ALEJANDRO ESTRADA, petitioner v. SOLEDAD S.
ESCRITOR, Benevolent Neutrality
respondent
A.M. No. P-02-1651|August 4, 2003 | Separation of Church and
State
Facts:
 Escritor is a court interpreter since 1999 in the RTC of Las
Pinas City. She has been living with Quilapio, a man who is
not her husband, for more than twenty five years and had a
son with him as well. Respondent’s husband died a year
before she entered into the judiciary while Quilapio is still
legally married to another woman.
 Complainant Estrada requested the Judge of said RTC to
investigate respondent. According to complainant,
respondent should not be allowed to remain employed
therein for it will appear as if the court allows such act.
 Respondent claims that their conjugal arrangement is
permitted by her religion—the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the
Watch Tower and the Bible Trace Society. They allegedly
have a ‘Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness’ under the
approval of their congregation. Such a declaration is
effective when legal impediments render it impossible for a
couple to legalize their union.
 liberty?” – government has to establish the
Issue:
 Whether or Not the State could penalize respondent for such
conjugal arrangement.
Held:
 The Court first stated that on their decision on August 4,
2003. They ruled that in resolving claims of religious
freedom. The Court held that Benevolent neutrality or
accommodation whether mandatory or permissive, is
the spirit, intent and framework underlying the religion
clauses in our Constitution.
 However, in deciding the plea of exemption by
Respondent, the Court ruled that the compelling state
interest test which is the strictest one should be applied.
Religion Clauses in the U.S Context
 The Court turned to the interpretation of religion clauses in
the United States as they are the precursor to the Philippine
clauses. Wherein they identified two standards on religion
clauses.
o Strict Separation or its tamer versionStrict
Neutrality or as referred by Justice Carpio as
Governmental Neutrality.
 The two forms are premised on that a
wall must exist between the state and
church to protect the state from the
church.
o Benevolent Neutrality or accommodation
 Which views that the wall of separation
is meant to protect the church from the
state.
Strict Separation
 Under strict separation there is a need to have a complete
separation of religion from politics in order to eliminate the
formal influence of religious institutions and provide for a free
choice among political views. In this premise, there is a need
to have a strict wall of separation.
Strict Neutrality
 Under Strict Neutrality, while there is a belief that a wall of
separation should exist between the church and state; the
separation should not be adversarial. Rather, the state
should be neutral in its relations with religious believers and
non-believers.
 For Benevolent Neutrality, there is still a supposed wall of
separation, however, the said wall is said to protect the
church from the state. This is because benevolent neutrality
recognizes the importance of religion in public life.
Religion Clauses in the Philippine Context
 However, tin the Philippine context the Supreme Court ruled
that our religion clauses are different as evidenced in the
1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions which give tax
exemptions of church property, salary of religious officers in
government institutions and optional religious instruction,
and the preamble invoking the aid of a divine bring. Those
provisions reveal that it is an adherence to the benevolent
neutrality approach, this would mean that in interpreting
religion clauses it requires accommodation
Compelling State Interest test
 The Compelling State Interest test involves three questions.
o First is “has the statute or government action
created a burden on the free exercise of religion?”
Examining the sincerity of religious belief without
inquiring the truth of the said belief.
o Second is “Is there a sufficiently compelling
interest to justify the infringement of religious
purpose that its purposes are legitimate for the
state and that they are compelling.
o Third is “Has the state in achieving its legitimate
purposes used the least intrusive means possible
so that the free exercise is not infringed any more
than necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of
the state?”– this would require that the state show
that the means in which achieving the
stateobjective is the least intrusive means.
 To add, the court ruled that while the U.S religion clauses
are precursors to the Philippine religion clauses, the
benevolent neutrality - accommodation approach in the
Philippines is given leeway.
 The Court also ruled that there is a wisdom in
accommodation as this is the recourse that minority religions
run to, to protect themselves from majoritarianism.
 Moreover, the court added that exemption of penal laws on
account of religion is not an alien concept. (i.e Moslem
polygamy)
 While benevolent neutrality is the approach used by the
courts; there is a need to give the state’s interest utmost
protection, hence, there is the Compelling State Interest test.
Current Proceedings
 In the case of Escritor, the court subjected the case to the
compelling state interest test to determine whether
respondent is entitled to exemption.
 In applying the Compelling State Interest test, the OSG
concedes that the belief of respondent is beyond serious
doubt.
