Akbayan vs. Aquino (2008) John Cruz Carpio Morales, J.

. Facts: The House Special Committee on Globalization conducted a legislative inquiry into the negotiations of the JapanPhilippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA). JPEPA is a bilateral free trade agreement covering a broad range of topics including trade in goods, rules of origin, customs procedures, intellectual property rights, etc. The House Committee requested from respondent executive officials (Usec. Aquino, Exec. Sec. Ermita, et al.) the draft of JPEPA, but the latter refused to comply until the negotiations were completed. On Dec. 9, 2005, Petitioners (NGOs, Congresspersons, citizens, and taxpayers) filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition to obtain from respondents: the full text of the JPEPA and the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted during the negotiation process and all pertinent attachments and annexes thereto. On, Sept. 11, 2006, the full-text of the JPEPA was released to the public during the pendency of this petition. Petitioners argue that the non-disclosure of the documents violates the: right to information on matters of public concern, right to effective and reasonable participation in all levels of social, political, and economic decision making, and separation of powers b/c the Senate is prevented from participating in the negotiations. Respondents invoke the doctrine of executive privilege w/c means that the diplomatic negotiations of JPEPA are an exception to the right to information. Issues W/N petitioners have standing. W/N the case is moot. Held Yes Ratio The right of the people to information on matters of public concern is a public right. Being a citizen satisfies the requirement of standing. Petitioners are all suing as citizens, groups of citizens including members of HoR. The case is only moot insofar as the public disclosure of the full text of the JPEPA during the pendency of the petition. Petitioners nevertheless also demand access to the initial Philippine and Japanese offers w/c is ripe for adjudication. Legaspi v CSC: Public concern eludes exact definition and embraces a broad spectrum of subjects w/c the public may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply b/c such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen. It is evident from the nature of JPEPA as an international trade agreement that the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted during the negotiations towards its execution is a matter of public concern w/c respondents do not dispute. W/N the information sought is covered by executive privilege. Yes In PMPF v. Manglapus, the Court adopted the doctrine in U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. that the President is the sole organ of the nation in its negotiations w/ foreign countries. While the final text of the JPEPA may not be kept perpetually confidential since there should be ample opportunity for discussion before a treaty is approved, the offers exchanged by the parties during the negotiations continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is published.

Not entirely

W/N JPEPA is a matter of public concern.

Yes

Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of the Philippines in future negotiations.

W/N the privilege applies only at certain stages of the negotiation process.

No

Initially, the burden of proof is on the Executive to show that the information is privileged. When it was thus established that the JPEPA documents are within the privilege of diplomatic negotiations pursuant to PMPF v. Manglapus, the presumption arose that its disclosure would impair the performance of executive functions. The burden of proof now shifts to the petitioners to show that information is of sufficient public interest to overcome the privilege. Petitioners cite Chavez v. PCGG and Chavez v. PEA that the diplomatic negotiations are only confidential only at certain stages of the negotiation process. Once finalized, such information must be revealed to the public. Court: the doctrine in both cases explicitly stated that it does not apply to diplomatic negotiations. The information xxx must constitute definite propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged information, military and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public order.

W/N there is sufficient public interest to overcome the claim of privilege.

No

The petitioners have failed to present the strong and sufficient showing of need established in the Nixon cases cited by the Court. The text of the JPEPA having been published, the petitioners have failed to convince this Court that they will not be able to meaningfully exercise their right to participate in decision-making unless the initial offers are also published. It is of public knowledge that various NGOs and private citizens have already publicly expressed their views on the JPEPA through various media (newspaper articles, internet, etc.) The petitioners-members of the HoR likewise fail to present a sufficient showing of need that the information sought is critical to the performance of the functions of Congress. The treaty-making power is exclusive to the President, being the sole organ of the nation in its external relations. Congress may not interfere into the field of treaty negotiations. Their constitutionally mandated role is limited to the 2/3 concurrence of the Senate for the validity of the subject treaty (Art. VII, Sec. 21).

W/N respondents failed to timely claim executive privilege

No

The privilege is an exemption to Congress power of inquiry. So long as Congress finds no cause to enforce such power, there is no strict necessity to assert the privilege. Hence, respondents failure to invoke the privilege during the House Committee investigations did not amount to a waiver thereof. Furthermore, the failure to satisfy the requirement that the privilege may only be invoked by the President or through the Exec. Sec. by order of the President as laid down in Senate v. Ermita, may be set aside given that the same case was not yet final at the time respondents filed their Comment to the petition.

Petition is DISMISSED