in general with the e>clusion of tele#ision from the courtroom, for the familiar good reasons' )nd

yet the use of tele#ision at a trial for documentary $ur$oses, not for the broadcast of li#e news, and with

the safeguards of com$leteness and consent, is an educational e>$eriment that I would be $re$ared to

welcome' Pro$erly safeguarded and with suitable commentary, the de$iction of an actual trial is an

agency of enlightenment that could ha#e few e2uals in its im$act on the $ublic understanding'

Dnderstanding of our legal $rocess, so rarely $ro#ided by our educational system, is now a des$erate

need'7G

Professor Freunds obser#ation is as #alid today as when it was made thirty years ago' It is $erce$ti#e for

its recognition of the serious ris-s $osed to the fair administration of ustice by li#e . and radio

broadcasts, es$ecially when emotions are running high on the issues stirred by a case, while at the same

time ac-nowledging the necessity of -ee$ing audio#isual recordings of the $roceedings of celebrated

cases, for $ublic information and e>hibition, after $assions ha#e subsided'

EH(0(F60(, an audio#isual recording of the trial of former President (strada before the

andiganbayan is hereby ordered to be made, for the account of the andiganbayan, under the following

conditions: %a& the trial shall be recorded in its entirety, e>ce$ting such $ortions thereof as the

andiganbayan may determine should not be held $ublic under 0ule 119, 51 of the 0ules of Criminal

ProcedureL %b& cameras shall be installed incons$icuously inside the courtroom and the mo#ement of .

crews shall be regulated consistent with the dignity and solemnity of the $roceedingsL %c& the audio#isual

recordings shall be made for documentary $ur$oses only and shall be made without comment e>ce$t such

annotations of scenes de$icted therein as may be necessary to e>$lain themL %d& the li#e broadcast of the

recordings before the andiganbayan shall ha#e rendered its decision in all the cases against the former

President shall be $rohibited under $ain of contem$t of court and other sanctions in case of #iolations of

the $rohibitionL %e& to ensure that the conditions are obser#ed, the audio#isual recording of the

$roceedings shall be made under the su$er#ision and control of the andiganbayan or its "i#ision

concerned and shall be made $ursuant to rules $romulgated by itL and %f& simultaneously with the release

of the audio#isual recordings for $ublic broadcast, the original thereof shall be de$osited in the 4ational

useum and the 0ecords anagement and )rchi#es 6ffice for $reser#ation and e>hibition in accordance

with law'

6 60"(0("'

/an-a v. COME"EC

G.R. N$. %7727%

Ma , 2&&7

F)C.: !efore the Court are two consolidated $etitions for certiorari and mandamus to nullify and set
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/sep2001/am_01_4_03_sc.htm#_edn7


15/22

aside certain issuances of the Commission on (lections %Comelec& res$ecting $artylist grou$s which

ha#e manifested their intention to $artici$ate in the $artylist elections on ay 1, 5**7'

) number of organi=ed grou$s filed the necessary manifestations and subse2uently were accredited by the

Comelec to $artici$ate in the 5**7 elections' !antay 0e$ublic )ct %!)0) 791& and the Drban Poor for

egal 0eforms %DP0& filed with the Comelec an Drgent Petition to "is2ualify, see-ing to dis2ualify thenominees of certain $artylist organi=ations' "oc-eted in the Comelec as P) Case 4o *7*5B, this urgent

$etition has yet to be resol#ed'

eanwhile $etitioner 0osales, in '0' 4o' 17731, addressed 5 letters to the "irector of the Comelec?s

aw "e$artment re2uesting a list of that grou$s? nominees' (#idently unbe-nownst then to s' 0osales,

et al', was the issuance of Comelec en banc 0esolution *7*75 under date )$ril 3, 5**7 #irtually

declaring the nominees? names confidential and in net effect denying $etitioner 0osales? basic disclosure

re2uest' Comelec?s reason for -ee$ing the names of the $arty list nominees away from the $ublic is

deducible from the e>cer$ts of the news re$ort a$$earing in the )$ril 13, 5**7 issue of the anila

!ulletin, is that there is nothing in 0')' 791 that re2uires the Comelec to disclose the names of

nominees, and that $arty list elections must not be $ersonality oriented according to Chairman )balos'

In the first $etition %'0' 4o' 177571&, !)0) 791 and DP0 assail the Comelec resolutions

accrediting $ri#ate res$ondents !iyaheng Pinoy et al', to $artici$ate in the forthcoming $artylist elections

without simultaneously determining whether or not their res$ecti#e nominees $ossess the re2uisite