 After applying the first test, the evidence presented by the
OSG fails to demonstrate “gravest abuses endangering
paramount interests” which could limit the respondent’s right
to religious freedom. Moreover, there was no proof of any
effort from the government to show that the means it seeks
to achieve its state objective is least intrusive.
 The Supreme Court ruled that Respondent’s conjugal
arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out a
case for exemption from the law based on the right to
freedom of religion.
 Administrative Complaint is dismissed
 BAYAN (Bagong AlyansangMakabayan) vs. Executive Secretary
Zamora
GR NO. 138570 | October 10, 2000 | Case 1 | Independent Foreign
Policy
Facts
 The petitioners for certiorari and prohibition assailed that the
Visiting Forces Agreement between the Republic of the
Philippines and the United States of America
 On March 14, 1947 the two parties first made which
formalized the use of installations in the Philippine territory
by U.S Military Personnel.
 After the Military Bases Agreement a Mutual Defense
Treaty soon followed on August 30, 1951 to further
strengthen defense and security ties between the two
countries.
 With the pendency of the expiration of the first agreement,
the Philippines and the US governments negotiated for an
extension of the agreement. However, congress rejected the
proposed RP-US treaty on September 16, 1991.
 After the rejection of the proposed treaty. The US Panel
headed by the US Defense Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Asia Pacific met with the Philippine Panel headed by the
Foreign Affairs Undersecretary on June 18, 1997 wherein
they exchanged notes to complement strategic interests.
o Among the things discussed on the meeting was
the possibility of a Visiting Forces Agreement or
VFA. The negotiations then led into a consolidated
draft text which resulted to a final series of
conferences and negotiations that culminated in
Manila on January 12 and 13, 1998. The said draft
text was then approved by President Ramos and
was signed by Respondent Siazon and U.S
Ambassador Hubbard on February 10, 1998
October 5, 1998
 President Joseph Estrada through the respondent Secretary
of Foreign Affairs ratified the VFA.
October 6, 1998
 The President through the Executive Secretary Zamora,
transmitted the instrument of ratification, letter of the
President and the VFA for concurrence in pursuance to
Section 21, Article 7 of the Constitution.
o The Senate then referred the VFA to the
Committee on Foreign Relations and Committee
on National Defense and Security where they held
public hearings jointly.
May 3, 1999
 The Committees submitted Senate Resolution 443 which
recommends the concurrence of the Senate to the VFA and
creation of a Legislative Oversight Committee.
May 27, 1999
 The resolutions was approved by the senate through a two-
thirds vote of its members and then Senate Resolution 443,
was made into Senate Resolution 18.
June 1, 1999
 The VFA entered into force after the exchange of Notes
between Secretary Siazon and Ambassador Hubbard.
Issue
 What provision of the Constitution applies regarding the
exercise of the Senate of its constitutional power to concur
with the VFA.
 Whether or not there was a grave abuse of discretion
o Petitioners argue that Section 25 of Article 18
applies.
o Respondents argue that Section 21 of Article 7
should apply as VFA is not a basing agreement
but an agreement that involves temporary visits of
US personnel engaged in joint military exercises.
Held
 The Court first examined that there are two provisions that
require the concurrence of the Senate on treaties or
international agreements. First is Section 21 Article 7 and
Second is Section 25, Article 18.
 For Section 21 Article 7
o The Court said that deals with treaties or
international agreements in the general sense
needs the concurrence of at least 2/3 (16
members) of all members of the senate to make
the treaty, or agreement valid and binding on the
part of the Philippines.
o The said rule is the general rule on treaties or
international agreements applies to any form of
treaty with a wide variety of subject matter such as
but not limited to
 Extradition
 Tax treaties
 Or those economic in nature.
 For Section 25, Article 18
o The said provision is a special provision which
applies to treaties that involve foreign military
bases, troops or facilities in the Philippines.
o For this provision, it requires that
 First it should be a treaty and
 Secondly that the treaty is concurred by
the senate; but when required by
congress, should be ratified by a
majority votes cast in a national
referendum held for that purpose if so
required by congress and recognized as
such (a treaty) by the other contracting
state.
 Third, is that it is recognized as a treaty
by the other contracting state.
 The Supreme Court ruled that the presence of the two
requisites are present, withstanding the fact that there was
Resolution 18.
 For the third requirement, the court expressed that the
‘recognized as treaty’ would mean that the other party of the
treaty accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty.
