AKBAYAN vs.

AQUINO
Facts:
Petitioners seek to obtain from respondents the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA)
including the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted during the negotiation process and all pertinent attachments and annexes
thereto.The JPEPA, which will be the first bilateral free trade agreement to be entered into by the Philippines with another
country in the event the Senate grants its consent to it, covers a broad range of topics which includes 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.
Issues:
a. Whether or not the claim of the petitioners is covered by the right to information.
b. Whether the executive privilege claimed by the respondents applies only at certain stages of
the negotiation process.
c. Whether there is sufficient public interest to overcome the claim of privilege.
d. Whether the Respondents failed to claim executive privilege on time.

Decision:
Supreme Court dismissed the petition, on the following reasons:
1.
To be covered by the right to information, the information sought must meet the threshold requirement that it be a matter of
public concern.
In determining whether or not a particular information is of public concern there is no rigid test which can be applied. Public
concern like public interest is a term that eludes exact definition. Both terms embrace a broad spectrum of subjects 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. In the final analysis, it is for the courts to determine on a case by case basis whether the matter
at issue is of interest or importance, as it relates to or affects the public.
From the nature of the JPEPA as an international trade agreement, it is evident that the Philippine and Japanese offers
submitted during the negotiations towards its execution are matters of public concern. This, respondents do not dispute. They
only claim that diplomatic negotiations are covered by the doctrine of executive privilege, thus constituting an exception to the
right to information and the policy of full public disclosure.
Thus, the Court holds that, in determining whether an information is covered by the right to information, a specific showing of
need for such information is not a relevant consideration, but only whether the same is a matter of public concern. When,
however, the government has claimed executive privilege, and it has established that the information is indeed covered by the
same, then the party demanding it, if it is to overcome the privilege, must show that that the information is vital, not simply for
the satisfaction of its curiosity, but for its ability to effectively and reasonably participate in social, political, and economic
decision-making.

2.
Supreme Court stated that the constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a
final contract. The information, however, 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.

3.
The deliberative process privilege is a qualified privilege and can be overcome by a sufficient showing of need. This need
determination is to be made flexibly on a case-by-case, ad hoc basis. "[E]ach time [the deliberative process privilege] is asserted
the district court must undertake a fresh balancing of the competing interests," taking into account factors such as "the
relevance of the evidence," "the availability of other evidence," "the seriousness of the litigation," "the role of the government,"
and the "possibility of future timidity by government employees.
In the case at hand, Petitioners have failed to present the strong and sufficient showing of need. The arguments they proffer
to establish their entitlement to the subject documents fall short of this standard stated in the decided cases.
There is no dispute that the information subject of this case is a matter of public concern. The Court has earlier concluded that
it is a matter of public concern, not on the basis of any specific need shown by petitioners, but from the very nature of the JPEPA
as an international trade agreement.
Further, the text of the JPEPA having been published, petitioners have failed to convince this Court that they will not be able to
meaningfully exercise their right to participate in decision-making unless the initial offers are also published.

4.
When the respondents invoked the privilege for the first time only in their Comment to the present petition does not mean that
the claim of privilege should not be credited.
Respondents failure to claim the privilege during the House Committee hearings may not, however, be construed as a waiver
thereof by the Executive branch. What respondents received from the House Committee and petitioner-Congressman Aguja were
mere requests for information. The House Committee refrained from pursuing its earlier resolution to issue a subpoena duces
tecum on account of then Speaker Jose de Venecias alleged request to Committee Chairperson Congressman Teves to hold the
same in abeyance.
While it is a salutary and noble practice for Congress to refrain from issuing subpoenas to executive officials out of respect for
their office until resort to it becomes necessary, the fact remains that such requests are not a compulsory process. Being mere
requests, they do not strictly call for an assertion of executive privilege

ABAYA vs. EBDANE

Facts:
The Government of Japan and the Government of the Philippines, through their
respective representatives, namely, Mr. Yoshihisa Ara, Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Republic of the Philippines, and then Secretary of
Foreign Affairs Domingo L. Siazon, have reached an understanding concerning
Japanese loans to be extended to the Philippines. These loans were aimed at
promoting our countrys economic stabilization and development efforts.
The assailed resolution recommended the award to private respondent China Road
& Bridge Corporation of the contract for the implementation of civil works for
Contract Package No. I (CP I), which consists of the improvement/rehabilitation of
the San Andres (Codon)-Virac-Jct. Bago-Viga road, with the length of 79.818
kilometers, in the island province of Catanduanes.The DPWH caused the publication

of the Invitation to Prequalify and to Bid for the implementation of the CP I project,
in two leading national newspapers, namely, the Manila Times and Manila Standard
on November 22 and 29, and December 5, 2002.
A total of twenty-three (23) foreign and local contractors responded to the invitation
by submitting their accomplished prequalification documents on January 23, 2003.
In accordance with the established prequalification criteria, eight contractors were
evaluated or considered eligible to bid as concurred by the JBIC. Prior to the opening
of the respective bid proposals, it was announced that the Approved Budget for the
Contract (ABC) was in the amount of P738,710,563.67.
The bid goes to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation was corrected
from the original P993,183,904.98 (with variance of 34.45% from the ABC) to
P952,564,821.71 (with variance of 28.95% from the ABC) based on their letter
clarification dated April 21, 2004.
The petitioners anchor the instant petition on the contention that the award of the
contract to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation violates RA 9184,
particularly Section 31 thereof which reads:
SEC. 31. Ceiling for Bid Prices. The ABC shall be the upper limit or ceiling for the
Bid prices. Bid prices that exceed this ceiling shall be disqualified outright from
further participating in the bidding. There shall be no lower limit to the amount of
the award.
The petitioners insist that Loan Agreement is neither an international nor an
executive agreement that would bar the application of RA 9184. They point out that
to be considered a treaty, an international or an executive agreement, the parties
must be two sovereigns or States whereas in the case of Loan Agreement No. PHP204, the parties are the Philippine Government and the JBIC, a banking agency of
Japan, which has a separate juridical personality from the Japanese Government.
The respondents however contend that foreign loan agreements, including Loan
Agreement No. PH-P204, as executive agreements and, as such, should be observed
pursuant to the fundamental principle in international law of pacta sunt servanda.
The Constitution, the public respondents emphasize, recognizes the enforceability of
executive agreements in the same way that it recognizes generally accepted
principles of international law as forming part of the law of the land.34 This
recognition allegedly buttresses the binding effect of executive agreements to which
the Philippine Government is a signatory. It is pointed out by the public respondents
that executive agreements are essentially contracts governing the rights and
obligations of the parties. A contract, being the law between the parties, must be
faithfully adhered to by them. Guided by the fundamental rule of pacta sunt
servanda, the Philippine Government bound itself to perform in good faith its duties
and obligations under Loan Agreement.

Issue :
Whether or not the the loan agreement violates RA 9184.
Ruling:
The court ruled in favor of the respondents.
Significantly, an exchange of notes is considered a form of an executive agreement,
which becomes binding through executive action without the need of a vote by the
Senate or Congress. executive agreements, They sometimes take the form of
exchange of notes and at other times that of more formal documents denominated
agreements or protocols.

The fundamental principle of international law of pacta sunt servanda, which is, in
fact, embodied in Section 4 of RA 9184 as it provides that [a]ny treaty or
international or executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to
which the Philippine government is a signatory shall be observed, the DPWH, as
the executing agency of the projects financed by Loan Agreement No. PH-P204,
rightfully awarded the contract for the implementation of civil works for the CP I
project to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation.