|
The Supreme Court voted 10-4 dismissing a petition by militant
groups for a full disclosure of all details—from negotiations to
signing—concerning a controversial free-trade agreement between
the Philippines and Japan.
But Chief Justice Reynato Puno was among the
four justices who dissented, saying the public has a right to
information.
The petition demanded a copy of the full text of
the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement, or JPEPA, as
well as copies of the offers submitted by the two governments during
the negotiations. The Court turned down both demands.
In a 51-page decision penned by Associate
Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the Supreme Court again upheld the
executive branch’s right to “executive privilege,” saying the
documents being sought were part of diplomatic communications that
could be kept confidential.
The Court likewise ruled as moot the
petitioners’ demand to be furnished with a copy of the full text
of the agreement, as it had already been made public since September
11, 2006.
“Diplomatic negotiations have been recognized
as privileged in this jurisdiction, and the reasons proffered by
petitioners have not persuaded the Court,” the ruling said, adding
that “petitioners, both private citizens and members of the House
of Representatives, have failed to present a sufficient showing of
need to overcome the claim of privilege in this case.”
“Petitioners have failed to present the strong
and sufficient showing of need that the information sought is
critical to the performance of the functions of Congress, functions
that do not include treaty-negotiations.”
“The arguments they proffer to establish their
entitlement to the subject documents fall short of this standard,”
the ruling added.
The petitioners were Akbayan Cititzens Action
Party, Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Samahan sa Kanayunan, Alliance of
Progressive Labor, Vicente Fabe, Angelito Mendoza, Manuel Quiambao,
Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles, lawmakers Lorenzo Tanada 3rd, Mario Joyo
Aguja, Loreta Ann Rosales, Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel and
Emmanuel Joel Villanueva.
Dissenting opinion
The three others who dissented with Puno were
Associate Justices Consuelo Ynares Santiago, Adolfo Azcuna and
Alicia Austria-Martinez.
In his 120-page opinion, Puno stressed there
cannot be a blanket invocation of executive privilege, and that
executive officials must give a reason in invoking diplomatic
negotiation privilege.
He added that the right of the public to
information is guaranteed by the Constitution, and the burden is on
the executive to show that executive privilege is an exception.
“It cannot be the other way around, where the
public will show a need,” Puno said. “The public has the right.
The public need not explain the reason for its right.”
Palace pleased
Malacañang officials were elated over the
decision of the Supreme Court on the Japan-Philippines Economic
Partnership Agreement.
“I think we should interpret that such
document with foreign countries that should be handled with care,
because there are matters that must be handled with
confidentiality,” Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said.
-- William B. Depasupil and Angelo S. Samonte
|
