Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 130716 December 9, 1998
FRANCISCO I. CA!E", Petitioner, vs. PRESIDENTIA# COMMISSION ON GOOD GO!ERNMENT
$PCGG% &'( MAGTANGGO# GUNIGUNDO $)' *)+ c&,&c)-. &+ c*&)rm&' o/ -*e PCGG%,
re+,o'(e'-+, G#ORIA A. 0OPSON, CE#NAN A. 0OPSON, SCAR#ET A. 0OPSON, &'( TERESA A.
0OPSON, petitioners-in-intervention.

PANGANI1AN, J.:
Petitioner ass this !ourt to "efine the nature an" the e#tent of the people$s constitutional ri%ht to
infor&ation on &atters of public concern. Does this ri%ht inclu"e access to the ter&s of %overn&ent
ne%otiations prior to their consu&&ation or conclusion' Ma( the %overn&ent, throu%h the Presi"ential
!o&&ission on )oo" )overn&ent *P!))+, be re,uire" to reveal the propose" ter&s of a co&pro&ise
a%ree&ent -ith the Marcos heirs as re%ar"s their alle%e" ill-%otten -ealth' More specificall(, are the
.)eneral /%ree&ent. an" .Supple&ental /%ree&ent,. both "ate" Dece&ber 01, 2334 an" e#ecute"
bet-een the P!)) an" the Marcos heirs, vali" an" bin"in%'
The Case
These are the &ain ,uestions raise" in this ori%inal action seein% *2+ to prohibit an" .5e6n7oin
respon"ents 5P!)) an" its chair&an6 fro& privatel( enterin% into, perfectin% an"8or e#ecutin% an(
%ree&ent -ith the heirs of the late Presi"ent Fer"inan" 9. Marcos . . . relatin% to an" concernin% the
properties an" assets of Fer"inan" Marcos locate" in the Philippines an"8or abroa" - inclu"in% the so-
calle" Marcos %ol" hoar".: an" *0+ to .5c6o&pel respon"ent5s6 to make public all ne%otiations an"
a%ree&ent, be the( on%oin% or perfecte", an" all "ocu&ents relate" to or relatin% to such ne%otiations
an" a%ree&ent bet-een the P!)) an" the Marcos heirs..
1
The Facts
Petitioner Francisco I. !have;, as .ta#pa(er, citi;en an" for&er %overn&ent official -ho initiate" the
prosecution of the Marcoses an" their cronies -ho co&&itte" un&iti%ate" plun"er of the public
treasur( an" the s(ste&atic sub7u%ation of the countr($s econo&(,. alle%es that -hat i&pelle" hi& to
brin% this action -ere several ne-s reports
2
bannere" in a nu&ber of broa"sheets so&eti&e in
Septe&ber 233<. These ne-s ite&s referre" to *2+ the alle%e" "iscover( of billions of "ollars of
Marcos assets "eposite" in various co"e" accounts in S-iss bans: an" *0+ the reporte" e#ecution of a
co&pro&ise, bet-een the %overn&ent *throu%h P!))+ an" the Marcos heirs, on ho- to split or share
these assets.
Petitioner, invoin% his constitutional ri%ht to infor&ation
3
an" the correlative "ut( of the state to
"isclose publicl( all its transactions involvin% the national interest,
3
"e&an"s that respon"ents &ae
public an( an" all ne%otiations an" a%ree&ents pertainin% to P!))$s tas of recoverin% the Marcoses$
ill-%otten -ealth. =e clai&s that an( co&pro&ise on the alle%e" billions of ill-%otten -ealth involves an
issue of .para&ount public interest,. since it has a ."ebilitatin% effect on the countr($s econo&(. that
-oul" be %reatl( pre7u"icial to the national interest of the Filipino people. =ence, the people in %eneral
have a ri%ht to no- the transactions or "eals bein% contrive" an" effecte" b( the %overn&ent.
Respon"ents, on the other han", "o not "en( for%in% a co&pro&ise a%ree&ent -ith the Marcos heirs.
The( clai&, thou%h, that petitioner$s action is pre&ature, because there is no sho-in% that he has
ase" the P!)) to "isclose the ne%otiations an" the /%ree&ents. /n" even if he has, P!)) &a( not
(et be co&pelle" to &ae an( "isclosure, since the propose" ter&s an" con"itions of the /%ree&ents
have not beco&e effective an" bin"in%.
Respon"ents further aver that the Marcos heirs have sub&itte" the sub7ect /%ree&ents to the
San"i%anba(an for its approval in !ivil !ase No. 2>2, entitle" Republic v. Heirs of Ferdinand E. Marcos,
an" that the Republic oppose" such &ove on the principal %roun"s that *2+ sai" /%ree&ents have not
been ratifie" b( or even sub&itte" to the Presi"ent for approval, pursuant to Ite& No. 1 of the )eneral
/%ree&ent: an" *0+ the Marcos heirs have faile" to co&pl( -ith their un"ertain%s therein,
particularl( the collation an" sub&ission of an inventor( of their assets. The Republic also cite" an
/pril 22, 233? Resolution in !ivil !ase No. @2A?, in -hich the San"i%anba(an "is&isse" a si&ilar
petition file" b( the Marcoses$ attorne(-in-fact.
Further&ore, then Presi"ent Fi"el V. Ra&os, in his Ma( >, 2331 Me&oran"u&
4
to then P!))
!hair&an Ma%tan%%ol )uni%un"o, cate%oricall( state"B
This is to reiterate &( previous position e&bo"ie" in the Palace Press Release of A /pril 233? that I
have not authori;e" (ou to approve the !o&pro&ise /%ree&ents of Dece&ber 01, 2334 or an(
a%ree&ent at all -ith the Marcoses, an" -oul" have "isapprove" the& ha" the( been sub&itte" to
&e.
The Full Po-ers of /ttorne( of March 233> an" Cul( >, 233>, "i" not authori;e (ou to approve sai"
/%ree&ents, -hich I reserve for &(self as Presi"ent of the Republic of the Philippines.
The assaile" principal /%ree&ent
6
rea"sB
)9N9R/D /)R99M9NT
ENOF /DD M9N GH T=9S9 PR9S9NTSB
This /%ree&ent entere" into this 01th "a( of Dece&ber, 2334, b( an" bet-een -
The Republic of the Philippines, throu%h the Presi"ential !o&&ission on )oo" )overn&ent *P!))+, a
%overn&ental a%enc( veste" -ith authorit( "efine" un"er 9#ecutive Or"ers Nos. 2, 0 an" 2>, -ith
offices at the philco&cen Guil"in%, Pasi%, Metro Manila, represente" b( its !hair&an referre" to as
FIRST P/RTH,
- an" -
9state of Fer"inan" 9. Marcos, represente" b( I&el"a Ro&ual"e; Marcos an" Fer"inan" R. Marcos, Cr.,
all of le%al a%e, an" -ith a""ress at c8o No. 2?> Dope; Ri;al St., Man"alu(on%, Metro Manila, an"
I&el"a Ro&ual"e; Marcos, I&ee Marcos Manotoc, Fer"inan" 9. Marcos, Cr., an" Irene Marcos /raneta,
hereinafter collectivel( referre" to as the PRIV/T9 P/RTH.
F I T N 9 S S 9 T =B
F=9R9/S, the PRIV/T9 P/RTH has been i&pelle" b( their sense of nationalis& an" love of countr(
an" of the entire Filipino people, an" their "esire to set up a foun"ation an" finance i&pact pro7ects
lie installation of po-er plants in selecte" rural areas an" initiation of other co&&unit( pro7ects for
the e&po-er&ent of the people:
F=9R9/S, the FIRST P/RTH has obtaine" a 7u"%&ent fro& the S-iss Fe"eral Tribunal of Dece&ber
02, 233@, that the I4?A &illion belon%s in principle to the Republic of the Philippines provi"e" certain
con"itionalities are &et, but even after < (ears, the FIRST P/RTH has not been able to procure a final
7u"%&ent of conviction a%ainst the PRIV/T9 P/RTH:
F=9R9/S, the FIRST P/RTH is "esirous of avoi"in% a lon%-"ra-n out liti%ation -hich, as proven b( the
past < (ears, is consu&in% &one(, ti&e an" effort, an" is counter-pro"uctive an" ties up assets -hich
the FIRST P/RTH coul" other-ise utili;e for its !o&prehensive /%rarian Refor& Pro%ra&, an" other
ur%ent nee"s:
F=9R9/S, =is 9#cellenc(, Presi"ent Fi"el V. Ra&os, has a"opte" a polic( of unit( an" reconciliation in
or"er to bin" the nation$s -oun"s an" start the process of rebuil"in% this nation as it %oes on to the
t-ent(-first centur(:
F=9R9/S, this /%ree&ent settles all clai&s an" counterclai&s -hich the parties &a( have a%ainst
one another, -hether past, present, or future, &ature" or inchoate.
NOF, T=9R9FOR9, for an" in consi"eration of the &utual covenants set forth herein, the parties a%ree
as follo-sB
2. The parties -ill collate all assets presu&e" to be o-ne" b(, or hel" b( other parties for the benefit
of, the PRIV/T9 P/RTH for purposes of "eter&inin% the totalit( of the assets covere" b( the
settle&ent. The sub7ect assets shall be classifie" b( the nature thereof, na&el(B *a+ real estate: *b+
7e-elr(: *c+ paintin%s an" other -ors of art: *"+ securities: *e+ fun"s on "eposit: *f+ precious &etals,
if an(, an" *%+ &iscellaneous assets or assets -hich coul" not appropriatel( fall un"er an( of the
prece"in% classification. The list shall be base" on the full "isclosure of the PRIV/T9 P/RTH to insure
its accurac(.