2ualifications defined in 0')' 4o' 791, or the JPartyist ystem )ctJ and belong to the marginali=ed

and underre$resented sector each see-s to'

In the second $etition %'0' 4o' 17731&, $etitioners oreta )nn P' 0osales, Qilosbayan Foundation and

!antay Qatarungan Foundation im$ugn Comelec 0esolution dated )$ril 3, 5**7'

Ehile both $etitions commonly see- to com$el the Comelec to disclose or $ublish the names of the

nominees of the #arious $artylist grou$s named in the $etitions, !)0) 791 and DP0 ha#e theadditional $rayers that the 33 $ri#ate res$ondents named therein be JdeclaredG as un2ualified to

$artici$ate in the $artylist elections and that the Comelec be enoined from allowing res$ondent grou$s

from $artici$ating in the elections'

ID(:

1' Can the Court cancel the accreditation accorded by the Comelec to the res$ondent $artylist grou$s

named in their $etition on the ground that these grou$s and their res$ecti#e nominees do not a$$ear to be

2ualified'

5' Ehether res$ondent Comelec, by refusing to re#eal the names of the nominees of the #arious $artylist

grou$s, has #iolated the right to information and free access to documents as guaranteed by the

ConstitutionL and

3' Ehether res$ondent Comelec is mandated by the Constitution to disclose to the $ublic the names of

said nominees'

H(": .he 1st $etition is $artly "(4I(" insofar as it see-s to nullify the accreditation of the

res$ondents named therein' Howe#er, insofar as it see-s to com$el the Comelec to disclose or $ublish the


16/22

names of the nominees of $artylist grou$s, sectors or organi=ations accredited to $artici$ate in the ay

1, 5**7 elections, the 5 $etitions are 0)4.("' )ccordingly, the Comelec is hereby 60"(0(" to

immediately disclose and release the names of the nominees of the $artylist grou$s,

1' .he Court is unable to grant the desired $lea of $etitioners !)0) 791 and DP0 for cancellation of

accreditation on the grounds thus ad#anced in their $etition' .he e>ercise would re2uire the Court toma-e a factual determination, a matter which is outside the office of udicial re#iew by way of s$ecial

ci#il action for certiorari' In certiorari $roceedings, the Court is not called u$on to decide factual issues

and the case must be decided on the undis$uted facts on record' .he sole function of a writ of certiorari is

to address issues of want of urisdiction or gra#e abuse of discretion and does not include a re#iew of the

tribunal?s e#aluation of the e#idence' %note that nowhere in 0')' 4o' 791 is there a re2uirement that the

2ualification of a $artylist nominee be determined simultaneously with the accreditation of an

organi=ation' &

5' ection 7, )rticle III of the Constitution, #i=:

ec'7' .he right of the $eo$le to information on matters of $ublic concern shall be recogni=ed' )ccess to

official records, and to documents, and $a$ers $ertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as

well to go#ernment research data used as basis for $olicy de#elo$ment, shall be afforded the citi=en,

subect to such limitations as may be $ro#ided by law'

ection 5+, )rticle II of the Constitution reading:

ec' 5+' ubect to reasonable conditions $rescribed by law, the tate ado$ts and im$lements a $olicy of

full $ublic disclosure of all its transactions in#ol#ing $ublic interest'

C6((C?s basis of its refusal to disclose the names of the nominees of subect $artylist grou$s,

ection 7 of 0')' 791,which last sentence reads: J.Ghe names of the $artylist nominees shall not be

shown on the certified listJ is certainly not a ustifying card for the Comelec to deny the re2uesteddisclosure' .here is absolutely nothing in 0')' 4o' 791 that $rohibits the Comelec from disclosing or

e#en $ublishing through mediums other than the JCertified istJ of the names'

It has been re$eatedly said in #arious conte>ts that the $eo$le ha#e the right to elect their re$resentati#es

on the basis of an informed udgment' Ehile the #ote cast in a $artylist elections is a #ote for a $arty,

such #ote, in the end, would be a #ote for its nominees, who, in a$$ro$riate cases, would e#entually sit in

the House of 0e$resentati#es' .he Court frowns u$on any inter$retation of the law or rules that would

hinder in any way the free and intelligent casting of the #otes in an election

3' C6((C has a constitutional duty to disclose and release the names of the nominees of the $artylist

grou$s named in the herein $etitions' .he right to information is a $ublic right where the real $arties in

interest are the $ublic, or the citi=ens to be $recise, but li-e all constitutional guarantees, howe#er, the

right to information and its com$anion right of access to official records are not absolute' .he $eo$le?s

right to -now is limited to Jmatters of $ublic concernJ and is further subect to such limitation as may be

