GONZALES (Ramon) v Hon.

ANDRES NARVASA
J. Gonzaga-Reyes August 14, 2000 G.R. No. 140835

Doctrine The incorporation of the right to information in the Constitution is recognition of the fundamental role of free
exchange of information in a democracy. The term “matters of public concern” found in Section 7 of the Bill
of Rights embraces a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know, either because these
directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen.
It is for the courts to determine in a case by case basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or
importance, as it relates to or affects the public.
Summary Ramon A. Gonzales as citizen and taxpayer assailed EO No. 43 which created the Preparatory Commission
on Constitutional Reform (PCCR). He also wrote a letter to Executive Secretary Zamora requesting for the
names, positions and a list of luxury vehicles received by officials in the Office of the President. The Court
declared that Gonzales did not have standing to assail the EO but as a citizen under Section 7 of Article III,
he automatically had the requisite standing and was entitled to the information requested.

Facts  President Estrada created the Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reform (PCCR) through
EO No. 43 in order to “study and recommend proposed amendments and/or revisions to the 1987
Constitution and the manner of implementing the same.”
 Petitioner assailed the EO as a citizen and taxpayer because (a) only the legislature can create
another public office such as the PCCR and (b) the Constitution excludes the President from
interfering with the process of making amendments to the Constitution.
 He also assailed the various appointments made by the President in the Executive Branch which
included 20 presidential consultants, 22 presidential advisers, and 28 presidential assistants.
Petitioner likewise averred that the President did not have the power to create these positions.
 Pursuant to this, petitioner sent a letter to Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora requesting for the
names of executive officials holding multiple positions in government, copies of their appointments
and a list of the recipients of luxury vehicles seized by the Bureau of Customs and turned over to
Malacanang.
Ratio/Issues I. With respect to the Constitutionality of the PCCR, the issue has become moot and academic.
 Under the EO, the PCCR was instructed to complete its task under a deadline. Estrada later
issued another EO extending this deadline, which the PCCR was able to comply with so it
spent the funds allotted to it was immediately dissolved. The Court had nothing left to resolve.
II. Whether or not petitioner has standing (NO)
 The Court extensively discussed the importance of standing but eventually ruled that Petitioner
did not show that he suffered a direct injury because of the EO. Neither did he have standing
as a taxpayer because the amount of 3 million which funded the PCCR was appropriated from
the Office of the President in the exercise of his power to transfer funds pursuant to Sec. 25(5)
Art. VI of the Constitution.
III. Whether or not the President has the power to create the additional positions (mentioned
above) (MOOT)
 The Court stressed that Petitioner did not have standing and that in pointing out these
positions, he did not allege what official act (whether it be an EO, AO, Memorandum order) the
President made to “create” these positions.
 To support his allegations, the Petitioner submitted a copy of the Philippine Government
directory which the Court deemed insufficient it refrained from entertaining this issue.
IV. Whether or not petitioner has a right to the information requested from Ex Sec Zamora (YES)
 The right to have access to information of public concern (Sec 7, Bill of Rights) is a self-
executory provision that can be invoked by any citizen. It is a public right, thus the requirement
of personal interest is satisfied by merely being a citizen.
 Congress provided conditions for the exercise of this right, found in RA 6713 (Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)
 One provision under this law requires all public officials to respond to letters concerning access
to matters of public information within 15 working days and to ensure the accessibility of all
public documents within reasonable working hours subject to the terms on confidentiality (Sec
5(a) and (e), RA 6713).
 The incorporation of the right to access information of public concern in the fundamental role of
free exchange in a democracy (Baldoza v Dimaano).
 Other purposes of this right include:
1) To allow the public to have a realistic perception of the nation’s problems
2) To allow for a meaningful democratic decision-making
3) To enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of the times.
  The term “matters of public concern” embraces a broad spectrum of subjects which the public
may want to know either because these directly or indirectly affect their lives or because these
may naturally arouse their interest.
 The courts have the authority to decide whether an issue is of interest or importance in relation
to the general public.
 In this case the Court ruled that appointments made to public office as well as utilization of
public property are of public concern. Thus, Ex Sec Zamora was required to oblige petitioner’s
request copies of appointment papers of certain officials subject to the limitations set forth in
RA 6713.
Held The petition is dismissed with the exception that respondent Zamora is ordered to furnish
petitioner with the information requested.

Prepared by: Tippy Oracion