0. Gase" on the inventor(, the FIRST P/RTH shall "eter&ine -hich shall be ce"e" to the FIRST P/RTH,
an" -hich shall be assi%ne" to8retaine" b( the PRIV/T9 P/RTH. The assets of the PRIV/T9 P/RTH shall
be net of an" e#e&pt fro&, an( for& of ta#es "ue the Republic of the Philippines. =o-ever,
consi"erin% the unavailabilit( of all pertinent an" relevant "ocu&ents an" infor&ation as to balances
an" o-nership, the actual specification of assets to be retaine" b( the PRIV/T9 P/RTH shall be covere"
b( supple&ental a%ree&ents -hich shall for& part of this /%ree&ent.
4. Forei%n assets -hich the PRIV/T9 P/RTH shall full( "isclose but -hich are hel" b( trustees,
no&inees, a%ents or foun"ations are hereb( -aive" over b( the PRIV/T9 P/RTH in favor of the FIRST
P/RTH. For this purpose, the parties shall cooperate in tain% the appropriate action, 7u"icial an"8or
e#tra7u"icial, to recover the sa&e for the FIRST P/RTH.
>. /ll "isclosures of assets &a"e b( the PRIV/T9 P/RTH shall not be use" as evi"ence b( the FIRST
P/RTH in an( cri&inal, civil, ta# or a"&inistrative case, but shall be vali" an" bin"in% a%ainst sai"
P/RTH for use b( the FIRST P/RTH in -ith"ra-in% an( account an"8or recoverin% an( asset. The
PRIV/T9 P/RTH -ith"ra-s an( ob7ection to the -ith"ra-al b( an"8or release to the FIRST P/RTH b(
the S-iss bans an"8or S-iss authorities of the I4?A &illion, its accrue" interests, an"8or an( other
account: over -hich the PRIV/T9 P/RTH -aives an( ri%ht, interest or participation in favor of the
FIRST P/RTH. =o-ever, an( -ith"ra-al or release of an( account afore&entione" b( the FIRST P/RTH
shall be &a"e in the presence of an( authori;e" representative of the PRIV/T9 P/RTH.
?. The trustees, custo"ians, safeeepers, "epositaries, a%ents, no&inees, a"&inistrators, la-(ers, or
an( other part( actin% in si&ilar capacit( in behalf of the PRIV/T9 P/RTH are hereb( infor&e" throu%h
this )eneral /%ree&ent to insure that it is full( i&ple&ente" an" this shall serve as absolute authorit(
fro& both parties for full "isclosure to the FIRST P/RTH of sai" assets an" for the FIRST P/RTH to
-ith"ra- sai" account an"8or assets an" an( other assets -hich the FIRST P/RTH on its o-n or
throu%h the help of the PRIV/T9 P/RTH8their trustees, etc., &a( "iscover.
A. /n( asset -hich &a( be "iscovere" in the future as belon%in% to the PRIV/T9 P/RTH or is bein%
hel" b( another for the benefit of the PRIV/T9 P/RTH an" -hich is not inclu"e" in the list per No. 2 for
-hatever reason shall auto&aticall( belon% to the FIRST P/RTH, an" the PRIV/T9 P/RTH in accor"ance
-ith No. > above, -aives an( ri%ht thereto.
<. This /%ree&ent shall be bin"in% on an" inure to the benefit of, the parties an" their respective le%al
representatives, successors an" assi%ns an" shall superse"e an( other prior a%ree&ent.
1. The P/RTI9S shall sub&it this an" an( other i&ple&entin% /%ree&ents to the Presi"ent of the
Philippines for approval. In the sa&e &anner, the PRIV/T9 P/RTH shall provi"e the FIRST P/RTH
assistance b( -a( of testi&on( or "eposition on an( infor&ation it &a( have that coul" she" li%ht on
the cases bein% pursue" b( the FIRST P/RTH a%ainst other parties. The FIRST P/RTH shall "esist fro&
institutin% ne- suits alrea"( sub7ect of this /%ree&ent a%ainst the PRIV/T9 P/RTH an" cause the
"is&issal of all other cases pen"in% in the San"i%anba(an an" in other courts.
3. In case of violation b( the PRIV/T9 P/RTH of an( of the con"itions herein containe", the P/RTI9S
shall be restore" auto&aticall( to the status quo ante the si%nin% of this /%ree&ent.
For purposes of this /%ree&ent, the PRIV/T9 P/RTH shall be represente" b( /tt(. Si&eon M. Mesina,
Cr., as their onl( /ttorne(-in-Fact.
IN FITN9SS F=9R9OF, the parties have si%ne" this instru&ent this 01th "a( of Dece&ber, 2334, in
Maati, Metro Manila.
PR9SID9NTI/D !OMMISSION ON
)OOD )OV9RNM9NT
G(B
5S%".6 M/)T/N))OD !. )JNI)JNDO
!hair&an
9ST/T9 OF F9RDIN/ND 9. M/R!OS,
IM9DD/ R. M/R!OS, M/. IM9DD/
M/R!OS-M/NOTO!, F9RDIN/ND R.
M/R!OS, CR., K IR9N9 M/R!OS-
/R/N9T/
G(B
5S%".6 IM9DD/ ROMJ/DD9L-M/R!OS
5S%".6 M/. IM9DD/ M/R!OS-M/NOTO!
F9RDIN/ND R. M/R!OS, CR.
7
5S%".6 IR9N9 M/R!OS-/R/N9T/
/ssiste" b(B
5S%".6 /TTH. SIM9ON M. M9SIN/, CR.
!ounsel K /ttorne(-in-Fact
Petitioner also "enounces this supple&ent to the above /%ree&entB
8
SJPPD9M9NT/D /)R99M9NT
This /%ree&ent entere" into this 01th "a( of Dece&ber, 2334, b( an" bet-een -
The Republic of the Philippines, throu%h the Presi"ential !o&&ission on )oo" )overn&ent *P!))+, a
%overn&ental a%enc( veste" -ith authorit( "efine" un"er 9#ecutive Or"ers Nos. 2, 0 an" 2>, -ith
offices at the Philco&cen Guil"in%, Pasi%, Metro Manila, represente" b( its !hair&an Ma%tan%%ol !.
)uni%un"o, hereinafter referre" to as the FIRST P/RTH,
- an" -
9state of Fer"inan" 9. Marcos, represente" b( I&el"a Ro&ual"e; Marcos an" Fer"inan" R. Marcos, Cr.,
all of le%al a%e, an" -ith a""ress at c8o No. 2?> Dope; Ri;al St., Man"alu(on%, Metro Manila, an"
I&el"a Ro&ual"e; Marcos, I&ee Marcos Manotoc, Fer"inan" 9. Marcos, Cr., an" Irene Marcos /raneta,
hereinafter collectivel( referre" to as the PRIV/T9 P/RTH.
F I T N 9 S S 9 T =B
The parties in this case entere" into a )eneral /%ree&ent "ate" Dec. 01, 2334:
The PRIV/T9 P/RTH e#pressl( reserve their ri%ht to pursue their interest an"8or sue over local assets
locate" in the Philippines a%ainst parties other than the FIRST P/RTH.
The parties hereb( a%ree that all e#penses relate" to the recover( an"8or -ith"ra-al of all assets
inclu"in% la-(ers$ fees, a%ents$ fees, no&inees$ service fees, ban char%es, travelin% e#penses an" all
other e#penses relate" thereto shall be for the account of the PRIV/T9 P/RTH.
In consi"eration of the fore%oin%, the parties hereb( a%ree that the PRIV/T9 P/RTH shall be entitle" to
the e,uivalent of 0?M of the a&ount that &a( be eventuall( -ith"ra-n fro& sai" I4?A &illion S-iss
"eposits.
IN FITN9SS F=9R9OF, the parties have si%ne" this instru&ent this 01th "a( of Dece&ber, 2334, in
Maati, Metro Manila.
PR9SID9NTI/D !OMMISSION ON
)OOD )OV9RNM9NT
G(B
5S%".6 M/)T/N))OD !. )JNI)JNDO
!hair&an
9ST/T9 OF F9RDIN/ND 9. M/R!OS,
IM9DD/ R. M/R!OS, M/. IM9DD/
M/R!OS-M/NOTO!, F9RDIN/ND R.
M/R!OS, CR., K IR9N9 M/R!OS-
/R/N9T/
G(B
5S%".6 IM9DD/ ROMJ/DD9L-M/R!OS
5S%".6 M/. IM9DD/ M/R!OS-M/NOTO!
F9RDIN/ND R. M/R!OS, CR.
9
5S%".6 IR9N9 M/R!OS-/R/N9T/
/ssiste" b(B
5S%".6 /TTH. SIM9ON M. M9SIN/, CR.
!ounsel K /ttorne(-in-Fact
/ctin% on a &otion of petitioner, the !ourt issue" a Te&porar( Restrainin% Or"er
10
"ate" March 04,
en7oinin% respon"ents, their a%ents an"8or representatives fro& .enterin% into, or perfectin% an"8or
e#ecutin% an( a%ree&ent -ith the heirs of the late Presi"ent Fer"inan" 9. Marcos relatin% to an"
concernin% their ill-%otten -ealth..
Issues
The Oral /r%u&ent, hel" on March 2A, 2331, focuse" on the follo-in% issuesB
*a+ Proce"uralB
*2+ Fhether or not the petitioner has the personalit( or le%al stan"in% to file the instant petition: an"
*0+ Fhether or not this !ourt is the proper court before -hich this action &a( be file".
