Akbayan v. Aquino, G.R. No.

170516, July 16, 2008

Facts:

The signing of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) at the sidelines of the
Asia-Europe Summit in Helsinki in September 2006 was hailed by both Japanese Prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi and Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as a “milestone in the continuing
cooperation and collaboration, setting a new chapter of strategic partnership for mutual opportunity and
growth (for both countries).”
JPEPA which has been referred to as a ‘mega treaty’ is a comprehensive plan for opening up of markets
in goods and services as well as removing barriers and restrictions on investments. It is a deal that
encompasses even our commitments to the WTO.
The complexity of JPEPA became all the more evident at the Senate hearing conducted by the
Committee on Trade and Commerce last November 2006. The committee, chaired by Senator Mar
Roxas, heard differing views and perspectives on JPEPA. On one hand the committee heard
Government’s rosy projections on the economic benefits of JPEPA and on the other hand the views of
environmental and trade activists who raised their very serious concerns about the country being turned
into Japan’s toxic waste basket. The discussion in the Senate showed that JPEPA is not just an issue
concerning trade and economic relations with Japan but one that touches on broader national
development concerns.

Issues:

1. Do the therein petitioners have standing to bring this action for mandamus in their capacity as citizens
of the Republic, as taxpayers, and as members of the Congress

2. Can this Honorable Court exercise primary jurisdiction of this case and take cognizance of the instant
petition.

3. Are the documents and information being requested in relation to the JPEPA exempted from the
general rules on transparency and full public disclosure such that the Philippine government is justified in
denying access thereto.

Rulings:

The Supreme Court en banc promulgated last July 16, 2008 its ruling on the case of “Akbayan Citizens
Action Party et al vs. Thomas G. Aquino et al” (G.R. No. 170516). The Highest Tribunal dismissed the
Petition for mandamus and prohibition, which sought to compel respondents Department of Trade
Industry (DTI) Undersecretary Thomas Aquino et al to furnish petitioners the full text of the Japan-
Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) and the lists of the Philippine and Japanese offers
submitted during the negotiation process and all pertinent attachments and annexes thereto.

In its Decision, the Court noted that the full text of the JPEPA has been made accessible to the public
since 11 September 2006, and thus the demand to be furnished with copy of the said document has
become moot and academic. Notwithstanding this, however, the Court lengthily discussed the substatives
issues, insofar as they impinge on petitioners' demand for access to the Philippine and Japanese offers in
the course of the negotiations.

The Court held: “Applying the principles adopted in PMPF v. Manglapus, it is clear that while the final text
of the JPEPA may not be kept perpetually confidential – since there should be 'ample opportunity for
discussion before [a treaty] is approved' – the offers exchanged by the parties during the negotiations
continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is published. It is reasonable to conclude that the
Japenese representatives submitted their offers with the understanding that 'historic confidentiality' would
govern the same. Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of the Philippines to deal not only with
Japan but with other foreign governments in future negotiations.”

It also reasoned out that opening for public scrutiny the Philippine offers in treaty negotiations would
discourage future Philippine representatives from frankly expressing their views during negotiations. The
Highest Tribunal recognized that treaty negotiations normally involve a process of quid pro quo, where
negotiators would willingly grant concessions in an area of lesser importance in order to obtain more
favorable terms in an area of greater national interest.

In the same Decision, the Court took time to address the dissent of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. It
said: “We are aware that behind the dissent of the Chief Justice lies a genuine zeal to protect our people's
right to information against any abuse of executive privilege. It is a zeal that We fully share. The Court,
however, in its endeavour to guard against the abuse of executive privilege, should be careful not to veer
towards the opposite extreme, to the point that it would strike down as invalid even a legitimate exercise
thereof.”