7/28/2019 AKBAYAN JPEPA
1/2
Akbayan vs. Aquino (2008) John CruzCarpio Morales, J.
Facts : The House Special Committee on Globalization conducted a
legislative inquiry into the negotiations of the Japan-
Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA). JPEPA is a
bilateral free trade agreement covering a broad range of topics
including trade in goods, rules of
origin, customs procedures, intellectual property rights,
etc.
The House Committee requested from respondent executive
officials (Usec. Aquino, Exec. Sec. Ermita, et al.) thedraft of
JPEPA, but the latter refused to comply until the negotiations were
completed.
On Dec. 9, 2005, Petitioners (NGOs, Congresspersons, citizens,
and taxpayers) filed a petition for mandamus andprohibition to
obtain from respondents:
the full text of the JPEPA and the Philippine and Japanese
offers submitted during the negotiation process and all pertinent
attachments
and annexes thereto. On, Sept. 11, 2006, the full-text of the
JPEPA was released to the public during the pendency of this
petition. Petitioners argue that the non-disclosure of the
documents violates the:
right to information on matters of public concern, right to
effective and reasonable participation in all levels of social,
political, and economic decision
making, and separation of powers b/c the Senate is prevented
from participating in the negotiations. Respondents invoke the
doctrine of executive privilege w/c means that the diplomatic
negotiations of JPEPA are an
exception to the right to information.
Issues Held Ratio W/Npetitionershavestanding.
Yes The right of the people to information on matters of public
concern is a public right.Being a citizen satisfies the requirement
of standing.
Petitioners are all suing as citizens, groups of citizens
including members of HoR.
W/N thecase is moot. Notentirely The case is only moot insofar
as the public disclosure of the full text of the JPEPA duringthe
pendency of the petition. Petitioners nevertheless also demand
access to the initialPhilippine and Japanese offers w/c is ripe for
adjudication.
W/N JPEPAis a matterof publicconcern.
Yes Legaspi v CSC: Public concern eludes exact definition and
embraces a broad spectrum of
subjects w/c the public may want to know, either because these
directly affecttheir lives, or simply b/c such matters naturally
arouse the interest of anordinary citizen.
It is evident from the nature of JPEPA as an international trade
agreement that thePhilippine and Japanese offers submitted during
the negotiations towards its executionis a matter of public concern
w/c respondents do not dispute.
W/N theinformationsought iscovered byexecutiveprivilege.
Yes In PMPF v. Manglapus, the Court adopted the doctrine in U.S.
v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp . that the President is the sole
organ of the nation in its negotiations w/ foreigncountries.
While the final text of the JPEPA may not be kept perpetually
confidential since thereshould be ample opportunity for discussion
before a treaty is approved, the offersexchanged by the parties
during the negotiations continue to be privileged even afterthe
JPEPA is published.
7/28/2019 AKBAYAN JPEPA
2/2
Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of the
Philippines in futurenegotiations.
Initially, the burden of proof is on the Executive to show that
the information isprivileged. When it was thus established that the
JPEPA documents are within theprivilege of diplomatic negotiations
pursuant to PMPF v. Manglapus , the presumptionarose that its
disclosure would impair the performance of executive functions.
Theburden of proof now shifts to the petitioners t o show that
information is of sufficient
public interest to overcome the privilege.W/N
theprivilegeapplies onlyat certainstages of
thenegotiationprocess.
No Petitioners cite Chavez v. PCGG and Chavez v. PEA that the
diplomatic negotiations areonly confidential only at certain stages
of the negotiation process. Once finalized, suchinformation must be
revealed to the public.
Court: the doctrine in both cases explicitly stated that it does
not apply to diplomaticnegotiations.
The information xxx must constitute definite propositions by the
governmentand should not cover recognized exceptions like
privileged information,military and diplomatic secrets and similar
matters affecting national securityand public order.
W/N there issufficientpublicinterest toovercomethe claim of
privilege.
No The petitioners have failed to present the strong and
sufficient showing of needestablished in the Nixon cases cited by
the Court.
The text of the JPEPA having been published, the petitioners
have failed toconvince this Court that they will not be able to
meaningfully exercise theirright to participate in decision-making
unless the initial offers are alsopublished.
It is of public knowledge that various NGOs and private citizens
have alreadypublicly expressed their views on the JPEPA through
various media (newspaperarticles, internet, etc.)
The petitioners- members of the HoR likewise fail to present a
sufficient showing of ne ed that the information sought is critical
to the performance of the functions of Congress.
The treaty-making power is exclusive to the President, being the
sole organ of the nation in its external relations.
Congress may not interfere into the field of treaty
negotiations. Theirconstitutionally mandated role is limited to the
2/3 concurrence of the Senatefor the validity of the subject treaty
(Art. VII, Sec. 21).
W/Nrespondentsfailed to
timely claimexecutiveprivilege
No The privilege is an exemption to Congress power of inquiry.
So long as Congress findsno cause to enforce such power, there is
no strict necessity to assert the privilege.Hence, respondents
failure to invoke the privilege during the House Committee
investigations did not amount to a waiver thereof.
Furthermore, the failure to satisfy the requirement that the
privilege may only beinvoked by the President or through the Exec.
Sec. by order of the President as laiddown in Senate v. Ermita, may
be set aside given that the same case was not yet final atthe time
respondents filed their Comment to the petition.
Petition is DISMISSED
