EN BANC

[G. R. No. 140835. August 14, 2000]

RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. HON. ANDRES R. NARVASA, as !a"#$a%, &RE&ARA'OR(
OMM)SS)ON ON ONS')'*')ONAL RE+ORMS, HON. RONALDO -. ZAMORA, as
E./0ut"1/ S/0#/ta#2, OMM)SS)ON ON A*D)', RO-ER'O AVEN'A3ADO, as &#/s"4/%t"a5
o%su5ta%t o% ou%0"5 o6 E0o%o$"0 A41"s/#s7E0o%o$"0 A66a"#s, ANGEL)'O . -ANA(O, as
&#/s"4/%t"a5 A41"s/# 6o#7o% &o5"t"0a5 A66a"#s, VERON)A )GNA)O83ONES, as &#/s"4/%t"a5
Ass"sta%t7 A99o"%t$/%t S/0#/ta#2 :)% 0!a#g/ o6 a99o"%t$/%ts;,respondents.
D E ) S ) O N
GONZAGA8RE(ES, J.<
In this petition for prohibition and mandamus filed on December 9, 1999, petitioner Ramon A.
Gonzales, in his capacit as a citizen and ta!paer, assails the constit"tionalit of the creation of the
#reparator Commission on Constit"tional Reform $#CCR% and of the positions of presidential
cons"ltants, ad&isers and assistants. #etitioner as's this Co"rt to en(oin the #CCR and the presidential
cons"ltants, ad&isers and assistants from actin) as s"ch, and to en(oin E!ec"ti&e *ecretar Ronaldo B.
+amora from enforcin) their ad&ice and recommendations. In addition, petitioner see's to en(oin the
Commission on A"dit from passin) in a"dit e!pendit"res for the #CCR and the presidential cons"ltants,
ad&isers and assistants. ,inall, petitioner pras for an order compellin) respondent +amora to f"rnish
petitioner -ith information on certain matters.
.n /an"ar 01, 0222, respondent 3on. Andres R. Nar&asa, impleaded in his capacit as Chairman
of the #CCR, filed his Comment to the #etition. 4he rest of the respondents, -ho are bein) represented
in this case b the *olicitor General, filed their Comment -ith this Co"rt on 5arch 6, 0222. #etitioner
then filed a Consolidated Repl on April 07, 0222, -here"pon this case -as considered s"bmitted for
decision.
I. Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reform
4he #reparator Commission on Constit"tional Reform $#CCR% -as created b #resident Estrada
on No&ember 08, 1991 b &irt"e of E!ec"ti&e .rder No. 79 $E... No. 79% in order :to st"d and
recommend proposed amendments and;or re&isions to the 1916 Constit"tion, and the manner of
implementin) the same.<
=1>
#etitioner disp"tes the constit"tionalit of the #CCR on t-o )ro"nds. ,irst, he
contends that it is a p"blic office -hich onl the le)islat"re can create b -a of a la-.
=0>
*econdl,
petitioner asserts that b creatin) s"ch a bod the #resident is inter&enin) in a process from -hich he is
totall e!cl"ded b the Constit"tion ? the amendment of the f"ndamental charter.
=9>
It is alle)ed b respondents that, -ith respect to the #CCR, this case has become moot and
academic. @e a)ree.
An action is considered :moot< -hen it no lon)er presents a ("sticiable contro&ers beca"se the
iss"es in&ol&ed ha&e become academic or dead.
=7>
Ander E... No. 79, the #CCR -as instr"cted to
complete its tas' on or before /"ne 92, 1999.
=B>
3o-e&er, on ,ebr"ar 19, 1999, the #resident iss"ed
E!ec"ti&e .rder No. 62 $E... No. 62%, -hich e!tended the time frame for the completion of the
commissionCs -or', viz ?
*EC4I.N 8. *ection 1 is hereb amended to read as follo-sD
4ime ,rame. 4he Commission shall commence its -or' on 21 /an"ar 1999 and complete the
same on or before 91 December 1999. 4he Commission shall s"bmit its report and
recommendations to the #resident -ithin fifteen $1B% -or'in) das from 91 December 1999.
4he #CCR s"bmitted its recommendations to the #resident on December 02, 1999 and -as dissol&ed b
the #resident on the same da. It had li'e-ise spent the f"nds allotted to it.
