CONSTITUTIONAL LAW RIGHT TO INFORMATION CASES

FRANCISCO CHAVEZ VS. PCGG ET AL., GR NO. 130716, DECEMBER 09, 1998
Facts:
Petitioner, instituted a case against public respondent to make public any negotiations and/or
agreements pertaining to the latter's task of recovering the Marcoses' ill-gotten wealth. The
respondents argued that the action was premature since he has not shown that he had asked
the respondents to disclose the negotiations and agreements before filing the case.
Issue:
Does the petitioner have the personality or legal standing to file the instant petition?
Held:
The instant petition is anchored on the right of the people to information and access to
government records, documents and papers- a right guaranteed under section 7, article III of the
Philippine Constitution. The petitioner a former solicitor general, is a Filipino citizen, and
because of the satisfaction of the two basic requisites laid down by decisional law to sustain
petitioner's standing i.e
(1) ENFORCEMENT OF A LEGAL RIGHT
(2) ESPOUSED BY A FILIPINO CITIZEN

FRANCISCO CHAVEZ VS PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY (JULY 2002)

FACTS:
The Public Estates Authority (PEA) is the central implementing agency tasked to undertake
reclamation projects nationwide. It took over the leasing and selling functions of the DENR
(Department of Environmental and Natural Resources) insofar as reclaimed or about to be
reclaimed foreshore lands are concerned.
PEA sought the transfer to the Amari Coastal Bay and Development Corporation, a private
corporation, of the ownership of 77.34 hectares of the Freedom Islands. PEA also sought to
have 290.156 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay to Amari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the transfer is valid.
HELD:
No. To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be transferred to Amari as
private lands will sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on private corporations from
acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
The Supreme Court affirmed that the 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the
Freedom Islands, now covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of
the public domain. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable
natural resources of the public domain. The transfer (as embodied in a joint venture
agreement) to AMARI, a private corporation, ownership of 77.34 hectares of the Freedom
Islands, is void for being contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which
prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
Furthermore, since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to Amari ownership of 290.156
hectares of still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being contrary to
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the alienation of natural resources
other than agricultural lands of the public domain.

NERI VS. SENATE G.R. NO. 180643, MARCH 25, 2008

FACTS
Former NEDA Director General Romulo Neri testified before the Senate for 11 hours relating to
the ZTE-NBN mess. However, when probed further on what he and the President discussed
about the NBN Project, he refused to answer, invoking executive privilege. In particular, he
refused to answer 3 questions:
(a) whether or not President Arroyo followed up the NBN Project
(b) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it
(c) whether or not she directed him to approve it
Unrelenting, the Senate Committees issued a Subpoena Ad Testificandum to Neri, requiring him
to appear and testify on November 20, 2007. However, Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita
requested the Senate Committees to dispense with Neris testimony on the ground of executive
privilege. In his letter, Ermita said that the information sought to be disclosed might impair our
diplomatic as well as economic relations with China. Neri did not appear before the
Committees. As a result, the Senate issued an Order citing him in contempt and ordered his
arrest and detention until such time that he would appear and give his testimony.
Are the communications elicited by the subject three (3) questions covered by executive
privilege?
ISSUES

(a) whether or not President Arroyo followed up the NBN Project

(b) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it
(c) whether or not she directed him to approve it
HELD:
Yes. The Communications elicited by the 3 Questions are covered by Executive Privilege. xxx
we are convinced that the communications elicited by the questions are covered by the
presidential communications privilege. First, the communications relate to a quintessential and
non-delegable power of the President, i.e. the power to enter into an executive agreement with
other countries. This authority of the President to enter into executive agreements without the
concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been recognized in Philippine jurisprudence.
Second, the communications are received by a close advisor of the President. Under the
operational proximity test, petitioner can be considered a close advisor, being a member of
President Arroyos cabinet. And third, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that
would justify the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere
by an appropriate investigating authority.
The Senate contends that the grant of the executive privilege violates the Right of the people to
information on matters of public concern. Is the senate correct?