$ro#ided by law' !ut no national security or li-e concerns is in#ol#ed in the disclosure of the names of

the nominees of the $artylist grou$s in 2uestion' "oubtless, the Comelec committed gra#e abuse of

discretion in refusing the legitimate demands of the $etitioners for a list of the nominees of the $artylist

grou$s subect of their res$ecti#e $etitions' andamus, therefore, lies'


17/22

Pr$vinisting laws to conform to the 6)L

c& to concede to or recogni=e the claim of the oro Islamic iberation Front for ancestral domain in

#iolation of 0e$ublic )ct 4o' +371 %.H( I4"I(46D P(6P( 0IH. )C. 6F 1997&,

$articularly ection 3%g& M Cha$ter II %"(I4().I64,

0(C64I.I64 6F )4C(.0) "6)I4&

0DI4:

1' Kes, the $etitions are ri$e for adudication' .he failure of the res$ondents to consult the local

go#ernment units or communities affected constitutes a de$arture by res$ondents from their mandateunder (6 4o' 3' oreo#er, the res$ondents e>ceeded their authority by the mere act of guaranteeing

amendments to the Constitution' )ny alleged #iolation of the Constitution by any branch of go#ernment

is a $ro$er matter for udicial re#iew'

)s the $etitions in#ol#e constitutional issues which are of $aramount $ublic interest or of transcendental

im$ortance, the Court grants the $etitioners, $etitionersininter#ention and inter#ening res$ondents the

re2uisite locus standi in -ee$ing with the liberal stance ado$ted in "a#id #' aca$agal )rroyo'


18/22

In Pimentel, 8r' #' )guirre, this Court held:

> > > !Gy the mere enactment of the 2uestioned law or the a$$ro#al of the challenged action, the dis$ute

is said to ha#e ri$ened into a udicial contro#ersy e#en without any other o#ert act ' Indeed, e#en a

singular #iolation of the Constitution and@or the law is enough to awa-en udicial duty'> > > >

!y the same to-en, when an act of the President, who in our constitutional scheme is a coe2ual of

Congress, is seriously alleged to ha#e infringed the Constitution and the laws > > > settling the dis$ute

becomes the duty and the res$onsibility of the courts'

.hat the law or act in 2uestion is not yet effecti#e does not negate ri$eness'

5' Kes' .he Court finds that there is a gra#e #iolation of the Constitution in#ol#ed in the matters of $ublic

concern %ec 7 )rt III& under a state $olicy of full disclosure of all its transactions in#ol#ing $ublic

interest %)rt 5, ec 5+& including $ublic consultation under 0) 71B* %ocal o#ernment Code of 1991&'

%ec 7 )rtIII& .he right to information guarantees the right of the $eo$le to demand information, while

ec 5+ recogni=es the duty of officialdom to gi#e information e#en if nobody demands' .he com$lete and

effecti#e e>ercise of the right to information necessitates that its com$lementary $ro#ision on $ublic

disclosure deri#e the same selfe>ecutory nature, subect only to reasonable safeguards or limitations as

may be $ro#ided by law'

.he contents of the 6))" is a matter of $aramount $ublic concern in#ol#ing $ublic interest in the

highest order' In declaring that the right to information contem$lates ste$s and negotiations leading to the

consummation of the contract, uris$rudence finds no distinction as to the e>ecutory nature or commercial

character of the agreement'

('6' 4o' 3 itself is re$lete with mechanics for continuing consultations on both national and local le#els

and for a $rinci$al forum for consensusbuilding' In fact, it is the duty of the Presidential )d#iser on the

Peace Process to conduct regular dialogues to see- rele#ant information, comments, ad#ice, and

recommendations from $eace $artners and concerned sectors of society'

3' a& to create and recogni=e the !angsamoro 8uridical (ntity %!8(& as a se$arate state, or a uridical,

territorial or $olitical subdi#ision not recogni=ed by lawL

Kes' .he $ro#isions of the 6) indicate, among other things, that the Parties aimed to #est in the !8(

the status of an associated state or, at any rate, a status closely a$$ro>imating it'

.he conce$t of association is not recogni=ed under the $resent Constitution'