*b+ SubstantiveB
*2+ Fhether or not this !ourt coul" re,uire the P!)) to "isclose to the public the "etails of an(
a%ree&ent, perfecte" or not, -ith the Marcoses: an"
*0+ Fhether or not there e#ist an( le%al restraints a%ainst a co&pro&ise a%ree&ent bet-een the
Marcoses an" the P!)) relative to the Marcoses$ ill-%otten -ealth.
11
/fter their oral presentations, the parties file" their respective &e&oran"a.
On /u%ust 23, 2331, )loria, !elnan, Scarlet an" Teresa, all surna&e" Copson, file" before the !ourt a
Motion for Intervention, attachin% thereto their Petition in Intervention. The( aver that the( are
.a&on% the 2@,@@@ clai&ants -hose ri%ht to clai& fro& the Marcos Fa&il( an"8or the Marcos 9state is
reco%ni;e" b( the "ecision in In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos Human Ri!hts "iti!ation Ma#imo
Hilao et al.,Class Plaintiffs $o. %&'())&* +.,. Court of -ppeals for the %th Circuit +, -pp. "e#is
(./%* 0une (* (%%. an" the Decision of the S-iss Supre&e !ourt of Dece&ber 2@, 233<.. /s such,
the( clai& to have personal an" "irect interest in the sub7ect &atter of the instant case, since a
"istribution or "isposition of the Marcos properties &a( a"versel( affect their le%iti&ate clai&s. In a
&inute Resolution issue" on /u%ust 0>, 2331, the !ourt %rante" their &otion to intervene an"
re,uire" the respon"ents to co&&ent thereon. The Septe&ber 0?, 2331 !o&&ent
12
of the solicitor
%eneral on sai" &otion &erel( reiterate" his aforecite" ar%u&ents a%ainst the &ain petition.
13
The Court1s Rulin!
The petition i" i&bue" -ith &erit.
First Procedural IssueB
Petitioner1s ,tandin!
Petitioner, on the one han", e#plains that as a ta#pa(er an" citi;en, he has the le%al personalit( to file
the instant petition. =e sub&its that since ill-%otten -ealth .belon%s to the Filipino people an" 5is6, in
truth han" in fact, part of the public treasur(,. an( co&pro&ise in relation to it -oul" constitute a
"i&inution of the public fun"s, -hich can be en7oine" b( a ta#pa(er -hose interest is for a full, if not
substantial, recover( of such assets.
Gesi"es, petitioner e&phasi;e, the &atter of recoverin% the ill-%otten -ealth of the Marcoses is an
issue .of transcen"ental i&portance the public.. =e asserts that or"inar( ta#pa(ers have a ri%ht to
initiate an" prosecute actions ,uestionin% the vali"it( of acts or or"ers of %overn&ent a%encies or
instru&entalities, if the issues raise" are .of para&ount public interest:. an" if the( .i&&easurabl(
affect the social, econo&ic, an" &oral -ell-bein% of the people..
Moreover, the &ere fact that he is a citi;en satisfies the re,uire&ent of personal interest, -hen the
procee"in% involves the assertion of a public ri%ht,
13
such as in this case. =e invoes several
"ecisions
14
of this !ourt -hich have set asi"e the proce"ural &atter oflocus standi, -hen the sub7ect
of the case involve" public interest.
On the other han", the solicitor %eneral, on behalf of respon"ents, conten"s that petitioner has no
stan"in% to institute the present action, because no e#pen"iture of public fun"s is involve" an" sai"
petitioner has no actual interest in the alle%e" a%ree&ent. Respon"ents further insist that the instant
petition is pre&ature, since there is no sho-in% that petitioner has re,ueste" P!)) to "isclose an(
such ne%otiations an" a%ree&ents: or that, if he has, the !o&&ission has refuse" to "o so.
In"ee", the ar%u&ents cite" b( petitioner constitute the controllin% "ecisional rule as re%ar"s his le%al
stan"in% to institute the instant petition. /ccess to public "ocu&ents an" recor"s is a public ri%ht, an"
the real parties in interest are the people the&selves.
16
In Ta2ada v. Tuvera,
17
the !ourt asserte" that -hen the issue concerns a public a ri%ht an" the
ob7ect of mandamus is to obtain the enforce&ent of a public "ut(, the people are re%ar"e" as the real
parties in interest: an" because it is sufficient that petitioner is a citi;en an" as such is intereste" in
the e#ecution of the la-s, he nee" not sho- that he has an( le%al or special interest in the result of
the action.
18
In the aforesai" case, the petitioners sou%ht to enforce their ri%ht to be infor&e" on
&atters of public concern, a ri%ht then reco%ni;e" in Section A, /rticle IV of the 23<4
!onstitution,
19
in connection -ith the rule that la-s in or"er to be vali" an" enforceable &ust be
publishe" in the Official )a;ette or other-ise effectivel( pro&ul%ate". In rulin% for the petitioners$
le%al stan"in%, the !ourt "eclare" that the ri%ht the( sou%ht to be enforce" .is a public ri%ht
reco%ni;e" b( no less than the fun"a&ental la- of the lan"..
"e!aspi v. Civil ,ervice Commission,
20
-hile reiteratin% Ta2ada, further "eclare" that .-hen
a mandamus procee"in% involves the assertion of a public ri%ht, the re,uire&ent of personal interest
is satisfie" b( the &ere fact that petitioner is a citi;en an", therefore, part of the %eneral $public$ -hich
possesses the ri%ht..
21
Further, in -lbano v. Re3es,
22
-e sai" that -hile e#pen"iture of public fun"s &a( not have been
involve" un"er the ,uestione" contract for the "evelop&ent, the &ana%e&ent an" the operation of
the Manila International !ontainer Ter&inal, .public interest 5-as6 "efinitel( involve" consi"erin% the
i&portant role 5of the sub7ect contract6 . . . in the econo&ic "evelop&ent of the countr( an" the
&a%nitu"e of the financial consi"eration involve".. Fe conclu"e" that, as a conse,uence, the
"isclosure provision in the !onstitution -oul" constitute sufficient authorit( for uphol"in% the
petitioner$s stan"in%.
Si&ilarl(, the instant petition is anchore" on the ri%ht of the people to infor&ation an" access to
official recor"s, "ocu&ents an" papers - a ri%ht %uarantee" un"er Section <, /rticle III of the 231<
!onstitution. Petitioner, a for&er solicitor %eneral, is a Filipino citi;en. Gecause of the satisfaction of
the t-o basic re,uisites lai" "o-n b( "ecisional la- to sustain petitioner$s le%al stan"in%, i.e. *2+ the
enforce&ent of a public ri%ht *0+ espouse" b( a Filipino citi;en, -e rule that the petition at bar shoul"
be allo-e".
In an( event, the ,uestion on the stan"in% of Petitioner !have; is ren"ere" &oot b( the intervention
of the Copsons, -ho are a&on% the le%iti&ate clai&ants to the Marcos -ealth. The stan"in% of the
Copsons is not seriousl( conteste" b( the solicitor %eneral. In"ee", sai" petitioners-intervenors have a
le%al interest in the sub7ect &atter of the instant case, since a "istribution or "isposition of the
Marcoses$ ill-%otten properties &a( a"versel( affect the satisfaction of their clai&s.
,econd Procedural IssueB
The Court1s 0urisdiction
Petitioner asserts that because this petition is an ori%inal action for mandamus an" one that is not
inten"e" to "ela( an( procee"in% in the San"i%anba(an, its havin% been file" before this !ourt -as
proper. =e invoes Section ?, /rticle VIII of the !onstitution, -hich confers upon the Supre&e !ourt
ori%inal 7uris"iction over petitions for prohibition an" mandamus.
The solicitor %eneral, on the other han", ar%ues that the petition has been erroneousl( brou%ht before
this !ourt, since there is neither a 7usticiable controvers( nor a violation of petitioner$s ri%hts b( the
P!)). =e alle%es that the assaile" a%ree&ents are alrea"( the ver(lis mota in San"i%anba(an !ivil
!ase No. @2>2, -hich has (et to "ispose of the issue: thus, this petition is pre&ature. Further&ore,
respon"ents the&selves have oppose" the Marcos heirs$ &otion, file" in the %raft court, for the
approval of the sub7ect /%ree&ents. Such opposition belies petitioner$s clai& that the %overn&ent,
throu%h respon"ents, has conclu"e" a settle&ent -ith the Marcoses as re%ar"s their alle%e" ill-%otten
assets.
In Ta2ada an" "e!aspi, -e uphel" therein petitioners$ resort to a mandamus procee"in%, seein% to
enforce a public ri%ht as -ell as to co&pel perfor&ance of a public "ut( &an"ate" b( no less than the
fun"a&ental la-.
23
Further, Section ?, /rticle VIII of the !onstitution, e#pressl( confers upon the
Supre&e !ourt ori!inal 7uris"iction over petitions for certiorari prohibition mandamus quo 4arranto
and habeas corpus.
Respon"ents ar%ue that petitioner shoul" have properl( sou%ht relief before the San"i%anba(an,
particularl( in !ivil !ase No. @2>2, in -hich the enforce&ent of the co&pro&ise /%ree&ents is
pen"in% resolution. There &a( see& to be so&e &erit in such ar%u&ent, if petitioner is &erel(
seein% to en7oin the enforce&ent of the co&pro&ise an"8or to co&pel the P!)) to "isclose to the
public the ter&s containe" in sai" /%ree&ents. =o-ever, petitioner is here seein% the public "isclose
of .all ne%otiations an" a%ree&ent, be the( on%oin% or perfecte", an" "ocu&ents relate" to or relatin%
to such ne%otiations an" a%ree&ent bet-een the P!)) an" the Marcos heirs..