 The Supreme Court stated that it is inconsequential whether
the US treats the VFA as an executive agreement as
under International Law an executive agreement is as
binding as a treaty
 The Supreme Court cited the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties which defines that a treaty is
o "an international instrument concluded between
States in written form and governed by
international law, whether embodied in a single
instrument or in two or more related instruments,
and whatever its particular designation."
Ratification
 In the issue of ratification, the Supreme Court stated that it is
an executive act. As the power to ratify is vested in the
President and not in the legislature.
o The role of the Senate is limited to giving or
withholding its consent to the ratification.
 With the ratification and exchange of notes between GRP
and the US, the treaty now becomes obligatory and
incumbent on our party under the principles of international
law.
 Furthermore, the Supreme Court that through constitutional
fiat and nature of the office of the President. The President is
the chief architect of the nation’s foreign policy. Which
would mean that the power to enter into treaties or
international agreements, the Constitution vests in the
President. However, it is subject to the concurrence of at
least 2/3 of all members of the senate.
 From the facts of the case, it would show that there was no
abuse of discretion in the act of the president in ratifying the
VFA. While the President erred in submitting the VFA for
concurrence under Section 21 article said instead of Section
25 of Article 18, there was no grave abuse of discretion.
Petition is Dismissed
 Province of North Cotabato vs Government of the Republic of the
Philippines
GR No. 183591 | October 14, 2008 | Case 2 | Independent Foreign
Policy
Facts
 Subject of this case is the Memorandum of Agreement on
the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) which is scheduled to be
signed by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines
and the MILF in August 05, 2008. Five cases bearing the
same subject matter were consolidated by this court
 The MOA-AD is a result of various agreements entered into
by and between the government and the MILF starting in
1996; then in 1997, they signed the Agreement on General
Cessation of Hostilities; and the following year, they signed
the General Framework of Agreement of Intent on August
27, 1998.
 Embodied in concepts and principles, is the definition of
Bangsamoro as all indigenous peoples of Mindanao and
its adjacent islands.
o These people have the right to self-
governance of their Bangsamoro homeland to
which they have exclusive ownership by virtue
of their prior rights of occupation in the land.
The MOA-AD goes on to describe the
Bangsamoro people as "the ‘First Nation' with
defined territory and with a system of
government having entered into treaties of
amity and commerce with foreign nations." It
then mentions for the first time
the"Bangsamoro Juridical Entity" (BJE) to
which it grants the authority and jurisdiction
over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral
Lands of the Bangsamoro
Issue
 Whether or not the MOA-AD is Constitutional
Ruling
 According to the Supreme Court, the MOA-AD would not
comply with the Constitution as according to Paragraph 4 of
the Resources title on the MOA-AD that the BJE is free to
enter an economic cooperation, trade relations with foreign
countries. Provided that the relationships and
understandings do not include aggression against the GRP.
However, the Court ruled cited their ruling on Pimentel vs
Executive Secretary
o They stated that in our system of government, the
President is regarded as the sole organ and
authority in external relations and is the
country’s sole representative with foreign
nations
o The President is the chief architect of the foreign
policy and acts as the country’s mouthpiece
regarding international affairs.
o Moreover, the President is vested with the
authority to deal with foreign states and
governments, extend or withhold recognition
and maintain diplomatic relations, enter into
treaties and otherwise transact the business of
foreign relations in the realm of treaty making.
 Petitions are given due course and granted. The MOA-
AD of the Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 is
declared contrary to law and the Constitution
Separate Opinions
 Withstanding the fact that the BJE has the attributes of a
state and has the power to enter into international
treaties gives the BJE status and legal personality to be
a party to a case before the ICJ
 By agreeing to the MOA-AD the Philippines would admit
and recognize the international personality of the BJE
with the capacity to sue and be sued in international
tribunals.
Maximo Calalang vs A. D. Williams Et al
GR NO. 47800 | December 2, 1940 | Case 1 | Social Justice and
Human Rights
Facts
 The National Traffic Commission, in its resolution of July 17,
1940, recommended to the Director of the Public Works and
to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications that
animal-drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along the
following for a period of one year from the date of the
opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic
o 1) Rosario Street extending from Plaza Calderon
de la Barca to DasmariñasStreet from 7:30Am to
12:30 pm and from 1:30 pm to 530 pm;
o 2) along Rizal Avenue extending from the railroad
crossing at Antipolo Street toEchague Street from
7 am to 11pm
 Then the Chairman of the National Traffic Commission on
July 1940 recommended to the Director of Public Works the
adoption of the said proposal in pursuance of Common
Wealth Act No. 548
 Then on August 2, the Director of Public Works then
recommended to the to the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications, wherein he recommended the approval of
the recommendation made by the Chairman of the National
Traffic Commission.
 On August 10, the Secretary of Public Works and
Communication in his second recommendation approved the
recommendation of the closure of Rosario Street and Rizal
Avenue for a period of one year.
 Then the Mayor of Manila and Acting Chief of Police of
Manila have enforced, and that the consequence of such
enforcement is that all animal-drawn vehicles are not
allowed to pass not only to the detriment of their owners but
also to the riding public as well.
 Petitioner argues that the rules and regulations complained
of infringe the constitutional precept regarding the promotion
of social justice to insure the well-being and economic
security of all the people.
Issue
 Whether the rules and regulations infringe the constitutional
precept of social justice
Ruling
 The Supreme Court ruled that the rules and regulations were
promulgated to promote safe transit upon and avoid
obstructions on national roads for the interest and
convenience of the public. This would mean that Public
Welfare lies at the bottom of the enactment of the law
 The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner’s argument
regarding social justice is untenable. As the promotion of
social justice is to be achieved not through a mistaken
sympathy towards any group.
 As Social Justice is ‘neither communism, nor despotism, nor
atomism, nor anarchy’ but the humanization of laws and
the equalization and economic forces by the State so
that Justice in its rational and objectively secular
conception may be approximated
 Social Justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the
people, the adoption by the Government of measures to
insure economic stability of all the competent elements of
society through the maintenance of a proper economic and
social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the
community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measure
legally justifiable.
 Or extra constitutionally through the time-honored principle
of “saluspopuliest suprema lex”
Petition is denied
 Spouses Imbong vs. Ochoa
GR NO. 204819 | April 8, 2014 | Case 1 | Sanctity of Family Life,
Life of the Mother, Life of the Unborn
Facts
 Petitioner ALFI argues that thegovernment sponsored
contraception program, the very essence of the RH Law,
violates the right to health of women and the sanctity of
life,which the State is mandated to protect and promote.
Thus, ALFI prays that "the status quo ante – be maintained
Issue
 Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH)
Law is unconstitutional for violating the sanctity of Family
Life, Life of the Mother and Life of the Unborn
Ruling
 Accordingly, the Supreme Court in the regard of the ponente
is of the strong view that life begins at fertilization. As a
perusal of Section 12 of Article 2 wherein the state
recognizes the sanctity of family life. And shall equally
protect the life of the mother, life of the unborn from
conception.
 Moreover, according to the plain legal meaning rule the
definition of conception is the fecundation of the female
ovum by the male spermatozoon which results in human life
capable of survival.
 The framers also share the same definition of conception
from the plain meaning rule which is when the ovum is
fertilized by the sperm that there is human life.
o From the examination of the plain meaning rule
and the intent of the framers of the constitution, it
is apparent that Congress is prohibited from
enacting measures that would allow it to determine
when life begins.
o Accordingly, the Court ruled that contraceptives
that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum should be
deemed abortive, thus prohibited. Conversely,
contraceptives that prevent the union of the male
sperm and female ovum and similar, prior to
fertilization is deemed non-abortive.
 Accordingly, the Court agrees with the contention of ALFI
that there was a grave abuse of the office of the authors of
the RH-IRR as they redefined the meaning of abortifacient
wherein they added that Abortifacient refers to any drug or
device that primarily induces abortion or the destruction of a
fetus.
o The Court ruled that the addition of the
qualifying word ‘primary was ultra vires as it
violates the protection of the life of the unborn
from conception / fertilization as according to
Article 2 Section 12 of the Constitution.
o The Court ruled that if Section 3.01 a and j is
held valid and prohibit only contraceptives that
have the primary effect of being an abortive
would open the floodgates to contraceptives
which harm or destroy the life of the unborn.
Which violates Article 2 Section 12 of the
Constitution.
The Court ruled that Section 3.01 a and Section 3.01 j is an ultra
vires act and was null and void for contravening Sec 4 of RH Law
and violating Section 12 Article 2 of the Constitution.
Oposa vs Factoran Jr.
GR No. 101083 | July 30, 1993 | Case 1 | Balanced and Healthful
Ecology
Facts
 The case started in Civil Case 90 -777 which was filed
before Branch 66 of the Makati RTC.
