ECHEGARAY v. The Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, October 12, 1998 Petitioner v.

respondents Echegarays counsel filed a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin respondents Secretary of Justice and Director of the Bureau of Prisons from carrying out the execution by lethal injection of petitioner under R.A. No. 8177 and its implementing rules as these are unconstitutional and void. These are the questioned provisions: "SEC. 19. EXECUTION PROCEDURE. - Details of the procedure prior to, during and after administering the lethal injection shall be set forth in a manual to be prepared by the Director. The manual shall contain details of, among others, the sequence of events before and after execution; procedures in setting up the intravenous line; the administration of the lethal drugs; the pronouncement of death; and the removal of the intravenous system. Said manual shall be confidential and its distribution shall be limited to authorized prison personnel." ISSUE: Does the 2nd paragraph of Section 19 unduly suppress the convicts and his counsels constitutional right to information and as parties in interest? Ruling: YES. Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED insofar as Sections 17 and 19 of the Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act No. 8177 are concerned, which are hereby declared INVALID because Section 19 unjustifiably makes the manual confidential, hence unavailable to interested parties including the accused/convict and counsel. As to the second paragraph of section 19, the Court finds the requirement of confidentiality of the contents of the manual even with respect to the convict unduly suppressive. It sees no legal impediment for the convict, should he so desire, to obtain a copy of the manual. The contents of the manual are matters of public concern "which the public may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen." The incorporation in the Constitution of a guarantee of access to information of public concern is recognition of the essentiality of the free flow of ideas and information in a democracy. In the same way that free discussion enables members of society to cope with the exigencies of their time, access to information of general interest aids the people in democratic decision-making by giving them a better perspective of the vital issues confronting the nation. Chavez v. PCGG, G.R. No. 130716, December 9, 1998 Petitioner v. respondents and petitioners-in-intervention Petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, as taxpayer, citizen and former government official who initiated the prosecution of the Marcoses and their cronies, alleges that what impelled him to bring this action were several news reports bannered in a number of broadsheets sometime in September 1997. These news items referred to (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 and the correlative duty of the state to disclose publicly all its transactions involving the national interest, demands that respondents make public any and all 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.

ISSUE: Does the Article III, Section 7 of the Constitution guarantees access to information regarding ongoing negotiations or proposals prior to the final agreement? YES. This same clarification was sought and clearly addressed by the constitutional commissioners during their deliberations. The "transactions" used here is generic and it can cover both steps leading to a contract, and already a consummated contract. This contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction. But it is subject to reasonable safeguards on the national interest. Moreover, the "information" and the "transactions" referred to in the subject provisions of the Constitution have as yet no defined scope and extent. There are no specific laws prescribing the exact limitations within which the right may be exercised or the correlative state duty may be obliged. However, the following are some of the recognized restrictions: (1) national security matters and intelligence information, (2) trade secrets and banking transactions, (3) criminal matters, and (4) other confidential information. Other acknowledged limitations to information access include diplomatic correspondence, closed door Cabinet meetings and executive sessions of either house of Congress, as well as the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the information sought must be "matters of public concern," access to which may be limited by law. Similarly, the state policy of full public disclosure extends only to "transactions involving public interest" and may also be "subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law." Considering the intent of the Constitution, we believe that it is incumbent upon the PCGG and its officers, as well as other government representatives, to disclose sufficient public information on any proposed settlement they have decided to take up with the ostensible owners and holders of ill-gotten wealth. Such information, though, must pertain to definite propositions of the government, not necessarily to intra-agency or inter-agency recommendations or communications during the stage when common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the "exploratory" stage. There is a need, of course, to observe the same restrictions on disclosure of information in general, as discussed earlier such as on matters involving national security, diplomatic or foreign relations, intelligence and other classified information. Chavez v. PEA, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002 Petitioner v. respondents On April 25, 1995, Public Estates Authority (PEA) entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with Amari Coastal Bay and Development Corporation (AMARI), a private corporation, to develop the Freedom Islands without public bidding. On 28 April 1995, the Board of Directors of PEA confirmed the JVA. On 8 June 1995, President F.V. Ramos, through the Executive Secretary, approved the JVA. The Senate conducted an investigation and concluded that the JVA itself is illegal. Philippine Daily Inquirer and Today published reports that there were on-going renegotiations between PEA and AMARI under an order issued by President F. V. Ramos. On April 27, 1998, petitioner Frank I. Chavez, as a taxpayer, filed the instant Petition for Mandamus praying that PEA publicly disclose the terms of any renegotiation of the JVA, Section 7, Article III, of the 1987 Constitution on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. ISSUE: Does the constitutional right to information include official information on ongoing negotiations before a final contract?

YES. Petition is GRANTED. The commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional Commission understood that the right to information "contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction." A consummated contract is not a requirement for the exercise of the right to information. But the information must constitute definite propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged information, military and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public order. Congress has also prescribed other limitations on the right to information in several legislations. The right to information covers three categories of information which are "matters of public concern," namely: (1) official records; (2) documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions and decisions; and (3) government research data used in formulating policies. The first category refers to any document that is part of the public records in the custody of government agencies or officials. The second category refers to documents and papers recording, evidencing, establishing, confirming, supporting, justifying or explaining official acts, transactions or decisions of government agencies or officials. The third category refers to research data, whether raw, collated or processed, owned by the government and used in formulating government policies.