AKBAYAN VS.

AQUINO
G.R. 107516, 16 July 2008
558 SCRA 469

Special Civil Action. Petition for mandamus and prohibition to obtain the full text
of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA), offers during
negotiation, and other pertinent attachments.

Carpio-Morales, J.:

FACTS:

On 25 January 2005, Congressmen Taada III and Aguja filed a house resolution
calling for an inquiry into the bilateral trade agreements being negotiated by the
Philippine government, the JPEPA in particular. During the houses inquiry on the
matter, it requested the Respondent Tomas Aquino (the chair of the committee that
studied and negotiated the JPEPA) to furnish them a copy of the latest draft of the
JPEPA. However, Aquino did not heed their request. Aguja requested a copy of the
document from Aquino, but the latter told the former that he shall be provided with
a copy once the negotiations are complete. The house committee through its Chair,
Teves, asked Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita for a copy of the latest draft and
all related documents. Ermita, in a letter, told them that all documents being
requested may be difficult to accomplish at this time citing that the reason that the
work is still in progress. Again, Aguja requested a copy from NEDA Dir Gen Neri
and Tarriff Commission Chair Abon. However, his requests were forwarded to
Aquino. The house decided to issue a subpoena for the most recent draft of the
JEPEPA, but it was not pursued after Speaker de Venecia told Teves to temporarily
hold the issuance of the subpoena until the President consents to the disclosure of
the documents. The JPEPA was signed on 9 September 2006 by the President and
the Japanese Prime Minister. After that, the President endorsed the document to the
Senate for concurrence. The final text of the JPEPA was already made public on 11
September 2006.

ISSUES:

1. WON the refusal of the government to disclose the documents bearing on the
JPEPA negotiation violates their right to information on matters of public
concern and contravenes other constitutional provisions on transparency.
 2. WON that the non-disclosure of the same documents undermines their right
to effective and reasonable participation in all levels of social, political, and
economic decision-making.

3. WON the disclosure of the agreement only after the agreement has been
concluded violates the separation of powers between the Executive branch
and Congress.

HELD:

1. First of all, the petitioners demand for the full text of the JPEPA has been
rendered moot and academic since it was made available to public ever since
11 September 2006. The Supreme Court explained that in order to be covered
by the right to information, the information sought must be a matter of public
concern. As the Supreme Court sees it, the JPEPA and the offers contained
within it, as an international trade agreement, is matter of public concern.
Respondents claimed, however, that diplomatic negotiations are covered by
executive privilege. The Court ruled on this matter by saying that diplomatic
negotiations are indeed reasonably safeguarded by executive privilege for the
sake of national interest (ruling in PMPF vs. Manglapus). Although, the final
text of the JPEPA may not be kept undisclosed indefinitely. However, the
offers exchanged by the parties during negotiation continued to be privileged
even after JEPEPA is published. This is because diplomatic negotiations
partake the nature of deliberative process and presidential communications,
hence they are within the ambit of executive privilege even if the subject
matter is not of national security.

2. The full text of JPEPA was already published since 11 September 2006, even
as it is still being deliberated upon by the Senate and, not yet binding on the
Philippines. Were the Senate to concur with the validity of the JPEPA at that
moment, there has already been ample opportunity for discussion before the
treaty is approved. Furthermore, the petitioners failed to establish that they
will not be able to exercise their right to participate in decision-making
process unless the initial offers are also published.

3. The petitioners claim to have a right to documents on the basis of Congress

inherent power to regulate (domestic or international) commerce. They cannot
meaningfully exercise this power if they will not be given copies of the initial
offers exchanged in JPEPA. Likewise, they argue that the President cannot
exclude Congress from the JPEPA negotiations since the power to fix tariff
 rates solely belongs to Congress and may only be delegated to the President
via legislative fiat. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that the power to enter
treatise is vested directly and exclusively in the President, subject only to the
concurrence of at least 2/3 of all the Members of the Senate to validate the
treaty. P.D. 1468 provides for the authority of the President to enter into trade
agreements with foreign nations and thus may be interpreted as an
acknowledgement of a power already inherent in its office.

PETITION IS DISMISSED.