 Plaintiffs and now principal petitioners are all minors
represented and joined by their parents and the Philippine
Ecological Network a non-stock and non-profit corporation.
 Petitioners complain that from the basis of scientific
evidence, in order to retain a balanced and healthful
ecology, the country should have a basis of 54% of forest
cover and 46% for agricultural and residential, and etc uses.
 Plaintiffs assert that the adverse and detrimental
consequence of continued deforestation are so
unquestionable that the same may be submitted as a matter
of judicial notice.
 Petitioners also contend that their complaint is clearly states
a cause of action as it contains allegations concerning their
right to a sound environment based on Articles 19, 20 and
21 of the Civil Code, Section 4 of EO 192 and most
importantly Section 16, Article 2 of the Constitution.
Issues
 Whether or not the petitioners have a sufficient cause of
action to prevent the misappropriation or impairment of
Philippine rainforests and arrest the uninhabited hemorrhage
of the country’s vital life support systems.
Ruling
 Petitioner’s complaint focuses on one fundamental right –
the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which is
incorporated in our Constitution in Section 16 Article 12
which states that The State shall protect and advance the
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in
accord with the rhythm and harmony and nature.
 Furthermore Section 16 paired together with Section 15 of
the Constitution where the State shall protect and promote
the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them.
 While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is under
the declaration of principles and state policies. It does not
follow that the said right is less important than any of the civil
and political rights in the Bill of Rights.
 The Court stated that the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology carries the correlative duty to refrain from impairing
the environment which is evidenced during the debates of
the 1986 Constitutional Commission.
 Moreover, the policy declaration in the Constitution is
reiterated in Book 4 of the Administrative Code of
1987.Moreover, E.O 192 states the mandate of the DENR in
protecting the utilization and conversation of the state’s
natural resources.
 There is also the fact that there were statutes that paid
attention to the environmental right of the present and future
generations, which is evidenced on P.D 1151 or the
Philippine Environmental Policy and P.D 1152 or the
Philippine Environment Code.
o From those laws and codes it would mean that the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is clear.
 The Court stated that a denial or violation of that right by the
other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or
protect the same gives rise to a cause of action.
 Petitioners maintain that the granting of TLAs which were
done with grave abuse of discretion violated their right to a
balanced and healthful ecology.
 The Court granted the petition
Mosqueda vs Pilipino Banana Growers
GR No. 189185 | August 16, 2016 | Case 2 | Balanced and Healthful
Ecology
Facts
 The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City Enacted
Ordinance No. 0309 – 2007 which imposes a ban against
aerial spraying as an agricultural practice by all agricultural
entities within Davao City.
 After the approval of the ordinance by Mayor Rodrigo
Duterte on Feb 2007, the ordinance took effect on March 23,
2007
 Afterwards, the Philipipne Banana Growers and Exporters
Association and two of its members Davao Fruits Corp. and
Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation filed
their petition in the RTC to challenge the constitutionality of
the ordinance.
o They argue that the ordinance was an
unreasonable exercise of police power which
violated equal protection clause and violated
confiscation of property without due process of
law.
 However, on May 2007, the residents living near the banana
plantations led by Wilfredo Mosqueda and other residents of
Davao filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene. This was
granted on June 4, 2007
RTC Judgment
  The RTC then rendered judgment wherein they declared that
the ordinance in question is valid and constitutional. As the
ordinance was a valid exercise of police power under the
general welfare clause of the LGC.
 However, the RTC recognized the 3-month transition period
as impracticable and thus recommended parties to agree on
an extended transition period.
CA Appeal
 PBGEA then appealed and applied for an injunctive relief
from the CA which was granted, consequently a TRO was
issued to enjoin the effectivity of the ordinance.
 The CA ruled in favor of PBGEA where they declared
Section 5 of Ordinance 0309 as void and unconstitutional for
being unreasonable and oppressive
 Moreover, the CA ruled that Section 3 (a) of the ordinance
did not make reasonable distinction between the hazards,
safety and beneficial effects of liquid substances that were
being applied aerially.
 With the CA ruling stating that the CA did nto see any
relation between protecting the public and harmful effects of
aerial spraying and the ban against aerial spraying. The CA
ruled that the 30-meter buffer zone within the agricultural
plantations under Section 6 of Ordinance 6 constituted of
taking of property without due process.