In other -or"s, this petition is not confine" to the /%ree&ents that have alrea"( been "ra-n, but
lie-ise to an( other on%oin% or future un"ertain% to-ar"s an( settle&ent on the alle%e" Marcos
loot. Ineluctabl(, the core issue boils "o-n to the precise interpretation, in ter&s of scope, of the t-in
constitutional provisions on .public transactions.. This broa" an" prospective relief sou%ht b( the
instant petition brin%s it out of the real& of !ivil !ase No. @2>2.
First ,ubstantive IssueB
Public 5isclosure of Terms of
-n3 -!reement Perfected or $ot
In seein% the public "isclosure of ne%otiations an" a%ree&ents pertainin% to a co&pro&ise
settle&ent -ith the Marcoses as re%ar"s their alle%e" ill-%otten -ealth, petitioner invoes the
follo-in% provisions of the !onstitutionB
Sec. < 5/rticle III6. The ri%ht of the people to infor&ation on &atters of public concern shall be
reco%ni;e". /ccess to official recor"s, an" to "ocu&ents, an" papers pertainin% to official acts,
transactions, or "ecisions, as -ell as to %overn&ent research "ata use" as basis for polic(
"evelop&ent, shall be affor"e" the citi;en, sub7ect to such li&itations as &a( be provi"e" b( la-.
Sec. 01 5/rticle II6. Sub7ect to reasonable con"itions prescribe" b( la-, the State a"opts an"
i&ple&ents a polic( of full public "isclosure of all its transactions involvin% public interest.
Respon"ents$ opposite vie- is that the above constitutional provisions refer to co&plete" an"
operative official acts, not to those still bein% consi"ere". /s re%ar"s the assaile" /%ree&ents entere"
into b( the P!)) -ith the Marcoses, there is (et no ri%ht of action that has accrue", because sai"
/%ree&ents have not been approve" b( the Presi"ent, an" the Marcos heirs have faile" to fulfill their
e#press un"ertain% therein. Thus, the /%ree&ents have not beco&e effective. Respon"ents a"" that
the( are not a-are of an( on%oin% ne%otiation for another co&pro&ise -ith the Marcoses re%ar"in%
their alle%e" ill-%otten assets.
The .infor&ation. an" the .transactions. referre" to in the sub7ect provisions of the !onstitution have
as (et no "efine" scope an" e#tent. There are no specific la-s prescribin% the e#act li&itations -ithin
-hich the ri%ht &a( be e#ercise" or the correlative state "ut( &a( be obli%e". =o-ever, the follo-in%
are so&e of the reco%ni;e" restrictionsB *2+ national securit( &atters an" intelli%ence infor&ation, *0+
tra"e secrets an" banin% transactions, *4+ cri&inal &atters, an" *>+ other confi"ential infor&ation.
"imitations to the Ri!htB
6(7 $ational ,ecurit3 Matters
/t the ver( least, this 7uris"iction reco%ni;es the co&&on la- hol"in% that there is a %overn&ental
privile%e a%ainst public "isclosure -ith respect to state secrets re%ar"in% &ilitar(, "iplo&atic an" other
national securit( &atters.
23
Gut -here there is no nee" to protect such state secrets, the privile%e
&a( not be invoe" to -ithhol" "ocu&ents an" other infor&ation,
24
provi"e" that the( are e#a&ine"
.in strict confi"ence. an" %iven .scrupulous protection..
Die-ise, infor&ation on inter-%overn&ent e#chan%es prior to the conclusion of treaties an" e#ecutive
a%ree&ents &a( be sub7ect to reasonable safe%uar"s for the sae of national interest.
26
6&7 Trade ,ecrets and
8ankin! Transactions
The "rafters of the !onstitution also une,uivocall( affir&e" that, asi"e fro& national securit( &atters
an" intelli%ence infor&ation, tra"e or in"ustrial secrets *pursuant to the Intellectual Propert(
!o"e
27
an" other relate" la-s+ as -ell as banin% transactions *pursuant to the Secrec( of Gan
Deposits /ct
28
+ are also e#e&pte" fro& co&pulsor( "isclosure.
29
697 Criminal Matters
/lso e#clu"e" are classifie" la- enforce&ent &atters, such as those relatin% to the apprehension, the
prosecution an" the "etention of cri&inals,
30
-hich courts &a( nor in,uire into prior to such arrest,
"etention an" prosecution. 9fforts at effective la- enforce&ent -oul" be seriousl( 7eopar"i;e" b( free
public access to, for e#a&ple, police infor&ation re%ar"in% rescue operations, the -hereabouts of
fu%itives, or lea"s on covert cri&inal activities.
6.7 :ther Confidential
Information
The 9thical Stan"ar"s /ct
31
further prohibits public officials an" e&plo(ees fro& usin% or "ivul%in%
.confi"ential or classifie" infor&ation officiall( no-n to the& b( reason of their office an" not &a"e
available to the public..
32
Other acno-le"%e" li&itations to infor&ation access inclu"e "iplo&atic correspon"ence, close" "oor
!abinet &eetin%s an" e#ecutive sessions of either house of !on%ress, as -ell as the internal
"eliberations of the Supre&e !ourt.
33
,copeB Matters of Public Concern and
Transactions Involvin! Public Interest
In ;almonte v. 8elmonte 0r.,
33
the !ourt e&phasi;e" that the infor&ation sou%ht &ust be .&atters of
public concern,. access to -hich &a( be li&ite" b( la-. Si&ilarl(, the state polic( of full public
"isclosure e#ten"s onl( to .transactions involvin% public interest. an" &a( also be .sub7ect to
reasonable con"itions prescribe" b( la-.. /s to the &eanin%s of the ter&s .public interest. an" .public
concern,. the !ourt, in "e!aspi v. Civil ,ervice Commission,
34
eluci"ate"B
In "eter&inin% -hether or not a particular infor&ation is of public concern there is no ri%i" test -hich
can be applie". .Public concern. lie .public interest. is a ter& that elu"es e#act "efinition. Goth ter&s
e&brace a broa" spectru& of sub7ects -hich the public &a( -ant to no-, either because these
"irectl( affect their lives, or si&pl( because such &atters naturall( arouse the interest of an or"inar(
citi;en. In the final anal(sis, it is for the courts to "eter&ine on a case b( case basis -hether the
&atter at issue is of interest or i&portance, as it relates to or affects the public.
!onsi"ere" a public concern in the above-&entione" case -as the .le%iti&ate concern of citi;ens to
ensure that %overn&ent positions re,uirin% civil service eli%ibilit( are occupie" onl( b( persons -ho
are eli%ibles.. So -as the nee" to %ive the %eneral public a"e,uate notification of various la-s that
re%ulate an" affect the actions an" con"uct of citi;ens, as hel" in Ta2ada. Die-ise "i" the .public
nature of the loanable fun"s of the )SIS an" the public office hel" b( the alle%e" borro-ers *&e&bers
of the "efunct Gatasan% Pa&bansa+. ,ualif( the infor&ation sou%ht in ;almonte as &atters of public
interest an" concern. In -quino',armiento v. Morato,
36
the !ourt also hel" that official acts of public
officers "one in pursuit if their official functions are public in character: hence, the recor"s pertainin%
to such official acts an" "ecisions are -ithin the a&bit of the constitutional ri%ht of access to public
records.
Jn"er Republic /ct No. A<24, public officials an" e&plo(ees are &an"ate" to .provi"e infor&ation on
their policies an" proce"ures in clear an" un"erstan"able lan%ua%e, 5an"6 ensure openness of
infor&ation, public consultations an" hearin%s -henever appropriate . . .,. e#cept -hen
.other-ise provi"e" b( la- or -hen re,uire" b( the public interest.. In particular, the la- &an"ates
free public access, at reasonable hours, to the annual perfor&ance reports of offices an" a%encies of
%overn&ent an" %overn&ent-o-ne" or controlle" corporations: an" the state&ents of assets,
liabilities an" financial "isclosures of all public officials an" e&plo(ees.
37
In %eneral, -ritin%s co&in% into the han"s of public officers in connection -ith their official functions
&ust be accessible to the public, consistent -ith the polic( of transparenc( of %overn&ental affairs.
This principle is ai&e" at affor"in% the people an opportunit( to "eter&ine -hether those to -ho&
the( have entruste" the affairs of the %overn&ent are honest(, faithfull( an" co&petentl( perfor&in%
their functions as public servants.
38
Jn"eniabl(, the essence of "e&ocrac( lies in the free flo- of
thou%ht:
39
but thou%hts an" i"eas &ust be -ell-infor&e" so that the public -oul" %ain a better
perspective of vital issues confrontin% the& an", thus, be able to critici;e as -ell as participate in the
affairs of the %overn&ent in a responsible, reasonable an" effective &anner. !ertainl(, it is b(
ensurin% an unfettere" an" uninhibite" e#chan%e of i"eas a&on% a -ell-infor&e" public that a
%overn&ent re&ains responsive to the chan%es "esire" b( the people.
30
The $ature of the Marcoses1
-lle!ed Ill'<otten =ealth
Fe no- co&e to the i&&e"iate &atter un"er consi"eration.
Jpon the "eparture fro& the countr( of the Marcos fa&il( an" their cronies in Februar( 231A, the ne-
%overn&ent hea"e" b( Presi"ent !ora;on !. /,uino -as specificall( &an"ate" to .5r6ecover ill-%otten
properties a&asse" b( the lea"ers an" supporters of the previous re%i&e an" 5to6 protect the interest
of the people throu%h or"ers of se,uestration or free;in% of assets or
accounts..