=8>
4h"s, the #CCR has
ceased to e!ist, ha&in) lost itsraison detre. *"bseE"ent e&ents ha&e o&erta'en the petition and the Co"rt
has nothin) left to resol&e.
4he staleness of the iss"e before "s is made more manifest b the impossibilit of )rantin) the relief
praed for b petitioner. Basicall, petitioner as's this Co"rt to en(oin the #CCR from actin) as s"ch.
=6>
Clearl, prohibition is an inappropriate remed since the bod so")ht to be en(oined no lon)er e!ists. It
is -ell established that prohibition is a pre&enti&e remed and does not lie to restrain an act that is
alread fait accompli.
=1>
At this point, an r"lin) re)ardin) the #CCR -o"ld simpl be in the nat"re of an
ad&isor opinion, -hich is definitel beond the permissible scope of ("dicial po-er.
In addition to the mootness of the iss"e, petitionerCs lac' of standin) constit"tes another obstacle to
the s"ccessf"l in&ocation of ("dicial po-er insofar as the #CCR is concerned.
4he E"estion in standin) is -hether a part has :alle)ed s"ch a personal sta'e in the o"tcome of the
contro&ers as to ass"re that concrete ad&erseness -hich sharpens the presentation of iss"es "pon
-hich the co"rt so lar)el depends for ill"mination of diffic"lt constit"tional E"estions.<
=9>
In assailin) the
constit"tionalit of E... Nos. 79 and 62, petitioner asserts his interest as a citizen and ta!paer.
=12>
A
citizen acE"ires standin) onl if he can establish that he has s"ffered some act"al or threatened in("r as
a res"lt of the alle)edl ille)al cond"ct of the )o&ernmentF the in("r is fairl traceable to the challen)ed
actionF and the in("r is li'el to be redressed b a fa&orable action.
=11>
In Kilosbayan, Incorporated v.
Morato,
=10>
-e denied standin) to petitioners -ho -ere assailin) a lease a)reement bet-een the
#hilippine Charit *-eepsta'es .ffice and the #hilippine Gamin) 5ana)ement Corporation, statin) that,
G in Valmonte v. Philippine Charity !eepsta"es #ffice, G.R. No. 61618, *ept. 00, 1916, standin) -as
denied to a petitioner -ho so")ht to declare a form of lotter 'no-n as Instant *-eepsta'es in&alid
beca"se, as the Co"rt held,
Halmonte brin)s the s"it as a citizen, la-er, ta!paer and father of three $9% minor children. B"t no-here
in his petition does petitioner claim that his ri)hts and pri&ile)es as a la-er or citizen ha&e been directl
and personall in("red b the operation of the Instant *-eepsta'es. 4he interest of the person assailin)
the constit"tionalit of a stat"te m"st be direct and personal. 3e m"st be able to sho-, not onl that the
la- is in&alid, b"t also that he has s"stained or in immediate dan)er of s"stainin) some direct in("r as a
res"lt of its enforcement, and not merel that he s"ffers thereb in some indefinite -a. It m"st appear
that the person complainin) has been or is abo"t to be denied some ri)ht or pri&ile)e to -hich he is
la-f"ll entitled or that he is abo"t to be s"b(ected to some b"rdens or penalties b reason of the stat"te
complained of.
@e apprehend no difference bet-een the petitioner in Valmonte and the present petitioners. #etitioners
do not in fact sho- -hat partic"larized interest the ha&e for brin)in) this s"it. It does not detract from
the hi)h re)ard for petitioners as ci&ic leaders to sa that their interest falls short of that reE"ired to
maintain an action "nder R"le 9, d 0.
Comin) no- to the instant case, petitioner has not sho-n that he has s"stained or is in dan)er of
s"stainin) an personal in("r attrib"table to the creation of the #CCR. If at all, it is onl Con)ress, not
petitioner, -hich can claim an :in("r< in this case since, accordin) to petitioner, the #resident has
encroached "pon the le)islat"reCs po-ers to create a p"blic office and to propose amendments to the
Charter b formin) the #CCR. #etitioner has s"stained no direct, or e&en an indirect, in("r. Neither
does he claim that his ri)hts or pri&ile)es ha&e been or are in dan)er of bein) &iolated, nor that he shall
be s"b(ected to an penalties or b"rdens as a res"lt of the #CCRCs acti&ities. Clearl, petitioner has failed
to establish his locus standi so as to enable him to see' ("dicial redress as a citizen.