4o $ro#ince, city, or munici$ality, not e#en the )0, is recogni=ed under our laws as ha#ing an

;associati#e< relationshi$ with the national go#ernment' Indeed, the conce$t im$lies $owers that go

beyond anything e#er granted by the Constitution to any local or regional go#ernment' It also im$lies the

recognition of the associated entity as a state' .he Constitution, howe#er, does not contem$late any state

in this urisdiction other than the Phili$$ine tate, much less does it $ro#ide for a transitory status that

aims to $re$are any $art of Phili$$ine territory for inde$endence'


19/22

.he !8( is a far more $owerful entity than the autonomous region recogni=ed in the Constitution' It is not

merely an e>$anded #ersion of the )0, the status of its relationshi$ with the national go#ernment

being fundamentally different from that of the )0' Indeed, !8( is a state in all but name as it meets

the criteria of a state laid down in the onte#ideo Con#ention, namely, a $ermanent $o$ulation, a defined

territory, a go#ernment, and a ca$acity to enter into relations with other states'

(#en assuming arguendo that the 6))" would not necessarily se#er any $ortion of Phili$$ine

territory, the s$irit animating it S which has betrayed itself by its use of the conce$t of association S runs

counter to the national so#ereignty and territorial integrity of the 0e$ublic'

.he defining conce$t underlying the relationshi$ between the national go#ernment and the !8( being

itself contrary to the $resent Constitution, it is not sur$rising that many of the s$ecific $ro#isions of the

6))" on the formation and $owers of the !8( are in conflict with the Constitution and the laws' .he

!8( is more of a state than an autonomous region' !ut e#en assuming that it is co#ered by the term

;autonomous region< in the constitutional $ro#ision ust 2uoted, the 6))" would still be in conflict

with it'

b& to re#ise or amend the Constitution and e>isting laws to conform to the 6):

.he 6))" $ro#ides that ;any $ro#isions of the 6))" re2uiring amendments to the e>isting legal

framewor- shall come into force u$on the signing of a Com$rehensi#e Com$act and u$on effecting the

necessary changes to the legal framewor-,< im$lying an amendment of the Constitution to accommodate

the 6))"' .his sti$ulation, in effect, guaranteed to the IF the amendment of the Constitution '

It will be obser#ed that the President has authority, as stated in her oath of office, only to $reser#e and

defend the Constitution' uch $residential $ower does not, howe#er, e>tend to allowing her to change the

Constitution, but sim$ly to recommend $ro$osed amendments or re#ision' )s long as she limits herself to

recommending these changes and submits to the $ro$er $rocedure for constitutional amendments and

re#ision, her mere recommendation need not be construed as an unconstitutional act'

.he ;sus$ensi#e clause< in the 6))" #iewed in light of the abo#ediscussed standards'

i#en the limited nature of the President?s authority to $ro$ose constitutional amendments, she cannot

guarantee to any third $arty that the re2uired amendments will e#entually be $ut in $lace, nor e#en be

submitted to a $lebiscite' .he most she could do is submit these $ro$osals as recommendations either to

Congress or the $eo$le, in whom constituent $owers are #ested'

c& to concede to or recogni=e the claim of the oro Islamic iberation Front for ancestral domain in

#iolation of 0e$ublic )ct 4o' +371 %.H( I4"I(46D P(6P( 0IH. )C. 6F 1997&,

$articularly ection 3%g& M Cha$ter II %"(I4().I64,

0(C64I.I64 6F )4C(.0) "6)I4&

.his strand begins with the statement that it is ;the birthright of all oros and all Indigenous $eo$les of

indanao to identify themsel#es and be acce$ted as V!angsamoros'?< It defines ;!angsamoro $eo$le< as

the nati#es or original inhabitants of indanao and its adacent islands including Palawan and the ulu


20/22

archi$elago at the time of con2uest or coloni=ation, and their descendants whether mi>ed or of full blood,

including their s$ouses'

.hus, the conce$t of ;!angsamoro,< as defined in this strand of the 6))", includes not only ;oros/A6AN #S. A:INO

Facts: .he signing of the 8a$anPhili$$ines (conomic Partnershi$ )greement %8P(P)& at the sidelines of

the )sia(uro$e ummit in Helsin-i in e$tember 5**B was hailed by both 8a$anese Prime inister

8unichiro Qoi=umi and Phili$$ine President loria aca$agal )rroyo as a ;milestone in the continuing

coo$eration and collaboration, setting a new cha$ter of strategic $artnershi$ for mutual o$$ortunity and

growth %for both countries&'