 After the CA Ruling, the City of Davao and intervenors
filed their motions for reconsideration but was denied
on 2009, hence the consolidated appeals by petition for
review on certiorari.
Issue
 Whether or not the CA Erred in ruling that the ordinance is
unconstitutional.
Ruling
 The Court denied the petitions for lack of merit
 As it is an evident fact that while the ordinance concerns the
imposition of the ban against aerial spraying in all
agricultural lands. It will have a considerable impact on the
country’s banana industry.
 With regards to the argument of the petitioners that the court
should look at the merits of the ordinance on the basis of the
precautionary principle. Wherein they argue that the City
was justified in enacting the said ordinance to prevent harm
to the environment despite the lack of scientific certainty.
 However, In the Philippine jurisdiction, the principle of
precaution appearing in the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases involves matters of evidence in cases
where there is lack of scientific certainty in establishing a
causal link between human activity and environmental
effect.
 In the application of precautionary principle, there shall only
be relevant elements if there is concurrence of three
elements namely: uncertainty, threat of environmental
damage and serious or irreversible harm.
 IN this case precaution is a management principle invoked
after scientific inquiry takes place. As it is synonymous with
risk assessment.
o It is important to have an objective scientific
evaluation to let decision makers choose the most
appropriate course of action.
 While there was a study conducted to validate the
effects of aerial spraying. The report generated by the
team was not scientific that could be resorted to apply
the precautionary principle.
 The Supreme Court ruled that the Ordinance should be
struck down for being unreasonable due to lack of
scientific data. As nothing is known about the exact or
potential dangers of aerial spraying to the health of
residents in and near the plantations. And most
importantly the balance and integrity of the
environment.
Valmonte vs Belmonte
G.R. No. 74930 | February 13, 1989 | Case 1 | Consti Full Public
Disclosure
Facts
 Petitioners in this special action for mandamus with
preliminary injunction invoke their right to information and
pray that respondent be directed to the following:
o Furnish petitioners the list of names of the
Batansang Pambansa Members belonging to
UNIDO and PDP-Labal who were able to secure
loans before the Feb 7 election through the
intercession of Imelda Marcos
o Furnish petitioners with certified true copies of the
documents evidencing their respective loans
and/or
o Allow petitioners access to the public records for
the subject information.
 The controversy started with Petitioner writing to
Respondent a letter requesting to secure the aforementioned
documents under the premise of the Freedom Constitution
right of the people to information on matters of public
concern.
 Deputy General Counsel of the GSIS then replied to
Petitioner that they cannot respond to Petitioner’s request as
the GSIS has a duty to its customers to preserve its
confidentiality with those who borrow from it.
 However, on June 20, 1986 Petitioner wrote another letter to
respondent as he has not received the reply of the GSIS and
states that the failure to receive a reply made them consider
free to do whatever action necessary within the premises to
pursue their desired objective in pursuance to public interest.
 On June 26, 1986 Valmonte and other petitioners then filed
this suit.
 On July 19, 1986 the Daily Express carried a news item that
137 former members of the Batasang Pambansa including
10 opposition members were granted housing loans by the
GSIS.
Respondent’s Argument
 Respondent argues that the actions of the GSIS General
Manager are reviewable by the Board of Trustees. Respondent
alleges that Petitioners did not seek relief from the said Board
therefore, they have not exhausted all administrative remedies
which means that petitioners have no cause of action.
Petitioners’ Argument
 Petitioners claim that the issue they raised is a legal issue which
is whether or not they are entitled to the documents sought by
virtue of their right to information.
Issue
 Whether or not Petitioners are entitled to the documents sought
by virtue of their right to information.
Ruling
 The Court stated that this is not the first time that the
court is confronted with a controversy directly involving
the constitutional right to information.
 In the cases of Tanada v. Tuvera, and Legaspi vs Civil
Service Commission the Court upheld the right to be
informed of matters of public interest and ordered the
government agencies to act as prayed for by the
petitioners.
o The Pertinent provision is Article 3 Section 7
of the Constitution.
 The Supreme Court ruled that an informed citizenry
with access to the diverse currents in political, moral
and artistic thought and data relative to them and the
free exchange of ideas and discussion of issues is vital
to the democratic government under our Constitution.
 The Denial of access to information on the inner
workings of government would make the citizenry
become prey to the whims and capricies of those to
whom the power has been delegated. This is in
consonance to Article 11 Section 1 of the Constitution
wherein public office is a public trust.