A ta!paer is deemed to ha&e the standin) to raise a constit"tional iss"e -hen it is established that
p"blic f"nds ha&e been disb"rsed in alle)ed contra&ention of the la- or the Constit"tion.
=19>
, 4h"s paerCs
action is properl bro")ht onl -hen there is an e!ercise b Con)ress of its ta!in) or spendin) po-er.
=17>
4his -as o"r r"lin) in a recent case -herein petitioners 4elecomm"nications and Broadcast Attornes
of the #hilippines $4EIEBA#% and G5A Net-or', Inc. E"estioned the &alidit of section 90 of B.#. No. 111
$other-ise 'no-s as the :.mnib"s Election Code<% reE"irin) radio and tele&ision stations to )i&e free air
time to the Commission on Elections d"rin) the campai)n period.
=1B>
4he Co"rt held that petitioner
4EIEBA# did not ha&e an interest as a ta!paer since the assailed la- did not in&ol&e the ta!in) or
spendin) po-er of Con)ress.
=18>
5an other r"lin)s ha&e premised the )rant or denial of standin) to ta!paers "pon -hether or not
the case in&ol&ed a disb"rsement of p"blic f"nds b the le)islat"re. In anidad v. Commission on
$lections,
=16>
the petitioners therein -ere allo-ed to brin) a ta!paersC s"it to E"estion se&eral presidential
decrees prom"l)ated b then #resident 5arcos in his le)islati&e capacit callin) for a national
referend"m, -ith the Co"rt e!plainin) that ?
...=i>t is no- an ancient r"le that the &alid so"rce of a stat"te ? #residential Decrees are of s"ch nat"re ?
ma be contested b one -ho -ill s"stain a direct in("r as a res"lt of its enforcement. At the instance of
ta!paers, la-s pro&idin) for the disb"rsement of p"blic f"nds ma be en(oined, "pon the theor that the
e!pendit"re of p"blic f"nds b an officer of the *tate for the p"rpose of e!ec"tin) an "nconstit"tional act
constit"tes a misapplication of s"ch f"nds. 4he breadth of #residential Decree No. 991 carries an
appropriation of ,i&e 5illion #esos for the effecti&e implementation of its p"rposes. #residential Decree
No. 1291 appropriates the s"m of Ei)ht 5illion #esos to carr o"t its pro&isions. 4he interest of the
aforenamed petitioners as ta!paers in the la-f"l e!pendit"re of these amo"nts of p"blic mone
s"fficientl clothes them -ith that personalit to liti)ate the &alidit of the Decrees appropriatin) said
f"nds. G
In still another case, the Co"rt held that petitioners ? the #hilippine Constit"tion Association, Inc., a nonJ
profit ci&ic or)anization J had standin) as ta!paers to E"estion the constit"tionalit of Rep"blic Act No.
9198 insofar as it pro&ides for retirement )rat"it and comm"tation of &acation and sic' lea&es to
*enators and Representati&es and to the electi&e officials of both ho"ses of Con)ress.
=11>
And in Pascual
v. ecretary of Public %or"s,
=19>
the Co"rt allo-ed petitioner to maintain a ta!paerCs s"it assailin) the
constit"tional so"ndness of Rep"blic Act No. 902 appropriatin) #1B,222 for the constr"ction, repair and
impro&ement of feeder roads -ithin pri&ate propert. All these cases in&ol&ed the disb"rsement of p"blic
f"nds b means of a la-.