21/22

8P(P) which has been referred to as a Vmega treaty? is a com$rehensi#e $lan for o$ening u$ of mar-ets in

goods and ser#ices as well as remo#ing barriers and restrictions on in#estments' It is a deal that

encom$asses e#en our commitments to the E.6'

.he com$le>ity of 8P(P) became all the more e#ident at the enate hearing conducted by the Committee

on .rade and Commerce last 4o#ember 5**B' .he committee, chaired by enator ar 0o>as, heard

differing #iews and $ers$ecti#es on 8P(P)' 6n one hand the committee heard o#ernment?s rosy$roections on the economic benefits of 8P(P) and on the other hand the #iews of en#ironmental and

trade acti#ists who raised their #ery serious concerns about the country being turned into 8a$an?s to>ic

waste bas-et' .he discussion in the enate showed that 8P(P) is not ust an issue concerning trade and

economic relations with 8a$an but one that touches on broader national de#elo$ment concerns'

Issues:

1' "o the therein $etitioners ha#e standing to bring this action for mandamus in their ca$acity as citi=ens

of the 0e$ublic, as ta>$ayers, and as members of the Congress

5' Can this Honorable Court e>ercise $rimary urisdiction of this case and ta-e cogni=ance of the instant

$etition'

3' )re the documents and information being re2uested in relation to the 8P(P) e>em$ted from the general

rules on trans$arency and full $ublic disclosure such that the Phili$$ine go#ernment is ustified in

denying access thereto'

0ulings:

.he u$reme Court en banc $romulgated last 8uly 1B, 5**+ its ruling on the case of ;)-bayan Citi=ens

)ction Party et al #s' .homas ' )2uino et al< %'0' 4o' 17*/1B&' .he Highest .ribunal dismissed thePetition for mandamus and $rohibition, which sought to com$el res$ondents "e$artment of .rade

Industry %".I& Dndersecretary .homas )2uino et al to furnish $etitioners the full te>t of the 8a$an

Phili$$ines (conomic Partnershi$ )greement %8P(P)& and the lists of the Phili$$ine and 8a$anese offers

submitted during the negotiation $rocess and all $ertinent attachments and anne>es thereto'

In its "ecision, the Court noted that the full te>t of the 8P(P) has been made accessible to the $ublic

since 11 e$tember 5**B, and thus the demand to be furnished with co$y of the said document has

become moot and academic' 4otwithstanding this, howe#er, the Court lengthily discussed the substati#es

issues, insofar as they im$inge on $etitioners demand for access to the Phili$$ine and 8a$anese offers in

the course of the negotiations'

.he Court held: ;)$$lying the $rinci$les ado$ted in PPF #' angla$us, it is clear that while the final

te>t of the 8P(P) may not be -e$t $er$etually confidential S since there should be am$le o$$ortunity for

discussion before a treatyG is a$$ro#ed S the offers e>changed by the $arties during the negotiations

continue to be $ri#ileged e#en after the 8P(P) is $ublished' It is reasonable to conclude that the 8a$enese

re$resentati#es submitted their offers with the understanding that historic confidentiality would go#ern

the same' "isclosing these offers could im$air the ability of the Phili$$ines to deal not only with 8a$an

but with other foreign go#ernments in future negotiations'


22/22

It also reasoned out that o$ening for $ublic scrutiny the Phili$$ine offers in treaty negotiations would

discourage future Phili$$ine re$resentati#es from fran-ly e>$ressing their #iews during negotiations' .he

Highest .ribunal recogni=ed that treaty negotiations normally in#ol#e a $rocess of 2uid $ro 2uo, where

negotiators would willingly grant concessions in an area of lesser im$ortance in order to obtain more

fa#orable terms in an area of greater national interest'

In the same "ecision, the Court too- time to address the dissent of Chief 8ustice 0eynato ' Puno' It said:

;Ee are aware that behind the dissent of the Chief 8ustice lies a genuine =eal to $rotect our $eo$les right

to information against any abuse of e>ecuti#e $ri#ilege' It is a =eal that Ee fully share' .he Court,

howe#er, in its endea#our to guard against the abuse of e>ecuti#e $ri#ilege, should be careful not to #eer

towards the o$$osite e>treme, to the $oint that it would stri-e down as in#alid e#en a legitimate e>ercise

thereof'

Right to Information Case Digests

Documents

Transcript of Right to Information Case Digests