ANSWER: No. While Congress is composed of representatives elected by the people, it does
not follow, except in a highly qualified sense, that in every exercise of its power of inquiry, the
people are exercising their right to information. The right of Congress or any of its Committees to
obtain information in aid of legislation cannot be equated with the peoples right to public
information. The distinction between such rights is laid down in Senate v. Ermita: There are clear
distinctions between the right of Congress to information which underlies the power of inquiry
and the right of people to information on matters of public concern. For one, the demand of a
citizen for the production of documents pursuant to his right to information does not have the
same obligatory force as a subpoena duces tecum issued by Congress. Neither does the right
to information grant a citizen the power to exact testimony from government officials. These
powers belong only to Congress, not to an individual citizen. (visit fellester.blogspot.com)

On March 6, 2008, President Arroyo issued Memorandum Circular No. 151, revoking E.O. 464.
Is there a recognized claim of executive privilege despite the revocation of E.O. 464?

ANSWER: Yes. The revocation of E.O. 464 does not in any way diminish our concept of
executive privilege. This is because this concept has Constitutional underpinnings.

In Senate v. Ermita, the executive privilege should be invoked by the President or through the
Executive Secretary by order of the President. Did Executive Secretary Ermita correctly invoke
the principle of executive privilege, by order of the President?

ANSWER: Yes. The Letter dated November 17, 2007 of Executive Secretary Ermita satisfies the
requirement. It serves as the formal claim of privilege. There, he expressly states that this
Office is constrained to invoke the settled doctrine of executive privilege as refined in Senate v.
Ermita, and has advised Secretary Neri accordingly. Obviously, he is referring to the Office of
the President. That is more than enough compliance.

May the Congress require the executive to state the reasons for the claim with particularity?

ANSWER: No. The Congress must not require the executive to state the reasons for the claim
with such particularity as to compel disclosure of the information which the privilege is meant to
protect. This is a matter of respect to a coordinate and co-equal department. (Senate v. Ermita)

Is the contempt and arrest Order of Neri valid?

ANSWER: No. There being a legitimate claim of executive privilege, the issuance of the
contempt Order suffers from constitutional infirmity. The respondent Committees did not comply
with the requirement laid down in Senate v. Ermita that the invitations should contain the
possible needed statute which prompted the need for the inquiry, along with the usual

indication of the subject of inquiry and the questions relative to and in furtherance thereof. The
SC also find merit in the argument of the OSG that respondent Committees violated Section 21
of Article VI of the Constitution, requiring that the inquiry be in accordance with the duly
published rules of procedure. The respondent Committees issuance of the contempt Order is
arbitrary and precipitate. It must be pointed out that respondent Committees did not first pass
upon the claim of executive privilege and inform petitioner of their ruling. Instead, they curtly
dismissed his explanation as unsatisfactory and simultaneously issued the Order citing him in
contempt and ordering his immediate arrest and detention. (Neri vs. Senate, G.R. No. 180643,
March 25, 2008)

CENTER FOR PEOPLE EMPOWERMENT IN GOVERNANCE (CenPEG) v.

COMMISSIONON ELECTIONS (2010)
FACTS:
Comelec failed to provide plaintiffs with the source code of identified canvass machines despite
repeated requests and demands. CenPEG is now praying for the issuance of a writ of

mandamus, despite the lapse of the May 2010 elections, claiming that the source code
remained important and relevant "not only for compliance with the law, and the purpose thereof,
but especially in the backdrop of numerous admissions of errors and claims of fraud."
ISSUE:
W/N COMELEC could be compelled to release the source code to CenPEG- YES
HELD:
pertinent portion of Section 12 of R.A. 9369 is clear in that "once an AES technology is selected
for implementation, the Commission shall promptly make the source code of that technology
available and open to any interested political party or groups which may conduct their own
review thereof."- The COMELEC has offered no reason not to comply with this requirement of
the law. Indeed, its only excuse for not disclosing the source code was that it was not yet
available when CenPEG asked for it and, subsequently, that the review had to be done,
apparently for security reason, "under a controlled environment." The elections had passed and
that reason is already stale.