[CHAVEZ VS PCGG – CASE DIGEST (CONSTI 2: RIGHT TOINFORMATION)] March 8, 2010

Right to Information, access to public documents7 CHAVEZ vs PRESIDENTIALCOMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENTFacts: -Petitioner Francisco I Chavez (in his capacity as taxpayer, citizen and a formergovernmentofficial) initiated this original action seeking(1) to prohibit and “enjoin respondents[PCGG and its chairman] from privately enteringinto, perfecting and/or executing any agreementwith the heirs of the late President Ferdinand E.Marcos . . . relating to and concerning theproperties and assets of Ferdinand Marcos located inthe Philippines and/or abroad — includingthe so-called Marcos gold hoard"; and(2) to “compe l respondent[s] to make public allnegotiations and agreement, be theyongoing or perfected, and all documents related to orrelating to such negotiations andagreement between the PCGG and the Marcos heirs."-Chavezis the same person initiated the prosecution of the Marcoses and their cronies whocommittedunmitigated plunder of the public treasury and the systematic subjugation of thecountry'seconomy; he says that what impelled him to bring this action were several newsreports 2bannered in a number of broadsheets sometime in September 1997. These news itemsreferredto (1) the alleged discovery of billions of dollars of Marcos assets deposited in variouscodedaccounts in Swiss banks; and (2) the reported execution of a compromise, betweenthegovernment (through PCGG) and the Marcos heirs, on how to split or share these assets.-PETITIONER DEMANDS that respondents make public any and all negotiationsand agreementspertaining to PCGG's task of recovering the Marcoses' ill-gotten wealth. Heclaims that anycompromise on the alleged billions of ill-gotten wealth involves an issue of"paramount publicinterest," since it has a "debilitating effect on the country's economy" thatwould be greatlyprejudicial to the national interest of the Filipino people. Hence, the people ingeneral have aright to know the transactions or deals being contrived and effected by thegovernment.-RESPONDENT ANSWERS that they do not deny forging a compromiseagreement with theMarcos heirs. They claim, though, that petitioner's action is premature,because there is noshowing that he has asked the PCGG to disclose the negotiations and the

 Agreements. And evenif he has, PCGG may not yet be compelled to make any disclosure, sincethe proposed terms andconditions of the Agreements have not become effective and binding.-PETITIONER INVOKESSec. 7 [Article III]. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall

 berecognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to officialacts,transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policydevelopment,shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided

 by law.Sec. 28 [Article II]. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adoptsand implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest 

[CHAVEZ VS PCGG – CASE DIGEST (CONSTI 2: RIGHT TOINFORMATION)] March 8, 2010-RESPONDENT ANSWERS that the above constitutional provisions referto completed andoperative official acts, not to those still being considered.

Issue: Whether or not the Court could require the PCGG to disclose to the public the details of anyagreement, perfected or not, with the Marcoses.

Ruling: “ WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The General and Supplemental AgreementdatedDecember 28, 1993, which PCGG and the Marcos heirs entered into are hereby declaredNULL

 AND VOID for being contrary to law and the Constitution. Respondent PCGG, its officers andallgovernment functionaries and officials who are or may be directly ot indirectly involved intherecovery of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses and their associates are DIRECTED

 

todisclose to the public the terms of any proposed compromise settlment, as well as thefinalagreement, relating to such alleged ill-gotten wealth, in accordance withthe discussionsembodied in this Decision. No pronouncement as to cost.”  

RD:- The "information" and the "transactions" referred to in the subject provisions ofthe Constitutionhave as yet no defined scope and extent. There are no specific laws prescribingthe exactlimitations within which the right may be exercised or the correlative state duty may beobliged.However, the following are some of the recognized restrictions:(1) national securitymatters and intelligence information- there is a governmental privilege against public disclosurewith respect to state secretsregarding military, diplomatic and other national security matters. 24But where there isno need to protect such state secrets, the privilege may not be invoked towithholddocuments and other information, 25 provided that they are examined "instrictconfidence" and given "scrupulous protection."(2) trade secrets and banking transactions-trade or industrial secrets (pursuant to the Intellectual Property Code 27 and other relatedlaws)as well as banking transactions (pursuant to the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act 28)are alsoexempted from compulsory disclosure(3) criminal matters- Also excluded are classified lawenforcement matters, such as those relating to theapprehension, the prosecution and thedetention of criminals, which courts neither maynor inquire into prior to such arrest, detentionand prosecution. Efforts at effective lawenforcement would be seriously jeopardized by freepublic access to, for example, policeinformation regarding rescue operations, the whereaboutsof fugitives, or leads on covertcriminal activities.(4) other confidential information.

[CHAVEZ VS PCGG – CASE DIGEST (CONSTI 2: RIGHT TOINFORMATION)] March 8, 2010- The Ethical Standards Act 31 further prohibits public officials and employeesfrom usingor divulging "confidential or classified information officially known to them byreason of their office and not made available to the public." Other acknowledged limitationstoinformation access include diplomatic correspondence, closed door Cabinet meetingsandexecutive sessions of either house of Congress, as well as the internal deliberations oftheSupreme Court.

- In Valmonte v. Belmonte Jr., the Court emphasized that the information sought must be"mattersof public concern," access to which may be limited by law. Similarly, the state policy of full publicdisclosure extends only to "transactions involving public interest" and may also be"subject toreasonable conditions prescribed by law."- As to the meanings of the terms "public interest" and"public concern," the Court, in Legaspi v.Civil Service Commission, elucidated: “In determiningwhether or not a particular information isof public concern there is no rigid test which can beapplied. “ “Public concern" like "publicinterest" is a term that  eludes exact definition. Both termsembrace a broad spectrum of subjectswhich the public may want to know, either because thesedirectly affect their lives, or simplybecause such matters naturally arouse the interest of anordinary citizen. In the final analysis, itis for the courts to determine on a case by case basiswhether the matter at issue is of interestor importance, as it relates to or affects the public.”-Asto whether or not the above cited constitutional provisions guarantee access toinformationregarding ongoing negotiations or proposals prior to the final agreement, this sameclarificationwas sought and clearly addressed by the constitutional commissioners during their deliberations,MR. SUAREZ. And when we say "transactions" which should be distinguishedfrom contracts,agreements, or treaties or whatever, does the Gentleman refer to the stepsleading to theconsummation of the contract, or does he refer to the contract itself?MR. OPLE.The "transactions" used here, I suppose, is generic and, therefore, it can cover bothsteps leadingto a contract, and already a consummated contract, Mr. Presiding Officer.MR. SUAREZ. Thiscontemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of thetransaction?MR.OPLE. Yes, subject to reasonable safeguards on the national interest. 

 

- Considering the intent of the Constitution, the Court believes that it is incumbent uponthePCGG and its officers, as well as other government representatives, to disclose sufficientpublicinformation on any proposed settlement they have decided to take up with the ostensibleownersand holders of ill-gotten wealth. Such information, though, must pertain todefinite propositionsof the government, not necessarily to intra-agency or inter-agencyrecommendations orcommunications during the stage when common assertions are still in the process ofbeingformulated or are in the "exploratory" stage. There is a need, of course, to observe thesamerestrictions on disclosure of information in general, as discussed above — such ason mattersinvolving national security, diplomatic or foreign relations, intelligence andother classifiedinformation.