31
Thus, Presi"ent /,uino$s ver( first e#ecutive or"ers *-hich partoo of the nature of
le%islative enact&ents+ "ealt -ith the recover( of these alle%e" ill-%otten properties.
9#ecutive Or"er No. 2, pro&ul%ate" on Februar( 01, 231A, onl( t-o *0+ "a(s after the Marcoses fle"
the countr(, create" the P!)) -hich -as pri&aril( tase" to assist the Presi"ent in the recover( of
vast %overn&ent resources alle%e"l( a&asse" b( for&er Presi"ent Marcos, his i&&e"iate fa&il(,
relatives an" close associates both here an" abroa".
Jn"er 9#ecutive Or"er No. 0, issue" t-elve *20+ "a(s later, all persons an" entities -ho ha"
no-le"%e or possession of ill-%otten assets an" properties -ere -arne" an", un"er pain of penalties
prescribe" b( la-, prohibite" fro& concealin%, transferrin% or "issipatin% the& or fro& other-ise
frustratin% or obstructin% the recover( efforts of the %overn&ent.
On Ma( <, 231A, another "irective *9O No. 2>+ -as issue" %ivin% a""itional po-ers to the P!))
-hich, tain% into account the overridin! considerations of national interest and national survival,
re,uire" it to achieve e#pe"itiousl( an" effectivel( its vital tas of recoverin% ill-%otten -ealth.
Fith such pronounce&ents of our %overn&ent, -hose authorit( e&anates fro& the people, there is no
"oubt that the recover( of the Marcoses$ alle%e" ill-%otten -ealth is a &atter of public concern an"
i&bue" -ith public interest.
32
Fe &a( also a"" that .ill-%otten -ealth,. b( its ver( nature, assu&es a
public character. Gase" on the afore&entione" 9#ecutive Or"ers, .ill-%otten -ealth. refers to assets
an" properties purporte"l( ac,uire", "irectl( or in"irectl(, b( for&er Presi"ent Marcos, his i&&e"iate
fa&il(, relatives an" close associates throu%h or as a result of their i&proper or ille%al use of
%overn&ent fun"s or properties: or their havin% taen un"ue a"vanta%e of their public office: or their
use of po-ers, influences or relationships, .resultin% in their un7ust enrich&ent an" causin% %rave
"a&a%e an" pre7u"ice to the Filipino people an" the Republic of the Philippines.. !learl(, the assets
an" properties referre" to suppose"l( ori%inate" fro& the %overn&ent itself. To all intents an"
purposes, therefore, the( belon% to the people. /s such, upon reconve(ance the( -ill be returne" to
the public treasur(, sub7ect onl( to the satisfaction of positive clai&s of certain persons as &a( be
a"7u"%e" b( co&petent courts. /nother "eclare" overri"in% consi"eration for the e#pe"itious recover(
of ill-%otten -ealth is that it &a( be use" for national econo&ic recover(.
Fe believe the fore%oin% "is,uisition settles the ,uestion of -hether petitioner has a ri%ht to
respon"ents$ "isclosure of an( a%ree&ent that &a( be arrive" at concernin% the Marcoses$ purporte"
ill-%otten -ealth.
-ccess to Information
on $e!otiatin! Terms
Gut "oes the constitutional provision lie-ise %uarantee access to infor&ation
re%ar"in% on!oin! ne%otiations or proposals prior to the final a%ree&ent' This sa&e clarification -as
sou%ht an" clearl( a""resse" b( the constitutional co&&issioners "urin% their "eliberations, -hich -e
,uote hereun"erB
33
MR. SJ/R9L. /n" -hen -e sa( .transactions. -hich shoul" be "istin%uishe" fro& contracts,
a%ree&ents, or treaties or -hatever, "oes the )entle&an refer to the steps lea"in% to the
consu&&ation of the contract, or "oes he refer to the contract itself'
MR. OPD9. The .transactions. use" here, I suppose, is %eneric an", therefore, it can cover both steps
lea"in% to a contract, an" alrea"( a consu&&ate" contract, Mr. Presi"in% Officer.
MR. SJ/R9L. This conte&plates inclusion of ne%otiations lea"in% to the consu&&ation of the
transaction'
MR. OPD9. Hes, sub7ect to reasonable safe%uar"s on the national interest.
!onsi"erin% the intent of the !onstitution, -e believe that it is incu&bent upon the P!)) an" its
officers, as -ell as other %overn&ent representatives, to "isclose sufficient public infor&ation on an(
propose" settle&ent the( have "eci"e" to tae up -ith the ostensible o-ners an" hol"ers of ill-%otten
-ealth. Such infor&ation, thou%h, &ust pertain to "efinite propositions of the %overn&ent, not
necessaril( to intra-a%enc( or inter-a%enc( reco&&en"ations or co&&unications
33
"urin% the sta%e
-hen co&&on assertions are still in the process of bein% for&ulate" or are in the .e#plorator(. sta%e.
There is a nee", of course, to observe the sa&e restrictions on "isclosure of infor&ation in %eneral, as
"iscusse" earlier - such as on &atters involvin% national securit(, "iplo&atic or forei%n relations,
intelli%ence an" other classifie" infor&ation.
,econd ,ubstantive IssueB
"e!al Restraints on a Marcos'PC<< Compromise
Petitioner lastl( conten"s that an( co&pro&ise a%ree&ent bet-een the %overn&ent an" the Marcoses
-ill be a virtual con"onation of all the alle%e" -ron%s "one b( the&, as -ell as an un-arrante"
per&ission to co&&it %raft an" corruption.
Respon"ents, for their part, assert that there is no le%al restraint on enterin% into a co&pro&ise -ith
the Marcos heirs, provi"e" the a%ree&ent "oes not violate an( la-.
Prohibited Compromises
In %eneral, the la- encoura%es co&pro&ises in civil cases, e#cept -ith re%ar" to the follo-in%
&attersB *2+ the civil status of persons, *0+ the vali"it( of a &arria%e or a le%al separation, *4+ an(
%roun" for le%al separation, *>+ future support, *?+ the 7uris"iction of courts, an" *A+ future
le%iti&ate.
34
/n" lie an( other contract, the ter&s an" con"itions of a co&pro&ise &ust not be
contrar( to la-, &orals, %oo" custo&s, public polic( or public or"er.
36
/ co&pro&ise is bin"in% an"
has the force of la- bet-een the parties,
37
unless the consent of a part( is vitiate" - such as b(
&istae, frau", violence, inti&i"ation or un"ue influence - or -hen there is for%er(, or if the ter&s of
the settl&ent are so palpabl( unconscionable. In the latter instances, the a%ree&ent &a( be
invali"ate" b( the courts.
38
Effect of Compromise
on Civil -ctions
One of the conse,uences of a co&pro&ise, an" usuall( its pri&ar( ob7ect, is to avoi" or to en" a
liti%ation.
39
In fact, the la- ur%es courts to persua"e the parties in a civil case to a%ree to a fair
settle&ent.
40
/s an incentive, a court &a( &iti%ate "a&a%es to be pai" b( a losin% part( -ho sho-s
a sincere "esire to co&pro&ise.
41
In Republic > Campos 0r. v. ,andi!anba3an,
42
-hich affir&e" the %rant b( the P!)) of civil an"
cri&inal i&&unit( to Cose H. !a&pos an" the fa&il(, the !ourt hel" that in the absence an e#press
prohibition, the rule on co&pro&ises in civil actions un"er the !ivil !o"e is applicable to P!)) cases.
Such principle is pursuant to the ob7ectives of 9O No. 2> particularl( the 7ust an" e#pe"itious recover(
of ill-%otten -ealth, so that it &a( be use" to hasten econo&ic recover(. The sa&e principle -as
uphel" in 8enedicto v. 8oard of -dministrators of Television ,tations RP$ 88C and
I8C
43
an" Republic v. 8enedicto,
43
-hich rule" in favor of the vali"it( of the P!)) co&pro&ise
a%ree&ent -ith Roberto S. Gene"icto.
Immunit3 from
Criminal Prosecution
=o-ever, an( co&pro&ise relatin% to the civil liabilit( arisin% fro& an offense "oes not auto&aticall(
ter&inate the cri&inal procee"in% a%ainst or e#tin%uish the cri&inal liabilit( of the &alefactor.
44
Fhile
a co&pro&ise in civil suits is e#pressl( authori;e" b( la-, there is no si&ilar %eneral sanction as
re%ar"s cri&inal liabilit(. The authorit( &ust be specificall( conferre". In the present case, the po-er
to %rant cri&inal i&&unit( -as confere" on P!)) b( Section ? of 9O No. 2>, as a&en"e" b( 9O No.
2>-/, -hci provi"esB
Sec. ?. The Presi"ent !o&&ission on )oo" )overn&ent is authori;e" to %rant i&&unit( fro& cri&inal
prosecution to an( person -ho provi"es infor&ation or testifies in an( investi%ation con"ucte" b( such
!o&&ission to establish the unla-ful &anner in -hich an( respon"ent, "efen"ant or accuse" has
ac,uire" or accu&ulate" the propert( or properties in ,uestion in an( case -here such infor&ation or
testi&on( is necessar( to ascertain or prove the latter$s %uilt or his civil liabilit(. The i&&unit( thereb(
%rante" shall be continue" to protect the -itness -ho repeats such testi&on( before the
San"i%anba(an -hen re,uire" to "o so b( the latter or b( the !o&&ission.
