Facts:
Petitioner Francisco I. Chavez alleges that what impelled him
to bring this action were several news reports bannered in a number of
broadsheets sometime in September 1997. These news items referred to (1) the
alleged discovery of billions of dollars of Marcos assets deposited in various
coded accounts in Swiss banks; and (2) the reported execution of a compromise,
between the government (through PCGG) and the Marcos heirs, on how to split or
share these assets.
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:
Whether
or not PCGG should disclose public information regarding the Marcoses’
ill-gotten wealth.
Ruling:
Yes, the PCGG should
disclose public information regarding the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth.
The Court held that the "information" and the
"transactions" referred to in the subject provisions of the
Constitution (Sec. 7 [Article III]) have as yet no defined scope and extent.
There are no specific laws prescribing the exact limitations within which the
right may be exercised or the correlative state duty may be obliged. However,
the following are some of the recognized restrictions: (1) national security
matters and intelligence information, (2) trade secrets and banking transactions,
(3) criminal matters, and (4) other confidential information.
Limitations to the Right:
(1) National Security Matters
At
the very least, this jurisdiction recognizes the common law holding that there
is a governmental privilege against public disclosure with respect to state
secrets regarding military, diplomatic and other national security
matters. But where there is no need to protect such state secrets, the
privilege may not be invoked to withhold documents and other information,
provided that they are examined "in strict confidence" and given
"scrupulous protection." Likewise, information on inter-government
exchanges prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements may be
subject to reasonable safeguards for the sake of national interest.
(2) Trade Secrets and Banking Transactions
The
drafters of the Constitution also unequivocally affirmed that, aside from
national security matters and intelligence information, trade or industrial
secrets (pursuant to the Intellectual Property Code and other related
laws) as well as banking transactions (pursuant to the Secrecy of Bank Deposits
Act) are also exempted from compulsory disclosure.
(3) Criminal Matters
Also
excluded are classified law enforcement matters, such as those relating to the
apprehension, the prosecution and the detention of criminals, which courts may
nor inquire into prior to such arrest, detention and prosecution. Efforts at
effective law enforcement would be seriously jeopardized by free public access
to, for example, police information regarding rescue operations, the
whereabouts of fugitives, or leads on covert criminal activities.
(4) Other Confidential Information
The
Ethical Standards Act further prohibits public officials and employees
from using or divulging "confidential or classified information officially
known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the
public."
Other
acknowledged limitations to information access include diplomatic
correspondence, closed door Cabinet meetings and executive sessions of either
house of Congress, as well as the internal deliberations of the Supreme
Court.
Furthermore, the Court used the following case:
In Valmonte v.
Belmonte Jr., the Court emphasized that the information sought
must be "matters of public concern," access to which may be limited
by law. Similarly, the state policy of full public disclosure extends only to
"transactions involving public interest" and may also be
"subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law."
The Court also addressed the following of Executive Orders of
then President Cory Aquino:
Executive Order No. 1, promulgated on February 28, 1986, only two (2)
days after the Marcoses fled the country, created the PCGG which was primarily
tasked to assist the President in the recovery of vast government resources
allegedly amassed by former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives
and close associates both here and abroad.
Under Executive Order No. 2, issued twelve (12) days later, all persons and
entities who had knowledge or possession of ill-gotten assets and properties
were warned and, under pain of penalties prescribed by law, prohibited from
concealing, transferring or dissipating them or from otherwise frustrating or
obstructing the recovery efforts of the government.
On May 7,
1986, another directive (EO No. 14)
was issued giving additional powers to the PCGG which, taking into account the
overriding considerations of national interest and national survival,
required it to achieve expeditiously and effectively its vital task of
recovering ill-gotten wealth.
In
the instant case, there is no doubt that the
recovery of the Marcoses' alleged ill-gotten wealth is a matter of public
concern and imbued with public interest. The Court also add that
"ill-gotten wealth," by its very nature, assumes a public character.
Based on the aforementioned Executive Orders, "ill-gotten wealth"
refers to assets and properties purportedly acquired, directly or indirectly,
by former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives and close associates
through or as a result of their improper or illegal use of government funds or
properties; or their having taken undue advantage of their public office; or
their use of powers, influences or relationships, "resulting in their
unjust enrichment and causing grave damage and prejudice to the Filipino people
and the Republic of the Philippines." The assets and properties referred
to supposedly originated from the government itself. To all intents and
purposes, therefore, they belong to the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment