Francisco Chavez vs. PCGG ( DIGEST ) 299 SCRA 744 ( G.R. No. 130716 ), December 9, 1998

 

Francisco Chavez vs. PCGG ( DIGEST ) 299 SCRA 744 ( G.R. No. 130716 ), December 9, 1998

 

FACTS:

Petitioner Chavez, as taxpayer, citizen and former gov’t official, impelled to bring this action regarding several news reports on: (1) the alleged discovery of billions of dollars of Marcos assets deposited in various coded accounts in Swiss banks and (2) the reported execution of a compromise, between the government (through PCGG) and the Marcos heirs, on how to split or share these assets.

Petitioner, invoking his constitutional right to information, demands that respondents make public any negotiations and agreements pertaining to PCGG’s task of recovering the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth.  He claims that any compromise on the alleged billions of ill-gotten wealth involves an issue of paramount public interest, since it has a “debilitating effect on the country’s economy” that would be greatly prejudicial to the national interest of the Filipino People.  Hence, they have the right to know the transactions effected by the Government.

Respondents, on the other hand, contended that petitioner’s action is premature, because there is no showing that he has asked the PCGG to disclose the negotiations and the Agreements.  And even if he has, PCGG may not yet be compelled to make any disclosure, since the proposed terms and conditions of the Agreements have not become effective and binding.

Further, Pres. Ramos, in his Memorandum, commanded the PCGG Chairman NOT to approve the Compromise Agreements.  Embodied in the covenant that (a) the Marcoses shall provide the gov’t assistance by way of testimony or disposition on any information that may shed light on the cases; (b) the assets determined to belong to the Marcoses shall be net of and exempt from, any form of taxes due the Republic of the Philippines; (c) that all disclosures of assets shall not used as evidence by the Gov’t in any criminal, civil, tax or administrative case against the former.

ISSUES:

(A) Procedural:

1) W/N the petitioner has the personality or legal standing to file the instant petition; and

2) W/N this Court is the proper court before which this action may be filed.

(B) Substantive:

1) W/N this Court could require the PCGG to disclose to the public the details of any agreement, perfected or not, with the Marcoses; and

2) W/N there exist any legal restraints against a compromise agreement between the Marcoses and the PCGG relative to the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth.

 

HELD:

First Procedural Issue

YES.  The Petitioner has the legal standing to file the instant petition.

In Legaspi vs. CSC, the Court declared that “when a mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that petitioner is a citizen and, therefore, part of the general public which possesses the right.”

The instant petition is anchored on the right of the people to information and access to official records and documents which guaranteed under Sec. 7, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution.  Due to the satisfaction of the two basic requisites laid down by decisional law to sustain petitioner’s legal standing, i.e. 1) the enforcement of a public right; 2) espoused by a Filipino citizen, the Court ruled that the petition at bar should be allowed.

Second Procedural Issue

YES.  Section 5, Art. VIII of the Constitution expressly confers upon the SC original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus.

The Court ruled that this petition is not confined to the Agreements that have already been drawn, but likewise to any other ongoing or future undertaking towards any settlement on the alleged Marcos loot.  Ineluctably, the core issue boils down to the precise interpretation, in terms of scope, of the twin constitutional provisions on “public transaction.”  This broad and prospective relief sought by the instant petition brings it out of the realm of Civil Case.

First Substantive Issue

YES.  The Court can require the PCGG to disclose to the public the details of any agreement, whether perfected or not.

Sec. 7, Art. III of the Constitution provides that the right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized.  Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as to gov’t research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

Such recognized restrictions are as follows: a) national security matters and intelligence information; b) trade secrets and banking transactions; c) criminal matters and; d) other confidential information.

The Court emphasized that ill-gotten wealth assumes a public character which refers to assets and properties acquired, directly or indirectly, by former Pres. Marcos, his family and relatives through or as a result of improper of illegal use of government funds or properties; or their having taken undue advantage of their public office; or their use of powers or influences resulting in their unjust enrichment  and causing grave damage and prejudice to the Filipino People and the Republic of the Philippines.

Thus, the Court can require the PCGG to disclose sufficient public information on any agreement that may arrived at and any proposed settlement concerning the Marcoses’ purported ill-gotten wealth.

Second Substantive Issue

YES.  There are Legal Restraints existed against the compromise agreement between the PCGG and the Marcos heirs.

Generally, law encourages compromises in civil cases, except with regard to the following matters: 1) the civil status of persons, 2) the validity of a marriage of a legal separation, 3) any ground for legal separation, 4) future support, 5) the jurisdiction of courts, and 6) future legitimate.  A Compromise must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy or public order.

In Republic & Campos Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, the power to grant criminal immunity was conferred on PCGG by Section 5 of EO No. 14, as amended by EO No. 14-A, which provides:

Section 5.  The PCGG is authorized to grant immunity from criminal prosecution to any person who provides information or testifies in an investigation conducted by the Commission to establish the unlawful manner in which any respondent, defendant or accused has acquired the properties in question in any case where such information or testimony is necessary to ascertain or prove the latter’s guilt or his civil liability.  The immunity thereby granted shall be continued to protect the witness who repeats such testimony before the Sandiganbayan when required to do so by the latter or by the Commission.

In the case at bar, the compromise agreements revealed serious flaws.  First, the agreements did not conform to the requirements of EO 14 and 14-A.  Criminal immunity under section 5 cannot be granted to the Marcoses, who are the principal defendants in the ill-gotten wealth cases.  The provision is applicable mainly to witnesses who provide information against a respondent, defendant or accused in an ill-gotten wealth case.

Second, under the General Agreement, the PCGG commits to exempt from all forms of taxes the properties to be retained by the Marcos heirs.  This is a clear violation of the Constitution.  Sec. 28(4), Art. VI of the Constitution specifically provides:  “No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Member of the Congress.”  The PCGG has absolutely no power to grant such exemptions.

Third, under the Agreement, the government binds itself to cause the dismissal of all cases against the Marcos heirs, pending before the Sandiganbayan and other court.  This is a direct encroachment on judicial powers of the court which has the jurisdiction on dismissal.  Hence, PCGG cannot guarantee the dismissal of all such criminal cases against the Marcoses.

Fourth, the government also waives all claims and counterclaims, whether past, present, or future against the Marcoses.  This stipulation is contrary to the Civil Code which states that “an action for future fraud may not be waived.”  Further, the Agreements do not provide for a definite or determinable period within which the parties shall fulfill their respective prestations.

Based on the foregoing discussion, it is crystal clear that the Agreements which PCGG entered into with the Marcos heirs violated the Constitution.

Petition GRANTED.