5ean-hile, in &u'nay Construction and (evelopment Corporation v. )aron,
=02>
the Co"rt declared
that the trial co"rt -as -ron) in allo-in) respondent Ra&anzo to brin) an action for in("nction in his
capacit as a ta!paer in order to E"estion the le)alit of the contract of lease co&erin) the p"blic mar'et
entered into bet-een the Cit of Da)"pan and petitioner. 4he Co"rt declared that Ra&anzo did not
possess the reE"isite standin) to brin) s"ch ta!paerCs s"it since :=o>n its face, and there is no e&idence
to the contrar, the lease contract entered into bet-een petitioner and the Cit sho-s that no p"blic f"nds
ha&e been or -ill be "sed in the constr"ction of the mar'et b"ildin).<
Comin) no- to the instant case, it is readil apparent that there is no e!ercise b Con)ress of its
ta!in) or spendin) po-er. 4he #CCR -as created b the #resident b &irt"e of E... No. 79, as amended
b E... No. 62. Ander section 6 of E... No. 79, the amo"nt of #9 million is :appropriated< for its
operational e!penses :to be so"rced from the f"nds of the .ffice of the #resident.< 4he rele&ant pro&ision
states J
Appropriations. 4he initial amo"nt of 4hree 5illion #esos $#9,222,222.22% is hereb appropriated for
the operational e!penses of the Commission to be so"rced from f"nds of the .ffice of the #resident,
s"b(ect to the "s"al acco"ntin) and a"ditin) r"les and re)"lations. Additional amo"nts shall be
released to the Commission "pon s"bmission of reE"irements for e!pendit"res.
4he appropriations for the #CCR -ere a"thorized b the #resident, not b Con)ress. In fact, there -as
no an appropriation at all. :In a strict sense, appropriation has been defined Kas nothin) more than the
le)islati&e a"thorization prescribed b the Constit"tion that mone ma be paid o"t of the 4reas"rC,
-hile appropriation made by la! refers to Kthe act of the le)islat"re settin) apart or assi)nin) to a
partic"lar "se a certain s"m to be "sed in the pament of debt or d"es from the *tate to its creditors.C
<
=01>
4he f"nds "sed for the #CCR -ere ta'en from f"nds intended for the .ffice of the #resident, in the
e!ercise of the Chief E!ec"ti&eCs po-er to transfer f"nds p"rs"ant to section 0B $B% of article HI of the
Constit"tion.
In the final analsis, it m"st be stressed that the Co"rt retains the po-er to decide -hether or not it
-ill entertain a ta!paerCs s"it.
=00>
In the case at bar, there bein) no e!ercise b Con)ress of its ta!in) or
spendin) po-er, petitioner cannot be allo-ed to E"estion the creation of the #CCR in his capacit as a
ta!paer, b"t rather, he m"st establish that he has a :personal and s"bstantial interest in the case and
that he has s"stained or -ill s"stain direct in("r as a res"lt of its enforcement.<
=09>
In other -ords,
petitioner m"st sho- that he is a real part in interest J that he -ill stand to be benefited or in("red b the
("d)ment or that he -ill be entitled to the a&ails of the s"it.
=07>
No-here in his pleadin)s does petitioner
pres"me to ma'e s"ch a representation.
II. Presidential Consultants, *dvisers, *ssistants
4he second iss"e raised b petitioner concerns the presidential cons"ltants. #etitioner alle)es that in
199B and 1998, the #resident created se&ent $62% positions in the .ffice of the #resident and appointed
to said positions t-ent $02% presidential cons"ltants, t-entJt-o $00% presidential ad&isers, and t-entJ
ei)ht $01% presidential assistants.
=0B>
#etitioner asserts that, as in the case of the #CCR, the #resident
does not ha&e the po-er to create these positions.
=08>
Consistent -ith the abo&ementioned disc"ssion on standin), petitioner does not ha&e the personalit
to raise this iss"e before the Co"rt. ,irst of all, he has not pro&en that he has s"stained or is in dan)er of
s"stainin) an in("r as a res"lt of the appointment of s"ch presidential ad&isers. *econdl, petitioner
has not alle)ed the necessar facts so as to enable the Co"rt to determine if he possesses a ta!paerCs
interest in this partic"lar iss"e. Anli'e the #CCR -hich -as created b &irt"e of an e!ec"ti&e order,
petitioner does not alle)e b -hat official act, -hether it be b means of an e!ec"ti&e order, administrati&e
order, memorand"m order, or other-ise, the #resident attempted to :create< the positions of presidential
ad&isers, cons"ltants and assistants. 4h"s, it is "nclear -hat act of the #resident petitioner is
assailin). In s"pport of his alle)ation, petitioner merel anne!ed a cop of the #hilippine Go&ernment
Director $Anne! :C<% listin) the names and positions of s"ch presidential cons"ltants, ad&isers and
assistants to his petition. 3o-e&er, appointment is ob&io"sl not snonmo"s -ith creation. It -o"ld be
impro&ident for this Co"rt to entertain this iss"e )i&en the ins"fficient nat"re of the alle)ations in the
#etition.