 Moreover, with Petitioners being practitioners of the
media, they have the right to gather and the obligation
to check the accuracy of information they disseminate.
As the right to access of information ensures that the
freedom of speech and the press are not rendered
nugatory by the government’s monopolizing of pertinent
information.
o While the right to information is an essential
premise of the meaningful right to speech
and expression, it is not an adjunct right.
The right to information goes hand-in-
hand with the constitutional policies of
full public disclosure and honesty in the
public service.
o The right to information is to enhance the
widening role of the citizenry in
governmental decision-making and to
check abuse in government.
 However, the court added that this right is not absolute.
As the right to information is only limited to matters of
public concern or public interest and is subject to
further limitations as may be provided by law.
o However, in the definition of public
concern and public interest, the court
ruled that there is no rigid test for the two
terms. Hence, the court should determine
on a case to case basis whether the
matter at issue is of interest or importance
as it relates to or affects the public.
 The Supreme Court then stated the examples of the
Tanada Case and Legaspi where the former was the
right to information was covered due to the adequate
notice to the public of the various laws which are to
regulate the public. For the latter, it was the concern of
citizens to ensure that government positions which
require civil service eligibility are occupied only by
persons who are eligible.
 In the instant petition, the petitioners seek the truth of
reports of the former members of the BP which
belonged to the opposition were able to secure loans
before the Feb 7, 1986 election through the
intercession of Imelda Marcos.
o In this case the Supreme Court ruled that
there is legitimate concern as the loanable
funds of the GSIS is public in nature and the
public office held by the borrowers makes the
issue of public interest and concern.
 With the first issue settled, the Court then tackled the
second issue that the information sought must not be
excluded by law as per the argument of the respondent
that there should be confidentiality between the GSIS
and its borrowers.
o However, Respondent did not cite any law
which grant them the privilege of
confidentiality.
 The Supreme Court also settled the conflict between
the right to privacy and the right to information.
o For this issue, the court ruled that the When
the information requested from the
government intrudes the privacy of a citizen,
a potential conflict of the two rights may arise.
However, in this case, there is no need to
resolve it as the right to privacy belongs
to an individual in his private capacity, not
to public and governmental agencies.
o Concerned borrowers, can’t invoke the said
right to privacy too as they were holding
public offices at the time the loans were
alleged to have been granted.
 The Court also ruled that the members of the
Constitutional Commission intended to include GOCCs
and transactions entered by them regarding the State’s
policy of full disclosure. While not binding, they are
persuasive.
 The Court added that while citizens have the right
to information; the constitution does not give them
the right to compel custodians of official records to
prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in
their desire to acquire information or matters of
public concern.
 Petition is granted, and petitioners are allowed
access to documents, records evidencing loans
granted to Members of the former BP as petitioners
may specify, inspection, not incompatible with the
decision.
Akbayan v. Aquino (Undersecretary of the DTI)
G.R. No. 170516 | July 16, 2008 | Case 2 | Consti | Full Public
Disclosure
Facts
 Petitioners filed this petition for mandamus and prohibition to
obtain the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic
Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) including the Philippine
and Japanese offers submitted during the negotiation
process and pertinent attachments and annexes.
 The issue started when Petitioners Congressmen Lorenzo
R. Tanada and Mario Joyo Aguja filed House Resolution NO.
551 calling for an inquiry into the bilateral trade agreements
then being negotiated by the Philippine Government,
particularly the JPEPA.
 In the course of the said inquiry conducted by the House
Committee, they requested Respondent to study and
negotiate the proposed JPEPA and furnish the Committee
with a copy of the latest draft. However, Respondent Aquino
did not heed the request.
 Congressman Aguja then requested for the same document,
Respondent Aqunio then replied that the Congressman shall
be provided with a copy once the negotiations are completed
and as soon as legal review of the agreement has been
conducted.
 The House Committee, through Congressman Teves,
requested Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita to furnish it
with all documents regarding the subject, including the latest
draft of the proposed agreement.
o However, Secretary Ermita then wrote in reply that
their request may be difficult to accomplish since
the agreement has been a work in progress for
three years. A copy of the draft JPEPA will be
forwarded to the Committee as soon as the text is
complete.
