IDEALS vs PSALMS GR 192088, 9 Oct 2012Petitioners: IDEALS et al Respondents: PSALM et al

FACTS:

PSALM is a GOCC created by virtue of the EPIRA law. Said law mandated PSALM to manage privatization
of NPC. When PSALM commenced the privatization an invitation to bid was published and the
highest bidder K-Water was identified. The sale to K-Water was sought to be enjoined by
petitioners who contend that PSALM gravely abused its discretion when, in the conduct of the
bidding it violated the people’s right to information without having previously released to the public
critical information about the sale.

ISSUES:

1. Can the bid documents, etc. used in the on-going negotiation for the privatization and sale of
Angat hydro plant be accessed via the right to information?

2. Is the duty to disclose information the same with the duty to permit access to information on
matters of public concern?

Ruling:

1.Yes. The court reiterated that the constitutional right to information includes official information on
on-goingnegotiations before a final contract. The information, however, must constitute definite
propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged
information, military and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national security and
public order.

2. No. Unlike the disclosure of information which is mandatory under the Constitution, the other
aspect of the people’sright to know requires a demand or request for one to gain access to
documents and paper of the particular agency. Moreover, the duty to disclose covers only
transactions involving public interest, while the duty to allow access has a broader scope of
information which embraces not only transactions involving public interest, but any matter
contained in official communications and public documents of the government agent.
Mactan Cebu (MCIAA) vs. Marcos

GR 120082, September 11, 1996, 261 SCRA 667Davide Jr.

FACTS:

Petitioner MactanCebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) was created by virtue of Republic Act
No. 6958, mandated to "principally undertake the economical, efficient and effective control,
management and supervision of the Mactan International Airport in the Provinceof Cebu and the Lahug
Airport in Cebu City, . . . and such other Airports as may be established in the Province of Cebu . . . (Sec.
3, RA 6958). Since the time of its creation, petitioner MCIAA enjoyed the privilege of exemption from
paymentof realty taxes in accordance with Section 14 of its Charter.

On October 11, 1994, however, Mr. Eustaquio B. Cesa, Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Treasurer of the
City of Cebu, demanded payment for realty taxes on several parcels of land belonging to the petitioner ,
in the total amount of P2,229,078.79.

Petioner objected to such demand for payment as baseless and unjustified, claiming in its favor the
aforecited Section 14 of RA 6958 which exempt it from payment of realty taxes. It was also asserted that
it is an instrumentality of the government performing governmental functions, citing section 133 of the
Local Government Code of 1991 which puts limitations on the taxing powers of local government units.

Respondent City refused to cancel and set aside petitioner'srealty tax account, insisting that the MCIAA
is a government-controlled corporation whose tax exemption privilege has been withdrawn by virtue of
Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Governmental Code that took effect on January 1, 1992.Petitioner was
compelled to pay its tax account "under protest" and thereafter filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief
with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch. MCIAA basically contended that the taxing powers of local
government units do not extend to the levy of taxes or fees of any kind on an instrumentality of the
national government. Petitioner insisted that while it is indeed a government-owned corporation, it
nonetheless stands on the same footing as an agency or instrumentality.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the pettioner are exempted in paying realty taxes

RULING:

NO. MCIAA is not exempt from payment of realty taxes.

There can be no question that under Section 14 of R.A. No. 6958 the petitioner is exempt from the
payment of realty taxes imposed by the National Government or any of its political subdivisions,
agencies, and instrumentalities. Nevertheless, since taxationis the rule and exemption therefrom the
exception, the exemption may thus be withdrawn at the pleasure of the taxing authority. The only
exception to this rule is where the exemption was granted to private parties based on material
consideration of a mutual nature, which then becomes contractual and is thus covered by the non-
impairment clause of the Constitution.

The LGC, enacted pursuant to Section 3, Article X of the constitution provides for the exercise by local
government units of their power to tax, the scope thereof or its limitations, and the exemption from
taxation.Reading together Section 133, 232 and 234 of the LGC, we conclude that as a general
rule, as laid down in Section 133 the taxing powers of local government units cannot extend to
thelevy of inter alia, "taxes, fees, and charges of any kind of the National Government, its agencies
and instrumentalties, and local government units"; however, pursuant to Section 232,
provinces, cities, municipalities in the Metropolitan Manila Area may impose the real property tax
except on, inter alia, "real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political
subdivisions except when the beneficial used thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise,
to a taxable person", as provided in item (a) of the first paragraph of Section 234.As to tax
exemptions or incentives granted to or presently enjoyed by natural or juridical persons,
including government-owned and controlled corporations, Section 193 of the LGC prescribes
thegeneral rule, viz., they are withdrawn upon the effectivity of the LGC.

As to tax exemptions or incentives granted to or presently enjoyed by natural or juridical

persons, including government-owned and controlled corporations, Section 193 of the LGC
prescribes thegeneral rule, viz., they are withdrawn upon the effectivity of the LGC