AKBAYAN v. Aquino et al., G.R. No.

170516, 16 July 2008

Case abstract:

In the case of Chavez vs. PCGG, the Court ruled that information related to inter-government exchanges before the
finalization of treaties and executive agreements could be protected by reasonable safeguards for national interest.
The case of PMPF vs. Manglapus involved petitioners seeking information on the status of ongoing negotiations of the
RP-US Military Bases Agreement.

The Court denied the petition, emphasizing that maintaining the confidentiality of negotiations with foreign countries
does not violate constitutional provisions on freedom of speech, press, or access to information. The Court
recognized the validity of executive privilege when claimed within the appropriate scope of executive power.

Doctrine/s:

Doctrine Description
Article 7 Section 21 - No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless
concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

Rationale for Article - The Senate concurred that approval of treaties was not necessary for
7 Section 21 executive agreements. If a constitutional justification is needed, it can be argued
that through these agreements, the President is merely fulfilling his duty to
“ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.”
- This action is similar to the creation of administrative regulations by
administrative agencies under a delegating law. These regulations do not
require Congressional approval but derive their authority from the delegating
law.
- Treaty making consists of two separate stages: negotiation and the actual
creation of the treaty. During the negotiation phase, the President’s power is
exclusive and the legislature cannot interfere. However, the outcome of the
President’s negotiation cannot become law without the Senate’s agreement.

Doctrine of - the power of the Government to withhold information from the public, the
executive privilege courts, and the Congress

- a right vested in the President which she may validly exercise within her
sphere of executive power

- the power of the Government to withhold information from the public, the
courts, and the Congress

- the right of the President and high-level executive branch officers to

withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public

- It must be stressed that executive privilege is a right vested in the President

which she may validly exercise within her sphere of executive power. The
President can validly invoke executive privilege to keep information from
the public and even from co-equal branches of the Government, i.e., the
Legislature and the Judiciary (Romulo L. Neri vs. Senate Committee on
Accountability and Public Officers and Investigations, G.R. No. 180643,
March 25, 2007

- A formal and proper claim of executive privilege requires a specific

1|Page
 designation and description of the documents within its scope as well as
precise and certain reasons for preserving their confidentiality. Without this
specificity, it is impossible for a court to analyze the claim short of
disclosure of the very thing sought to be protected

Deliberative process - privilege that an officer of an executive department may invoke to prevent
privilege public disclosure of any information that may compromise its decision-
making capability
- prevent subjecting an agency’s decision-making process to public opinion
before any definite policy action has been made
Presidential - Conversations, correspondences, or discussions that occur during private
Communication Cabinet meetings of the President are considered confidential, similar to
Privilege internal deliberations of the Supreme Court and other collegiate courts, or
executive sessions of either house of Congress
- type of information is not accessible to a co-equal branch of government.
The ability to freely exchange ideas and assessments, away from public
scrutiny and pressure from interested parties, is crucial for maintaining the
independence of decision-making for those responsible for exercising
Presidential, Legislative, and Judicial power

Substantial facts:
• Petitioners, including non-government organizations, Congresspersons, citizens and taxpayers, filed a petition
for mandamus and prohibition to obtain the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership
Agreement (JPEPA), including all related offers and attachments.
• Congressmen Lorenzo R. Tañada III and Mario Joyo Aguja initiated an inquiry into the JPEPA negotiations
through House Resolution No. 551.
• The House Committee requested a copy of the latest JPEPA draft from Undersecretary Tomas Aquino, who
declined until negotiations were completed and a thorough legal review conducted.
• Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita also declined to provide all documents on the JPEPA, citing that the
proposed agreement had been a work in progress for about three years.
• Congressman Aguja’s requests for the latest JPEPA text from NEDA Director-General Romulo Neri and
Tariff Commission Chairman Edgardo Abon were redirected to Undersecretary Aquino.
• The House Committee resolved to issue a subpoena for the most recent JPEPA draft, but this was held in
abeyance at the request of then House Speaker Jose de Venecia until Presidential consent was given for
document disclosure.
• Amid speculations of a December 2005 signing, the petition was filed on December 9, 2005. The JPEPA was
later signed on September 9, 2006 by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Japanese Prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi in Helsinki, Finland.
• The President endorsed the JPEPA to the Senate for concurrence as per Article VII, Section 21 of the
Constitution. The JPEPA is still under deliberation.
• The Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) will be the Philippines’ first bilateral free
trade agreement with another country, pending Senate approval.
• The JPEPA covers a wide range of topics including trade in goods, rules of origin, customs procedures,
paperless trading, trade in services, investment, intellectual property rights, government procurement,
movement of natural persons, cooperation, competition policy, mutual recognition, dispute avoidance and
settlement, improvement of the business environment, and general and final provisions.
• The final text of the JPEPA has been publicly accessible since September 11, 2006.
• However, it’s acknowledged that the initial drafts of the JPEPA were not made public during the negotiation
phase up until the filing of the petitioners’ reply.

Issue:

Whether the information sought by the petitioners are of public concern and are still covered by the
doctrine of executive privilege? (YES)

2|Page
 Ruling:

• The right to information and the policy of full public disclosure are not absolute, with certain matters of
public concern or interest recognized as privileged.
• Diplomatic negotiations are considered privileged in jurisprudence.
• The case of Chavez v. PCGG established that inter-government exchanges prior to the conclusion of
treaties and executive agreements can be subject to safeguards for national interest.
• In Peoples Movement for Press Freedom (PMPF) v. Manglapus, the Court upheld the privilege of secrecy in
negotiations with foreign countries, stating it doesn’t violate constitutional provisions of freedom of speech,
press, or access to information.
• The Court should guard against the abuse of executive privilege, but also recognize its validity when claimed
within the proper bounds of executive power.
• If not, the Court risks undermining its credibility by appearing to dilute executive privilege to irrelevance
rather than striking a balance.

References:

AKBAYAN v. Aquino et al., G.R. No. 170516, 16 July 2008 retrieved from
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2008/07/16/akbayan-v-aquino-g-r-no-170516-july-16-2008/

Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. Retrieved from https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-

1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-
article-vii/

Bernas, J. G. (2003). The 1987 constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A commentary.

Doctrine of executive privilege retrieved from https://www.alburolaw.com/executive-powers-of-the-

president-executive-
privilege/#:~:text=Executive%20privilege%20is%20the,and%20ultimately%20from%20the%20public.&text=Sin
ce%20the%20executive%20power%20belongs,the%20President%20can%20invoke%20it.

3|Page