The above provision specifies that the P!)) &a( e#ercise such authorit( un"er these con"itionsB *2+
the person to -ho& cri&inal i&&unit( is %rante" provi"es infor&ation or testifies in an investi%ation
con"ucte" b( the !o&&ission: *0+ the infor&ation or testi&on( pertains to the unla-ful &anner in
-hich the respon"ent, "efen"ant or accuse" ac,uire" or accu&ulate" ill-%otten propert(: an" *4+ such
infor&ation or testi&on( is necessar( to ascertain or prove %uilt or civil liabilit( of such in"ivi"ual.
Fro& the -or"in% of the la-, it can be easil( "e"ucte" that the person referre" to is a 4itness in the
procee"in%, not the principal respon"ent, "efen"ant or accuse".
Thus, in the case of Cose H. !a&pos, the %rant of both civil an" cri&inal i&&unit( to hi& an" his
fa&il( -as .5i6n consi"eration of the full cooperation of Mr. Cose H. !a&pos 5-ith6 this !o&&ission, his
voluntar( surren"er of the properties an" assets 5-6 "isclose" an" "eclare" b( hi& to belon% to
"epose" Presi"ent Fer"inan" 9. Marcos 5-6 to the )overn&ent of the Republic of the Philippines5:6 his
full, co&plete an" truthful "isclosures5:6 an" his co&&it&ent to pa( a su& of &one( as "eter&ine"
b( the Philippine )overn&ent..
46
Moreover, the %rant of cri&inal i&&unit( to the !a&poses an" the
Gene"ictos -as li&ite" to acts an" o&issions prior to Februar( 0?, 233A. /t the ti&e such i&&unit(
-as %rante", no cri&inal cases have (et been file" a%ainst the& before the co&petent court.
;alidit3 of the PC<<'Marcos
Compromise -!reements
)oin% no- to the sub7ect )eneral an" Supple&ental /%ree&ents bet-een the P!)) an" the Marcos
heirs, a cursor( perusal thereof reveals serious le%al fla-s. First, the /%ree&ents "o not confor& to
the above re,uire&ents of 9O Nos. 2> an" 2>-/. Fe believe that cri&inal i&&unit( un"er Section ?
cannot be %rante" to the Marcoses, -ho are the principal "efen"ants in the spate of ill-%otten -ealth
cases no- pen"in% before the San"i%anba(an. /s state" earlier, the provision is applicable &ainl( to
-itnesses -ho provi"e infor&ation or testif( a%ainst a respon"ent, "efen"ant or accuse" in an ill-
%otten -ealth case.
Fhile the )eneral /%ree&ent states that the Marcoses .shall provi"e the 5%overn&ent6 assistance b(
-a( of testi&on( or "eposition on an( infor&ation 5the(6 &a( have that coul" she" li%ht on the cases
bein% pursue" b( the 5%overn&ent6 a%ainst other parties,.
47
the clause "oes not full( co&pl( -ith the
la-. Its inclusion in the /%ree&ent &a( have been onl( an afterthou%ht, conceive" in pro
forma co&pliance -ith Section ? of 9O No. 2>, as a&en"e". There is no in"ication -hatsoever that
an( of the Marcos heirs has in"ee" provi"e" vital infor&ation a%ainst an( respon"ent or "efen"ant as
to the &anner in -hich the latter &a( have unla-full( ac,uire" public propert(.
Secon", un"er Ite& No. 0 of the )eneral /%ree&ent, the P!)) co&&its to e#e&pt fro& all for&s of
ta#es the properties to be retaine" b( the Marcos heirs. This is a clear violation of the !onstruction.
The po-er to ta# an" to %rant ta# e#e&ptions is veste" in the !on%ress an", to a certain e#tent, in
the local le%islative bo"ies.
48
Section 01 *>+, /rticle VI of the !onstitution, specificall( provi"esB .No
la- %rantin% an( ta# e#e&ption shall be passe" -ithout the concurrence of a &a7orit( of all the
Me&ber of the !on%ress.. The P!)) has absolutel( no po-er to %rant ta# e#e&ptions, even un"er the
cover of its authorit( to co&pro&ise ill-%otten -ealth cases.
9ven %rantin% that !on%ress enacts a la- e#e&ptin% the Marcoses for& pa(in% ta#es on their
properties, such la- -ill "efinitel( not pass the test of the e,ual protection clause un"er the Gill of
Ri%hts. /n( special %rant of ta# e#e&ption in favor onl( of the Marcos heirs -ill constitute class
le%islation. It -ill also violate the constitutional rule that .ta#ation shall be unifor& an" e,uitable..
49
Neither can the stipulation be construe" to fall -ithin the po-er of the co&&issioner of internal
revenue to co&pro&ise ta#es. Such authorit( &a( be e#ercise" onl( -hen *2+ there is reasonable
"oubt as to the vali"it( of the clai& a%ainst the ta#pa(er, an" *0+ the ta#pa(er$s financial position
"e&onstrates a clear inabilit( to pa(.
60
Definitel(, neither re,uisite is present in the case of the
Marcoses, because un"er the /%ree&ent the( are effectivel( conce"in% the vali"it( of the clai&s
a%ainst their properties, part of -hich the( -ill be allo-e" to retain. Nor can the P!)) %rant of ta#
e#e&ption fall -ithin the po-er of the co&&issioner to abate or cancel a ta# liabilit(. This po-er can
be e#ercise" onl( -hen *2+ the ta# appears to be un7ustl( or e#cessivel( assesse", or *0+ the
a"&inistration an" collection costs involve" "o not 7ustif( the collection of the ta# "ue.
61
In this
instance, the cancellation of ta# liabilit( is "one even before the "eter&ination of the a&ount "ue. In
an( event, cri&inal violations of the Ta# !o"e, for -hich le%al actions have been file" in court or in
-hich frau" is involve", cannot be co&pro&ise".
62
Third, the %overn&ent bin"s itself to cause the "is&issal of all cases a%ainst the Marcos heirs, pen"in%
before the San"i%anba(an an" other court.
63
This is a "irect encroach&ent on 7u"icial po-ers,
particularl( in re%ar" to cri&inal 7uris"iction. Fell-settle" is the "octrine that once a case has been
file" before a court of co&petent 7uris"iction, the &atter of its "is&issal or pursuance lies -ithin the
full "iscretion an" control of the 7u"%e. In a cri&inal case, the &anner in -hich the prosecution is
han"le", inclu"in% the &atter of -ho& to present as -itnesses, &a( lie -ithin the soun" "iscretion of
the %overn&ent prosecution:
63
but the court "eci"es, base" on the evi"ence proffere", in -hat
&anner it -ill "ispose of the case. Curis"iction, once ac,uire" b( the trial court, is not lost "espite a
resolution, even b( the 7ustice secretar(, to -ith"ra- the infor&ation or to "is&iss the
co&plaint.
64
The prosecution$s &otion to -ith"ra- or to "is&iss is not the least bin"in% upon the
court. On the contrar(, "ecisional rules re,uire the trial court to &ae its o-n evaluation of the &erit
of the case, because %rantin% such &otion is e,uivalent to effectin% a "isposition of the case itself.
66
Thus, the P!)), as the %overn&ent prosecutor of ill-%otten -ealth cases, cannot %uarantee the
"is&issal of all such cri&inal cases a%ainst the Marcoses pen"in% in the courts, for sai" "is&issal is
not -ithin its sole po-er an" "iscretion.
Fourth, the %overn&ent also -aives all clai&s an" counterclai&s, .-hether past, present, or future,
&ature" or inchoate,. a%ainst the Marcoses.
67
/%ain, this ill-enco&passin% stipulation is contrar( to
la-. Jn"er the !ivil !o"e, an action for future frau" &a( not be -aive".
68
The stipulation in the
/%ree&ent "oes not specif( the e#act scope of future clai&s a%ainst the Marcoses that the
%overn&ent thereb( relin,uishes. Such va%ue an" broa" state&ent &a( -ell be interprete" to inclu"e
all future ille%al acts of an( of the Marcos heirs, practicall( %ivin% the& a license to perpetrate frau"
a%ainst the %overn&ent -ithout an( liabilit( at all. This is a palpable violation of the "ue process an"
e,ual protection %uarantees of the !onstitution. It effectivel( ensconces the Marcoses be(on" the
reach of the la-. It also sets a "an%erous prece"ent for public accountabilit(. It is a virtual -arrant for
public officials to a&ass public fun"s ille%all(, since there is an open option to co&pro&ise their
liabilit( in e#chan%e for onl( a portion of their ill-%otten -ealth.
Fifth, the /%ree&ents "o not provi"e for a "efinite or "eter&inable perio" -ithin -hich the parties
shall fulfill their respective prestations. It &a( tae a lifeti&e before the Marcoses sub&it an inventor(
of their total assets.
,i#th, the /%ree&ents "o not state -ith specificit( the stan"ar"s for "eter&inin% -hich assets shall be
forfeite" b( the %overn&ent an" -hich shall be retaine" b( the Marcoses. Fhile the Supple&ental
/%ree&ent provi"es that the Marcoses shall be entitle" to 0? per cent of the I4?A &illion S-iss
"eposits *less %overn&ent recover( e#penses+, such sharin% arran%e&ent pertains onl( to the sai"
"eposits. No si&ilar splittin% sche&e is "efine" -ith respect to the other properties. Neither is there,
an(-here in the /%ree&ents, a state&ent of the basis for the 0?-<? percent sharin% ratio. Public
officers enterin% into an arran%e&ent appearin% to be &anifestl( an" %rossl( "isa"vanta%eous to the
%overn&ent, in violation of the /ti-)raft an" !orruption Practice /ct,
69
invite their in"ict&ent for
corruption un"er the sai" la-.
