CHAVEZ VS PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT

G.R. No. 130716  (December 9, 1998)

Facts:

Petitioner, invoking his constitutional right to information and the

correlative duty of the state to disclose publicly all its transactions involving
the national interest, demands that respondents make public any and all
negotiations and agreements pertaining to PCGG’s task of recovering the
Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth. He claims that any compromise on the alleged
billions of ill-gotten wealth involves an issue of “paramount public interest,”
since it has a “debilitating effect on the country’s economy” that would be
greatly prejudicial to the national interest of the Filipino people. Hence, the
people in general have a right to know the transactions or deals being
contrived and effected by the government.

Respondents, on the other hand, do not deny forging a compromise

agreement with the Marcos heirs. They claim, though, that petitioner’s action
is premature, because there is no showing that he has asked the PCGG to
disclose the negotiations and the Agreements. And even if he has, PCGG may
not yet be compelled to make any disclosure, since the proposed terms and
conditions of the Agreements have not become effective and binding.

Issue:

WON the constitutional right to information may prosper against

respondents’ argument that the “should be disclosed” proposed terms and
conditions of the Agreements are not yet effective and binding

Held:

Yes. Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution, we believe

that it is in cumbent upon the PCGG and its officers, as well as other
government representatives, to disclose sufficient public information on any
proposed settlement they have decided to take up with the ostensible owners
and holders of ill-gotten wealth, subject to some of the following recognized
restrictions: (1) national security matters and intelligence information, (2)
trade secrets and banking transactions, (3) criminal matters, and (4) other
confidential information.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The General and Supplemental

Agreements dated December 28, 1993, which PCGG and the Marcos heirs
entered into are hereby declared NULL AND VOID for being contrary to law
and the Constitution. Respondent PCGG, its officers and all government
functionaries and officials who are or may be directly or indirectly involved
in the recovery of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses and their
associates are DIRECTED to disclose to the public the terms of any proposed
1
compromise settlement, as well as the final agreement, relating to such
alleged ill-gotten wealth, in accordance with the discussions embodied in this
Decision.
 CHAVEZ VS PUBLIC ESTATE AUTHORITY
G.R. No. 133250 (July 9, 2002)
Facts:
President Marcos through a presidential decree created PEA, which
was tasked with the development, improvement, and acquisition, lease,
and sale of all kinds of lands. The then president also transferred to PEA the
foreshore and offshore lands of Manila Bay under the Manila-Cavite Coastal
Road and Reclamation Project. Thereafter, PEA was granted patent to
the reclaimed areas of land and then, years later, PEA entered into a JVA
with AMARI for the development of the Freedom Islands. Thes two entered
into a joint venture in the absence of any public bidding. Later, a
privilege speech was given by Senator President Maceda denouncing
the JVA as the grandmother of all scams. An investigation was conducted and
it was concluded that the lands that PEA was conveying to AMARI were lands
of the public domain; the certificates of title over the Freedom Islands
were void; and the JVA itself was illegal. This prompted Ramos to form an
investigatory committee on the legality of the JVA.

Petitioner now comes and contends that the government stands to

lose billions by the conveyance or sale of the reclaimed areas to
AMARI. He also asked for the full disclosure of the renegotiations happening
between the parties.
Issue:
WON the stipulations in the amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI
of the lands, reclaimed or to be reclaimed, violate the Constitution.
Ruling:
The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is
rooted in the Regalian doctrine, which holds that the State owns all lands and
waters of the public domain.
The 1987 Constitution recognizes the Regalian doctrine. It declares that all
natural resources are owned by the State and except for alienable
agricultural lands of the public domain, natural resources cannot be
alienated.
The Amended JVA covers a reclamation area of 750 hectares. Only
2
157.84 hectares of the 750 hectare reclamation project have been reclaimed,
and the rest of the area are still submerged areas forming part of Manila Bay.
Further, it is provided that AMARI will reimburse the actual costs in
reclaiming the areas of land and it will shoulder the other reclamation costs to
be incurred.
The foreshore and submerged areas of Manila Bay are part of the lands of
the public domain, waters and other natural resources and consequently
owned by the State. As such, foreshore and submerged areas shall not be
alienable unless they are classified as agricultural lands of the public
domain. The mere reclamation of these areas by the PEA doesn’t convert
these inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain. There must be a law or presidential
proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable and
disposable if the law has reserved them for some public or quasi-public
use.

NERI vs SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY

G.R. No. 180643  (September 4, 2008)

Facts:

On April 21, 2007, the Department of Transportation and Communication

(DOTC) entered into a contract with Zhong Xing Telecommunications
Equipment (ZTE) for the supply of equipment and services for the National
Broadband Network (NBN) Project in the amount of U.S. $ 329,481,290
(approximately P16 Billion Pesos). The Project was to be financed by the
People’s Republic of China. The Senate passed various resolutions relative to
the NBN deal. In the September 18, 2007 hearing Jose de Venecia III testified
that several high executive officials and power brokers were using their
influence to push the approval of the NBN Project by the NEDA.

Neri, the head of NEDA, was then invited to testify before the Senate Blue
Ribbon. He appeared in one hearing wherein he was interrogated for 11 hrs
and during which he admitted that Abalos of COMELEC tried to bribe him with
P200M in exchange for his approval of the NBN project. He further narrated
that he informed President Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that she
instructed him not to accept the bribe.

However, when probed further on what they discussed about the NBN
Project, petitioner refused to answer, invoking “executive privilege”. In
particular, he refused to answer the questions on:
(a) whether or not President Arroyo followed up the NBN Project,
(b) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it, and
(c) whether or not she directed him to approve.
He later refused to attend the other hearings and Ermita sent a letter to the
senate averring that the communications between GMA and Neri are
privileged and that the jurisprudence laid down in Senate vs Ermita be
3
applied. He was cited in contempt of respondent committees and an order for
his arrest and detention until such time that he would appear and give his
testimony.
Issue: WON the communications elicited by the subject three (3) questions
covered by executive privilege

Ruling:

Yes, the communications are covered by executive privilege. The

revocation of EO 464 (advised executive officials and employees to follow and
abide by the Constitution, existing laws and jurisprudence, including, among
others, the case of Senate v. Ermita when they are invited to legislative
inquiries in aid of legislation.), does not in any way diminish the concept of
executive privilege. This is because this concept has Constitutional
underpinnings.

The claim of executive privilege is highly recognized in cases where the

subject of inquiry relates to a power textually committed by the Constitution
to the President, such as the area of military and foreign relations. Under our
Constitution, the President is the repository of the commander-in-chief,
appointing, pardoning, and diplomatic powers. Consistent with the doctrine of
separation of powers, the information relating to these powers may enjoy
greater confidentiality than others.

CENTER FOR PEOPLE EMPOWERMENT vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 189546 (September 21, 2010)

Facts:

On May 26, 2009 petitioner Center for People Empowerment in

Governance (CenPEG), a non-government organization, wrote respondent
COMELEC, requesting a copy of the source code of the Precinct Count Optical
Scan (PCOS) programs, the Board of Canvassers Consolidation/Canvassing
System (BOC CCS) programs for the municipal, provincial, national, and
congressional canvass, the COMELEC server programs, and the source code
of the in-house COMELEC programs called the Data Capturing System (DCS)
utilities.On June 24, 2009 the COMELEC granted the request for the source
code of the PCOS and the CCS, but denied that for the DCS, since the DCS
was a system used in processing the Lists of Voters which is not part of the
voting, counting and canvassing systems contemplated by R.A. 9369.
According to COMELEC, if the source code for the DCS were to be divulged,
unscrupulous individuals might change the program and pass off an illicit one
that could benefit certain candidates or parties.Rejecting COMELEC’s excuse,
on October 5, 2009 CenPEG filed the present petition for mandamus, seeking
to compel COMELEC to immediately make its source codes available to
CenPEG and other interested parties.
4

Issue:
 WON the COMELEC violated the constitutional right to information

Ruling:

YES. The 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 thatreason is
already stale.The Court GRANTS the petition for mandamus and directs the
COMELEC to make the source codes for the AES technologies it selected for
implementation pursuant to R.A. 9369 immediately available to CenPEG and
all other interested political parties or groups for independent review.