 Congressman Aguja also requested to the NEDA Director-
General Romulo Neri and Tariff Commission Chairman
Edgardo Abon wherein Chairman Abon replied that the
Commission does not have a copy of the documents
requested, but he is certain that Usec. Aquino could provide
the Congressman a copy once the negotiations are
complete. Congressman Aguja, received the same reply
from the NEDA Director General
  In its third hearing, the House Committee then issued a
subpoena for the most recent draft of the JPEPA. However,
it was not pursued because by the Committee Chairman
Teves’ information that House Speaker Jose de Venecia
requested him to hold the abeyance of the subpoena until
the President gives her consent for the disclosure of
documents.
 With speculations that the JPEPA might be signed in
December 2005, petitioners filed this petition on December
9, 2005. The agreement was to be later signed on Sept 9,
2006 by PGMA and Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi in
Finland, following the endorsement of the President to the
Senate for its concurrence.
 The JPEPA is the first bilateral free trade agreement to be
entered by the Philippines with another country if the senate
grants its consent, which covers a lot of topics.
 With the final text of JPEPA release to the public,
respondents do not dispute that during the filing of the
petition, the JPEPA was still being negotiated – hence the
drafts were kept from public view.
Issue
 Whether or not the refusal of the government to disclose the
documents on the JPEPA negotiations violates their right to
information on matters of public concern.
 Another issue tackled by the court is that whether there is
sufficient public interest to overcome the claim of privilege.
 functions (Senate Select Committee v. Nixon)
Ruling
 The Court ruled that the to be covered by the right to
information, the information sought must meet the
threshold requirement that it be a matter of public
concern.
o The Court referred to the Legaspi v. CSC that in
determining if a matter is of public interest or
importance, the courts must determine it on a case
by case basis.
 Due to the nature of JPEPA as an international trade
agreement, it is evident that the negotiations are of
public concern. While Respondents do not dispute it,
they claim that diplomatic negotiations are covered by
executive privilege which is an exemption to the right to
information and full public disclosure.
 The Court then cited that the privileged character of
diplomatic negotiations has been recognized in the
Philippines wherein they cited the case of PMPF v.
Manglapus.
o The Court ruled in that cited case that the nature
of diplomacy requires centralization of authority
and that diplomacy is confidential in nature.
 Accordingly, the principles in the cited case of PMPF is clear
that while the final text of the JPEPA may not be kept
perpetually confidential – as there is an ample opportunity
for discussion before a treaty is approved and that the offers
exchanged by the parties during the negotiations continue to
be privileged after the JPEPA is published.
 While petitioners argue that PMPF v Manglapus cannot be
applied as the PMPF case involves national security, while
on the other hand the instant case involves an economic
treaty.
o The Court found the argument of Petitioners as a
faulty assumption. The Court cited Senate v.
Ermita that executive privilege has encompassed
claims of varying kinds, while there are
privileges grounded on national security, not
all are founded from that premise.
 The Court stated that the privilege for diplomatic negotiations
is meant to encourage a frank exchange of exploratory ideas
between the negotiating parties by shielding negotiations
from public view; this is in order to protect the independence
in the decision-making of the President.
 Petitioners argue that the instant case is different as the
petitioners in this case consists of members of the Congress
who invoke their right to information.
o The Court stated that there are three distinct kinds
of considerations for presidential refusal to furnish
information:
 State secrets privilege
 Informer’s privilege
 Generic privilege for internal
deliberations
o The court also cited the PMPF case where it is the
President alone who negotiates treaties, not even
the Senate or the House of Representatives may
intrude upon the said process.
 On the issue if there is sufficient public interest to overcome
the claim of privilege. The court cited the following
exemptions
o When it would gravely impair the basic functions of
the courts and central to the fair adjudication of a
particular criminal case in the administration of
justice. (U.S v. Nixon)
o When there is a need to balance such claim with
the duty of Congress to perform its legislative
o For this instant case, petitioners failed to show
a sufficient showing of need.
 Accordingly, the treaty making power is exclusive to the
President as he is the sole organ of the nation’s external
relations which was discussed in BAYAN v Executive
Secretary.
o While the power to fix tariff rates and other taxes
belongs to congress and is exercised by the
President only by delegation of that body, it has
been recognized that the power to enter into
treaties is vested in the President. Subject to
concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the
members of the senate, for the validity of the
treaty.
 The Court then concluded that the demand of the
petitioners for a copy with the full text of the JPEPA
became moot and academic as it became accessible to
the public since Sept 11, 2006.
 Likewise, their demand of the Philippine and Japanese
offers during the negotiations must be denied due to the
claim of executive privilege being valid.
 Petition is dismissed.