III. Ri'ht to Information
,inall, petitioner as's "s to iss"e a -rit of mandamus orderin) E!ec"ti&e *ecretar Ronaldo B.
+amora to ans-er his letter $Anne! :D<% dated .ctober 7, 1999 reE"estin) for the names of e!ec"ti&e
officials holdin) m"ltiple positions in )o&ernment, copies of their appointments, and a list of the recipients
of l"!"r &ehicles seized b the B"rea" of C"stoms and t"rned o&er to 5alacanan).
=06>
4he ri)ht to information is enshrined in *ection 6 of the Bill of Ri)hts -hich pro&ides that ?
4he ri)ht of the people to information on matters of p"blic concern shall be reco)nized. Access to official
records, and to doc"ments, and papers pertainin) to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as -ell as to
)o&ernment research data "sed as basis for polic de&elopment, shall be afforded the citizen, s"b(ect to
s"ch limitations as ma be pro&ided b la-.
Ander both the 1969
=01>
and 1916 Constit"tion, this is a selfJe!ec"tor pro&ision -hich can be in&o'ed
b an citizen before the co"rts. 4his -as o"r r"lin) in )e'aspi v. Civil ervice Commission,
=09>
-herein
the Co"rt classified the ri)ht to information as a p"blic ri)ht and :-hen a +m,andamus proceedin) in&ol&es
the assertion of a p"blic ri)ht, the reE"irement of personal interest is satisfied b the mere fact that the
petitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part of the )eneral Kp"blicC -hich possesses the ri)ht.< 3o-e&er,
Con)ress ma pro&ide for reasonable conditions "pon the access to information. *"ch limitations -ere
embodied in Rep"blic Act No. 8619, other-ise 'no-s as the :Code of Cond"ct and Ethical *tandards for
#"blic .fficials and Emploees,< -hich too' effect on 5arch 0B, 1919. 4his la- pro&ides that, in the
performance of their d"ties, all p"blic officials and emploees are obli)ed to respond to letters sent b the
p"blic -ithin fifteen $1B% -or'in) das from receipt thereof and to ens"re the accessibilit of all p"blic
doc"ments for inspection b the p"blic -ithin reasonable -or'in) ho"rs, s"b(ect to the reasonable claims
of confidentialit.
=92>
Elaboratin) on the si)nificance of the ri)ht to information, the Co"rt said in &aldoza v.
(imaano
=91>
that :=t>he incorporation of this ri)ht in the Constit"tion is a reco)nition of the f"ndamental role
of free e!chan)e of information in a democrac. 4here can be no realistic perception b the p"blic of the
nationCs problems, nor a meanin)f"l democratic decisionma'in) if the are denied access to information
of )eneral interest. Information is needed to enable the members of societ to cope -ith the e!i)encies
of the times.< 4he information to -hich the p"blic is entitled to are those concernin) :matters of p"blic
concern<, a term -hich :embrace=s> a broad spectr"m of s"b(ects -hich the p"blic ma -ant to 'no-,
either beca"se these directl affect their li&es, or simpl beca"se s"ch matters nat"rall aro"se the
interest of an ordinar citizen. In the final analsis, it is for the co"rts to determine in a case b case basis
-hether the matter at iss"e is of interest or importance, as it relates to or affects the p"blic.<
=90>
4h"s, -e a)ree -ith petitioner that respondent +amora, in his official capacit as E!ec"ti&e
*ecretar, has a constit"tional and stat"tor d"t to ans-er petitionerCs letter dealin) -ith matters -hich
are "nE"estionabl of p"blic concern ? that is, appointments made to p"blic offices and the "tilization of
p"blic propert. @ith re)ard to petitionerCs reE"est for copies of the appointment papers of certain
officials, respondent +amora is obli)ed to allo- the inspection and copin) of the same s"b(ect to the
reasonable limitations reE"ired for the orderl cond"ct of official b"siness.
=99>
@3ERE,.RE, the petition is dismissed, -ith the e!ception that respondent +amora is ordered to
f"rnish petitioner -ith the information reE"ested.
SO ORDERED.