Finall3, the absence of then Presi"ent Ra&os$ approval of the principal /%ree&ent, an e#press
con"ition therein, ren"ers the co&pro&ise inco&plete an" unenforceable. Nevertheless, as "etaile"
above, even if such approval -ere obtaine", the /%ree&ents -oul" still not be vali".
Fro& the fore%oin% "is,uisition, it is cr(stal clear to the !ourt that the )eneral an" Supple&ental
/%ree&ents, both "ate" Dece&ber 01, 2334, -hich the P!)) entere" into -ith the Marcos heirs, are
violative of the !onstitution an" the la-s afore&entione".
F=9R9FOR9, the petition is )R/NT9D. The )eneral an" Supple&ental /%ree&ent "ate" Dece&ber
01, 2334, -hich P!)) an" the Marcos heirs entere" into are hereb( "eclare" NJDD /ND VOID for
bein% contrar( to la- an" the !onstitution. Respon"ent P!)), its officers an" all %overn&ent
functionaries an" officials -ho are or &a( be "irectl( ot in"irectl( involve" in the recover( of the
alle%e" ill-%otten -ealth of the Marcoses an" their associates are DIR9!T9D to "isclose to the public
the ter&s of an( propose" co&pro&ise settl&ent, as -ell as the final a%ree&ent, relatin% to such
alle%e" ill-%otten -ealth, in accor"ance -ith the "iscussions e&bo"ie" in this Decision. No
pronounce&ent as to cost.
SO ORDERED.
D&5)(e, 0r., C.J., Me6o &'( 78)+8mb)'9, JJ., co'c8r.
Vitu%, 0., Please see separate opinion.



Separate Opinions

VITUG, J., separate opinion;
In concur in the results, pro hac vice, for it is paramount that matters of
national interest deserve a proper place in any forum. The procedural rules in
the courts of law, like the locus standi of petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, the
propriety of the special legal action of mandamus used as a vehicle to reach
this Court on the issues involved and considered by the Court, as well as
kindred legal technicalities and nicety raised by respondents to thwart the
petition are no trickle matters, to be sure, but I do not see them to be cogent
reasons to deny to the Court its taking cognizance of the case.
It is a cardinal principle in constitutional adudication that anyone who invokes
it has a personal and substantial interest on the dispute.
1
!urisprudentially
there is either the lenient or the strict approach in the appreciation of legal
standing of legal standing. The liberal approach recognizes legal standing to
raise constitutional issues of nontraditional plaintiffs, such as ta"payers and
citizens, directly affecting them.
2
# developing trend appears to be towards a
narrow and e"acting approach, re$uiring that a logical nexusmust be shown
between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adudicated in order
to ensure that one is the proper and appropriate party to invoke udicial
power.
3
%ith respect to the right to information, it being a public right where the real
parties in interest are the people themselves in general
4
and where the only
recognized limitations is &public concern,& it would seem that the framers of
the Constitution have favored the liberal approach. 'ev. Fr. !oa$uin (ernas,
).!., a member of the Constitutional Commission, observe*
The real problem, however, lies in determining what matters are of public
concern and what are not. +nwitingly perhaps, by this provision the
Constitution might have opened a ,andora-s bo". For certainly every act of a
public officer in the conduct of the governmental process is a matter of public
concern. !urisprudence in fact has said that &public concern,& like &public
interest,& eludes e"act definition and embraces a broad spectrum of subects
which the public may want to kno, either because these directly affect their
lives or simply because such matters arouse the interest of an ordinary
sitizen.
5
Corrolarily, there is need of preserving a certain degree of confidentiality in
matters involving national security and public relations, to cite a few,
6
and
until a balance is struck, the Court may be constrained on occasions to accept
an electric notion that frees itself from the shackles of the trenchant re$uisites
of locus standi.
The ,residential Commission on .ood .overnment /,C..0 has a limited life
in carying out its tasks and time is running short. It is thus imperative that the
Court must hold even now, and remind ,C.., that it has indeed e"ceeded its
bounds in entering into the .eneral and )upplemental #greements. The
agreements clearly suffer from Constitutional and statutory infirmities,
7
to wit*
/10 The agreements contravene the statute in granting criminal immunity to the
2arcos heirs;
8
/30 ,C..-s commitment to e"empt from all form of ta"es the
property to be retained the 2arcos- heirs controverts the Constitution;
9
and
/40 the government-s underatking to cause the dismissal of all cases filed
against the 2arcoses pending before the )andiganbayan and other courts
encroaches upon udicial powers. I also see, like my other colleagues, too
much vagueness on such items as the period within which the parties shall
fulfill their respective prestations and the lack of appropriate standards for
determining the assets to be forfeited by the government and those to be
retained by the 2arcoses.
In this respect, while there is legal posibility when the terms of a contract are
not totally invalidated and only those opposed to law, morals, good customs,
public order and public policy are rendered inefficacious, when however, the
assailed provisions can be seen to be of essence, like here, the agreement in
its entirety can be adversely affected. True, the validity or invalidity of a
contract is a matter that generally may not be passed upon in
a mandamus petitonn, for it is as if petitioner were seeking declaratory relief or
an advisory opinion from this Court over which it has no original
urisdiction,
10
the immediacy and significance of the issues, neverthless, has
impelled the Court to rightly assume urisdiction and to resolve the incidental,
albeit maor, issues that evidently and continually ve" the parties.
%56'6F7'6, I vote to grant the petition.
Separate Opinions
VITUG, J., separate opinion;
In concur in the results, pro hac vice, for it is paramount that matters of
national interest deserve a proper place in any forum. The procedural rules in
the courts of law, like the locus standi of petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, the
propriety of the special legal action of mandamus used as a vehicle to reach
this Court on the issues involved and considered by the Court, as well as
kindred legal technicalities and nicety raised by respondents to thwart the
petition are no trickle matters, to be sure, but I do not see them to be cogent
reasons to deny to the Court its taking cognizance of the case.
It is a cardinal principle in constitutional adudication that anyone who invokes
it has a personal and substantial interest on the dispute.
1
!urisprudentially
there is either the lenient or the strict approach in the appreciation of legal
standing of legal standing. The liberal approach recognizes legal standing to
raise constitutional issues of nontraditional plaintiffs, such as ta"payers and
citizens, directly affecting them.
2
# developing trend appears to be towards a
narrow and e"acting approach, re$uiring that a logical nexusmust be shown
between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adudicated in order
to ensure that one is the proper and appropriate party to invoke udicial
power.
3
%ith respect to the right to information, it being a public right where the real
parties in interest are the people themselves in general
4
and where the only
recognized limitations is &public concern,& it would seem that the framers of
the Constitution have favored the liberal approach. 'ev. Fr. !oa$uin (ernas,
).!., a member of the Constitutional Commission, observe*
The real problem, however, lies in determining what matters are of public
concern and what are not. +nwitingly perhaps, by this provision the
Constitution might have opened a ,andora-s bo". For certainly every act of a
public officer in the conduct of the governmental process is a matter of public
concern. !urisprudence in fact has said that &public concern,& like &public
interest,& eludes e"act definition and embraces a broad spectrum of subects
which the public may want to kno, either because these directly affect their
lives or simply because such matters arouse the interest of an ordinary
sitizen.
5
Corrolarily, there is need of preserving a certain degree of confidentiality in
matters involving national security and public relations, to cite a few,
6
and
until a balance is struck, the Court may be constrained on occasions to accept
an electric notion that frees itself from the shackles of the trenchant re$uisites
of locus standi.
The ,residential Commission on .ood .overnment /,C..0 has a limited life
in carying out its tasks and time is running short. It is thus imperative that the
Court must hold even now, and remind ,C.., that it has indeed e"ceeded its
bounds in entering into the .eneral and )upplemental #greements. The
agreements clearly suffer from Constitutional and statutory infirmities,
7
to wit*
/10 The agreements contravene the statute in granting criminal immunity to the
2arcos heirs;
8
/30 ,C..-s commitment to e"empt from all form of ta"es the
property to be retained the 2arcos- heirs controverts the Constitution;
9
and
/40 the government-s underatking to cause the dismissal of all cases filed
against the 2arcoses pending before the )andiganbayan and other courts
encroaches upon udicial powers. I also see, like my other colleagues, too
much vagueness on such items as the period within which the parties shall
fulfill their respective prestations and the lack of appropriate standards for
determining the assets to be forfeited by the government and those to be
retained by the 2arcoses.
In this respect, while there is legal posibility when the terms of a contract are
not totally invalidated and only those opposed to law, morals, good customs,
public order and public policy are rendered inefficacious, when however, the
assailed provisions can be seen to be of essence, like here, the agreement in
its entirety can be adversely affected. True, the validity or invalidity of a
contract is a matter that generally may not be passed upon in
a mandamus petitonn, for it is as if petitioner were seeking declaratory relief or
an advisory opinion from this Court over which it has no original
urisdiction,
10
the immediacy and significance of the issues, neverthless, has
impelled the Court to rightly assume urisdiction and to resolve the incidental,
albeit maor, issues that evidently and continually ve" the parties.
%56'6F7'6, I vote to grant the petition.
Endnotes:
1 ,etition, p. 4; rollo, p. 8.
3 #nne"ed to the petition were the following news articles*
1. 6strella Torres, &93:( F2 5oard Found,& Today, )eptember 3;, 1<<=, p. 1.
3. &.ov-t %orking 7ut )ecret >eal on 2arcos .old,& The Manila Times,
)eptember 3;, 1<<=, p. 1.
4. 6strella Torres, &F?' 2an 5as F2 2oney,& Today, )eptember 3=, 1<<=, p.
1.
8. >onna Cueto and Cathy Ca@ares, &)wiss, ', 6"ecs ,lotted .old
)ale,&Philippine Daily Inquirer, )eptember 3A, 1<<=.
