Francisco Chavez vs.

PCGG
(Constitutional right to information on matters of public concern)
FACTS:
Petitioner Chavez, as taxpayer, citizen and former govt official, impelled to bring this action regarding
several news reports on: (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, demands that respondents make public any
negotiations and agreements pertaining to PCGGs 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 countrys economy that would be greatly prejudicial to the
national interest of the Filipino People. Hence, they have the right to know the transactions effected by the
Government.
Respondents, on the other hand, contended that petitioners 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.
Further, Pres. Ramos, in his Memorandum, commanded the PCGG Chairman NOT to approve the
Compromise Agreements. Embodied in the covenant that (a) the Marcoses shall provide the govt assistance
by way of testimony or disposition on any information that may shed light on the cases; (b) the assets
determined to belong to the Marcoses shall be net of and exempt from, any form of taxes due the Republic of
the Philippines; (c) that all disclosures of assets shall not used as evidence by the Govt in any criminal, civil,
tax or administrative case against the former.
ISSUES:
(A) Procedural:
1) W/N the petitioner has the personality or legal standing to file the instant petition; and
2) W/N this Court is the proper court before which this action may be filed.
(B) Substantive:
1) W/N this Court could require the PCGG to disclose to the public the details of any agreement,
perfected or not, with the Marcoses; and
2) W/N there exist any legal restraints against a compromise agreement between the Marcoses
and the PCGG relative to the Marcoses ill-gotten wealth.
HELD:
First Procedural Issue
YES. The Petitioner has the legal standing to file the instant petition.
In Legaspi vs. CSC, the Court declared that when a mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a
public right, the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that petitioner is a citizen and,
therefore, part of the general public which possesses the right.
The instant petition is anchored on the right of the people to information and access to official records
and documents which guaranteed under Sec. 7, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution. Due to the satisfaction of the
two basic requisites laid down by decisional law to sustain petitioners legal standing, i.e. 1) the enforcement of
a public right; 2) espoused by a Filipino citizen, the Court ruled that the petition at bar should be allowed.

Second Procedural Issue

YES. Section 5, Art. VIII of the Constitution expressly confers upon the SC original jurisdiction over
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus.
The Court ruled that this petition is not confined to the Agreements that have already been drawn, but
likewise to any other ongoing or future undertaking towards any settlement on the alleged Marcos loot.
Ineluctably, the core issue boils down to the precise interpretation, in terms of scope, of the twin constitutional
provisions on public transaction. This broad and prospective relief sought by the instant petition brings it out
of the realm of Civil Case.
First Substantive Issue
YES. The Court can require the PCGG to disclose to the public the details of any agreement, whether
perfected or not.
Sec. 7, Art. III of the Constitution provides that the right of the people to information on matters of
public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as to govt research data used as basis for policy development,
shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Such recognized restrictions are as follows: a) national security matters and intelligence information; b)
trade secrets and banking transactions; c) criminal matters and; d) other confidential information.
The Court emphasized that ill-gotten wealth assumes a public character which refers to assets and
properties acquired, directly or indirectly, by former Pres. Marcos, his family and relatives through or as a result
of improper of illegal use of government funds or properties; or their having taken undue advantage of their
public office; or their use of powers or influences resulting in their unjust enrichment and causing grave
damage and prejudice to the Filipino People and the Republic of the Philippines.
Thus, the Court can require the PCGG to disclose sufficient public information on any agreement that
may arrived at and any proposed settlement concerning the Marcoses purported ill-gotten wealth.
Second Substantive Issue
YES. There are Legal Restraints existed against the compromise agreement between the PCGG and the
Marcos heirs.
Generally, law encourages compromises in civil cases, except with regard to the following matters: 1)
the civil status of persons, 2) the validity of a marriage of a legal separation, 3) any ground for legal separation,
4) future support, 5) the jurisdiction of courts, and 6) future legitimate. A Compromise must not be contrary to
law, morals, good customs, public policy or public order.
In Republic & Campos Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, the power to grant criminal immunity was conferred on
PCGG by Section 5 of EO No. 14, as amended by EO No. 14-A, which provides:
Section 5. The PCGG is authorized to grant immunity from criminal prosecution to any person who
provides information or testifies in an investigation conducted by the Commission to establish the
unlawful manner in which any respondent, defendant or accused has acquired the properties in question

in any case where such information or testimony is necessary to ascertain or prove the latters guilt or
his civil liability. The immunity thereby granted shall be continued to protect the witness who repeats
such testimony before the Sandiganbayan when required to do so by the latter or by the Commission.
In the case at bar, the compromise agreements revealed serious flaws. First, the agreements did not
conform to the requirements of EO 14 and 14-A. Criminal immunity under section 5 cannot be granted to the
Marcoses, who are the principal defendants in the ill-gotten wealth cases. The provision is applicable mainly to
witnesses who provide information against a respondent, defendant or accused in an ill-gotten wealth case.
Second, under the General Agreement, the PCGG commits to exempt from all forms of taxes the
properties to be retained by the Marcos heirs. This is a clear violation of the Constitution. Sec. 28(4), Art. VI
of the Constitution specifically provides: No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the
concurrence of a majority of all the Member of the Congress. The PCGG has absolutely no power to grant
such exemptions.
Third, under the Agreement, the government binds itself to cause the dismissal of all cases against the
Marcos heirs, pending before the Sandiganbayan and other court. This is a direct encroachment on judicial
powers of the court which has the jurisdiction on dismissal. Hence, PCGG cannot guarantee the dismissal of all
such criminal cases against the Marcoses.
Fourth, the government also waives all claims and counterclaims, whether past, present, or future against
the Marcoses. This stipulation is contrary to the Civil Code which states that an action for future fraud may
not be waived. Further, the Agreements do not provide for a definite or determinable period within which the
parties shall fulfill their respective prestations.
Based on the foregoing discussion, it is crystal clear that the Agreements which PCGG entered into with
the Marcos heirs violated the Constitution.

Petition GRANTED.

Tired of being Handsome.