Aristoza
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Joya v PCGG
August 24, 1993
THE CASE:
PONENTE: Bellosillo, J.
PETITIONERS:
RESPONDENTS: Presidential Commission on Good Government
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE:
Art. XIV, Sec. 14, that it is the solemn duty of the state to „foster the
preservation, enrichment, and dynamic evolution of a Filipino national
culture based on the principle of unity in diversity in a climate of free artistic
and intellectual expression
FACTS:
 35 petitions seeking to enjoin PCGG from proceeding with auction sale by
Christie’s of New York on Jan 11, 1991, of 82 Old Masters Paintings, and
18th and 19th Century silverware seized from Malacañang and the
Metropolitan Museum of Manila and placed in the custody of the Central
Bank
 Goods were allegedly part of the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos and cronies
 Aug 9, 1990: Mateo Caparas, Chairman of PCGG, asked Pres. Cory
Aquino to sign prposed Consignment Agreement between the country
through PCGG and Christie’s concerning the sale
 Aug 14, 1990: Authorization was given, allowing Christie’s to auction off
the pieces in behalf of the Philippines
 Aug 15, 1990: with authority from Aquino, Caparas signed the
Consignment Agreement
 Oct 26, 1990: COA (through Chairman Eufemio Domingo) submitted to
Aquino audit findings:
1. authority of Caparas to enter into agreement was of doubtful legality
2. contract was disadvantageous to the government
3. PCGG has poor track record of asset disposal by US auction
4. assets were historical relics of cultural significance, disposal is
prohibited by law
 Nov 15, 1990
1. new PCGG Chair David Castro, defended agreement and refuted
allegations of Domingo
2. Director of National Museum Gabriel Casal: items are not protected
cultural properties and therefore, not part of Filipino cultural heritage
 Hence these petitions
 Jan 9, 1991 oral arguments: denied application for preliminary injunction
to restrain sale as petitioners had no legal right to a restraining order and
no proper party impleaded
 Jan 11, 1991: $13M sale proceedings were turned over to Bureau of
Treasury
 In urging this Court to grant their petition, petitioners invoke policy of the
state on the protection of the arts.
ISSUES
1. WoN the instant petition complies with the legal requisites for this Court
to exercise its power of judicial review over this case.
2. WoN petition has become moot and academic
3. WoN issue is of paramount importance as to relax rule on judicial review
HELD/RATIONALE
1. No.
Petitioners claim that
1.1. as citizens, taxpayers, and artists, they are concerned with
protection of country’s artistic wealth (cited Art. 14, Sec 14-18, RA
4846 “The Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act”)
1.2. items are public properties and therefore, collectively owned by
them and by the people (deprived of right to public property without
due process)
Debunking claims:
as to ownership
Items were donated by private persons all over the world to Metropolitan
Museum of Manila; items belong to the foundation
Petitioners have failed to show that they are legal owners as these items
were gifted by foreign friends to the Marcoses on their wedding
anniversary. Only legal owners can bring suit.
as to mandamus filed by petitioners
Legaspi v CSC, writ of mandamus may only be issued when
a. public right to be enforced and
b. concomitant duty of the state are set forth in the constitution
In case at hand, they do not seek fulfillment of a public duty but rather
the enjoinment of an official act. Plus, rights are not in question but
rather the privilege of artwork appreciation.
as to being taxpayers
What is in question is not a dispersal of public funds but rather of
properties which, we note, were not acquired with public money but
rather from private sources
 Aristoza

2. Yes. Petitioners argue that since this is a case of novelty and

importance, despite the items having already been sold, petition should
still be attended to by the Court.
Court contends that a case become moot and academic when its
purpose has become stale, as such has happened in this case. It calls
for the enjoinment of the very auction which has already taken place

3. No. Court has ruled that there is no justification to warrant relaxation of

the rule.

on scope of “artistic and cultural properties”

RA 4846: policy of state to preserve and protect
1. Important cultural properties- historically and culturally significant but not outstanding
enough to be considered as national cultural treasures
2. National cultural treasures- unique object; of historical/cultural/scientific/artistic value;
highly significant to the country
Director of the Museum: items are not listed among Cultural Properties
Register of the National Museum
 authorized by law to designate and classify such

RULING
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition for prohibition and mandamus is
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.