;. !ocelyn 2ontemayor, &Coded )wiss #ccounts Traced to ,alace (oysB&The
Manila Times, )eptember 3<, 1<<=.
4 =, #rt. III, 1<A= Constitution.
8 3A, #rt. II, ibid.
; The solicitor general-s 2anifestation, dated #ugust 11, 1<<A.
C Rollo, pp. 314:31C.
= It appears that Ferdinand '. 2arcos !r. did not sign the .eneral #greement.
A Rollo, pp. 31=:31A.
< It appears that Ferdinand '. 2arcos !r., did not sign the )upplemental
#greement either.
1D Rollo, pp. 1;<:1CD.
11 'esolution dated 2arch 1C, 1<<A, pp. 1:3; ibid., pp. 18=:18A.
13 Rollo, pp. 4<C:8D4.
14 This case was deemed submitted for resolution on )eptember 3A, 1<<A,
when the Court received the solicitor general-s Comment on the 2otion and
,etition for Intervention.
18 Citing Eegaspi v. Civil )ervice Commission, 1;D )C'# ;4D, ;4C, 2ay 3<,
1<A=.
1; )uch as #velino v. Cueno, A4 ,hil 1= /1<8<0; (asco v. ,#.C7', 1<=
)C'# ;3, 2ay 18, 1<<1; Fapatiran ng mga Gaglilingkod sa ,amahalaan ng
,ilipinas, Inc. v. Tan, 1C4 )C'# 4=1, !une 4D, 1<AA.
1C !oa$uin .. (ernas, )!, The Constitution of the 'epublic of the ,hilippines*
# Commentary, 1<<C ed., p. 448.
1= 14C )C'# 3=, 4C:4=, #pril 38, 1<A;, per 6scolin, !.
1A Huoting from )everino v. .overnor .eneral, 1C ,hil 4CC, 4=A /1<1D0.
1< &)ec. C. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern
shall be recognized, access to official records, and to documents and papers
pertaining to official acts, transaction, or decisions shall be afforded the
citizens subect to such limitation as may be provided by law.&
3D Supra, per Cortes, !.
31 #lso in .onzales v. Chavez, 3D; )C'# A1C, A8=, February 8,
1<<3. Cf 7posa v. Factoran, 338 )C'# =<3, !uly 4D, 1<<4.
33 1=; )C'# 3C8, 3=4, !uly 11, 1<A<, per ,aras, !.
34 See also ?almonte v. (elmonte !r., 1=D )C'# 3;C, February 14, 1<A<.
38 I? '6C7'> 7F T56 C7G)TIT+TI7G#E C722I))I7G C31:<33, <41
/1<AC0 Ihereafter, &'6C7'>&J; #lmonte v. ?as$uez, 388 )C'# 3AC, 3<;, 3<=,
2ay 34, 1<<;.
3; #lmonte, ibid.
3C ? '6C7'> 3;.
3= '# Go. A3<4, approved on !une C, 1<<=.
3A '# Go. 18D;, as amended.
3< ? '6C7'> 3;, See also ?ol. I, p. =D<.
4D CC #m !ur 3=, 'ecords and 'ecording Eaws.
41 '# Go. C=14, enacted on February 3D, 1<A<.
43 =/c0, ibid.
44 Eegaspi, supra.
48 Supra, p. 3CC.
4; Supra, p. ;81. #lso $uoted in ?almonte v. (elmonte !r., supra.
4C 3D4 )C'# ;1;, ;33:34, Govember 14, 1<<1.
4= ;/b0 K A, '# Go. C=14.
4A CC #m !ur 1<, 'ecords and 'ecording Eaws, citing 2ac6wan v. 5olm, 3CC
7r 3=, 4;< ,3d 814, A; #E'3d 1DAC.
4< See Eegaspi, supra, p. ;8D.
8D 1C# #m !ur 3d 41;:41=, 8<=.
81 1 /d0, #rt. II of ,roclamation Go. 4 /known as the ,rovisional or Freedom
Constitution0, promulgated on 2arch 3;, 1<AC.
83 'epublic v. ,rovident International 'esources Corp., 3C< )C'# 41C, 43;,
2arch =, 1<<=; 'epublic v. ,alanca, 1A3 )C'# <11, <1A, February 3A, 1<<D;
'epublic v. Eobregat et al., 4=C )C'# 4AA, !anuary 34, 1<<;.
84 ? '6C7'> 3; /1<AC0.
88 CC #m !ur 3d 4<.
8; #rt. 3D4;, Civil Code; 'epublic v. )andiganbayan, (enedict, et al., 33C
)C'# 418, 43=, )eptember 1D, 1<<4.
8C #rt. 3D3A in rel. to #rt. 14DC, Civil Code; 'epublic v.
(enedict, ibid., citing First ,hilippine 5oldings Corp. v. )andigabayan, 3D3
)C'# 313, )eptember 4D, 1<<1; 5eirs of .abriel Capili v. Court of #ppeals,
348 )C'# 11D, 11;, !uly 18, 1<<8.
8= )anchez v. Court of #ppeals, ..'. Go. 1DA<8=, )eptember 3<, 1<<=.
8A #rt. 3D4A in rel. to #rt. 144D, Civil Code; >omingo v. Court of #ppeals, 3;;
)C'# 1A<, 1<<:3DD, 2arch 3D, 1<<C; +nicane %orkers +nion, CE+, v.
GE'C, 3C1 )C'# ;=4, )eptember <, 1<<C; >el 'osario v. 2adayag, 38=
)C'# =C=, ==D, #ugust 3A, 1<<;.
8< >omingo v. Court of #ppeals, supra; >el 'osario v. 2adayag, supra;
7sme@a v. Commission on #udit, 34A )C'# 8C4, 8=1, Govember 3<, 1<<8.
;D #rt. 3D3<, Civil Code.
;1 #rt. 3D41, ibid.
;3 1=4 )C'# =3, A8 2ay 8, 1<A<.
;4 3D= )C'# C;<, CC=, 2arch 41, 1<<3.
;8 Supra, pp. 41< K 438.
;; #rt. 3D48, Civil Code.
;C 'epublic K Campos !r. v. )andiganbayan, supra, p. A4.
;= .eneral #greement, par. A.
;A 2actan Cebu International #irport #uthority v. 2arcos, 3C1 )C'# CC=,
)eptember 11, 1<<C.
;< 3A /10, #rt. ?I, Constitution, Commissioner of Internal 'evenue v. Court of
#ppeals, 3C1 )C'# 34C, #ugust 3<, 1<<C; Tolentino v. )ecretary of Finance,
38< )C'# C3A, 7ctober 4D, 1<<;; Fapatiran ng mga Gaglilingkod sa
,amahalaan ng ,ilipinas, Inc. v. Tan, 1C4 )C'# 4=1, 4A4, !une 4D,
1<AA, citing City of (aguio v. >e Eeon, 148 ,hil. <13, <1<:<3D /1<CA0.
CD 3D8 /10, Gational Internal 'evenue Code, as amended by 4, '# =C8C.
C1 3D8 /30, GE'C.
C3 ,ar. 3, ibid.
C4 .eneral #greement, par. A.
C8 ,eople v. Gazareno, 3CD )C'# 3;C, #ugust 1, 1<<C; ,eople v. ,orras, 3;;
)C'# ;18, 2arch 3<, 1<<C.
C; Eedesma v. Court of #ppeals, ..'. Go. 11431C, )eptember ;, 1<<=, pp.
31:33.
CC Ibid., p. 34, citing Crespo v. 2ogul, 1;1 )C'# 8C3, !une 4D, 1<A=; 2arcelo
v. Court of #ppeals, 34; )C'# 4<, #ugust 8, 1<<8; 2artinez v. Court of
#ppeals, 34= )C'# ;=;, 7ctober 14, 1<<8; and 'oberts !r. v. Court of
#ppeals, 3;8 )C'# 4D=, 2arch ;, 1<<C.
C= East &%hereas& clause of the .eneral #greement.
CA #rt. 11=1.
C< )pecifically 4 /g0 of '# 4D1<.
?IT+., !, separate opinon;
1 ,eople v. ?era, C; ,hil. ;C, A<; 2acasiano vs. Gational 5ousing #uthority,
338 )C'# 34A, 388.
3 >efensor )antiago, 2iriam, Constitution Eaw, First 6dition, 1<<8, p. 11.
4 #m !ur 1A<, ;<1, ). v. >., 81D +) C81, 4; E 6d 3d ;4C, <4 ) Ct 118C.
8 Eegaspi vs. Civil )ervice Commission, 1;D )C'# ;4D, ;8D; Ta@ada vs.
Tuvera, 14C )C'# 3=, 4C, 4=.
; The 1<A= Constitution of the 'epublic of the ,hilippines, # Commentary,
1<<C edition, pp. 44C:44=.
C Ibid.
= Goteworthy is the absence of the ,resident-s Impramatur on the agreement.
A 6"ecutive 7rder Gos. 18 and 18:#.
< )ec. 3A /80, #rticle ?I, 1<A= Constitution of the 'epublic of the ,hilippines.
Go law granting any ta" e"emption shall be passed without the concurrence of
a maority of all the 2embers of Congress.
1D )ec. 1=. 'epublic #ct Go. 3<C, !udiciary #ct of 1<8A; )ec. ;, #rt ?III, 1<A=
Constitution of the 'epublic of the ,hilippines; 'emontigue vs. 7sme@a, !r.,
13< ,hil. CD, C1; 'ural (ank of 7longapo, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Eand
'egistration, et al., 1D3 ,hil. =<8:=<;.