284.

IDEAL vs PSALM

Locus Standi; View that where the issue revolves around the people’s right to information, the requisite legal standing is met by
the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen; If the petition is anchored on the people’s right to information on matters of public
concern, any citizen can be a real party in interest.

Water Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1067); Presidential Decree No. 1067, otherwise known as “The Water Code of the
Philippines” is the basic law governing the ownership, appropriation utilization, exploitation, development, conservation and
protection of water resources and rights to land related thereto.

Def: Regalian Doctrine; View that the Regalian Doctrine which was enshrined in the Constitution was merely a means to an end,
as “state ownership of natural resources was seen as a necessary starting point to secure recognition of the state’s power to
control their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization.”

Facts:

 Respondent PSALM is a government-owned and controlled corporation created by virtue of Republic Act no. 9136,
otherwise known as the “Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001” (EPIRA).
 Said law mandated PSALM to manage the orderly sale, disposition , and privatization of NPC generation assets, real
estate and other disposable assets, and Independent Power Producer (IPP) contracts with the objective of liquidating
all NPC financial obligation and stranded contract cost in an optimal manner, which liquidation is to be completed
within PSALM’s 25-year term of existence.
 Sometime in August 2005, PSALM commenced the privatization of the 246-megawatt AHEPP in Bulacan.
 On December 15, 2009, PSALM’s Board of Directors approved the Bidding Procedures for the privatization of the
AHEPP.
 On May 5, 2010, and after a post-bid evaluation, PSALM’s Board of Directors approved and confirmed the issuance of
a notice of Award to the highest bidder, K-Water.
 IDEALS had been sending letters to PSALM to request for copies of documents pertaining to the sale. The first letter
requested for copies of the Terms of Reference and proposed bids submitted by the bidders. The second letter
requested for information regarding the winning bidder. PSALM failed to sufficiently provide the petitioners with the
information they were asking for, almost as if PSALM officials were trying to hide something.
 On May 19, 2010, the present petition with prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary
injunction was filed by the Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. (IDEALS),
Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), AKBAYAN Citizen’s Action Party (AKBAYAN) and Alliance of Progressive Labor

Issue:
W/N petitioners have locus standi to file this petition before the court
W/N Psalm violated the Constitution in withholding documents of public interest

Held:

(1) Yes. As Citizens and taxpayers, petitioners do have legal standing to file this petition before the court.

(2) Yes. In failing to provide the petitioners with the information they were asking for on their second letter, PSALM
violated Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the right of the people to information on
matters of public concern. The Court ruled that people's right to information is intertwined with the government's
constitutional duty of full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest, pursuant to Section 28, Art. II
of the 1987 Constitution, which states a policy of full public disclosure. Both of these provisions are also essential to
hold public officials accountable for their actions. An informed citizenry, said the Court, is essential to the existence
and proper functioning of any democracy.

The Court made it clear that the public is entitled to information even on on-going negotiations before a final
contract, subject to the following exceptions: privileged information, military and diplomatic secrets, and similar
matters relating to national security and public order.