4.

ARTICLE II - FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

PROVINCE OF NORTH COTOBATO VS. GRP PEACE PANEL
GR No. 183591, October 14, 2008

FACTS:
When President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assumed office, the military offensive against
the MILF was suspended and the government sought a resumption of the peace talks. The
MILF, according to a leading MILF member, initially responded with deep reservation, but when
President Arroyo asked the Government of Malaysia through Prime Minister Mahathir
Mohammad to help convince the MILF to return to the negotiating table, the MILF convened its
Central Committee to seriously discuss the matter and, eventually, decided to meet with the
GRP.
The parties met in Kuala Lumpur on March 24, 2001, with the talks being facilitated by
the Malaysian government, the parties signing on the same date the Agreement on the General
Framework for the Resumption of Peace Talks between the GRP and the MILF. The MILF
thereafter suspended all its military actions.
Formal peace talks between the parties were held in Tripoli, Libya from June 20-22,
2001, the outcome of which was the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace (Tripoli Agreement
2001) containing the basic principles and agenda on the following aspects of the negotiation:
Security Aspect, Rehabilitation Aspect, and Ancestral Domain Aspect. With regard to the
Ancestral Domain Aspect, the parties in Tripoli Agreement 2001 simply agreed that the same
be discussed further by the Parties in their next meeting.
A second round of peace talks was held in Cyberjaya, Malaysia on August 5-7, 2001
which ended with the signing of the Implementing Guidelines on the Security Aspect of the
Tripoli Agreement 2001 leading to a ceasefire status between the parties. This was followed by
the Implementing Guidelines on the Humanitarian Rehabilitation and Development Aspects of
the Tripoli Agreement 2001, which was signed on May 7, 2002 at Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Nonetheless, there were many incidence of violence between government forces and the MILF
from 2002 to 2003. Meanwhile, then MILF Chairman Salamat Hashim passed away on July 13,
2003 and he was replaced by Al Haj Murad, who was then the chief peace negotiator of the
MILF. Murads position as chief peace negotiator was taken over by Mohagher Iqbal.
In 2005, several exploratory talks were held between the parties in Kuala Lumpur,
eventually leading to the crafting of the draft MOA-AD in its final form, which, as mentioned, was
set to be signed last August 5, 2008. Before the Court is what is perhaps the most contentious
consensus ever embodied in an instrument the MOA-AD which is assailed principally by the
present petitions bearing docket numbers 183591, 183752, 183893, 183951 and 183962.
Commonly impleaded as respondents are the GRP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain and the
Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (PAPP) Hermogenes Esperon, Jr. On July 23, 2008,
the Province of North Cotabato[and Vice-Governor Emmanuel Piol filed a petition, docketed as
G.R. No. 183591, for Mandamus and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. Invoking the right to information on
matters of public concern, petitioners seek to compel respondents to disclose and furnish them
the complete and official copies of the MOA-AD including its attachments, and to prohibit the
slated signing of the MOA-AD, pending the disclosure of the contents of the MOA-AD and the
holding of a public consultation thereon. Supplementarily, petitioners pray that the MOA-AD be
declared unconstitutional. This initial petition was followed by several other petitions by other
parties. The Court ordered the consolidation of the petitions.

ISSUE:
Whether there is a violation of the peoples right to information on matters
of public concern (1987 Constitution, Article III, Sec. 7) under a state
policy of full disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest (1987
Constitution, Article II, Sec. 28) including public consultation under
Republic Act No. 7160 (LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991?

HELD:
YES. 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 government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by
law.
As early as 1948, in Subido v. Ozaeta, the Court has recognized the statutory right to
examine and inspect public records, a right which was eventually accorded constitutional status.
The right of access to public documents, as enshrined in both the 1973 Constitution and
the 1987 Constitution, has been recognized as a self-executory constitutional right.
In the 1976 case of Baldoza v. Hon. Judge Dimaano,the Court ruled that access to
public records is predicated on the right of the people to acquire information on matters of public
concern since, undoubtedly, in a democracy, the public has a legitimate interest in matters of
social and political significance. The incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recognition
of the fundamental role of free exchange of information in a democracy. There can be no
realistic perception by the public of the nations problems, nor a meaningful democratic
decision-making if they are denied access to information of general interest. Information is
needed to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of the times. As has been
aptly observed: Maintaining the flow of such information depends on protection for both its
acquisition and its dissemination since, if either process is interrupted, the flow inevitably
ceases.
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, so
that they may be able to criticize and participate in the affairs of the government in a
responsible, reasonable and effective manner. It is by ensuring an unfettered and uninhibited
exchange of ideas among a well-informed public that a government remains responsive to the
changes desired by the people.

The MOA-AD is a matter of public concern

That the subject of the information sought in the present cases is a matter of public
concern faces no serious challenge. In fact, respondents admit that the MOA-AD is indeed of
public concern. In previous cases, the Court found that the regularity of real estate transactions
entered in the Register of Deeds, the need for adequate notice to the public of the various laws,
the civil service eligibility of a public employee, the proper management of GSIS funds allegedly
used to grant loans to public officials, the recovery of the Marcoses alleged ill-gotten wealth,
[120] and the identity of party-list nominees, among others, are matters of public concern.
Undoubtedly, the MOA-AD subject of the present cases is of public concern, involving as it does
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, which directly affects the lives of the public
at large.
Matters of public concern covered by the right to information include steps and
negotiations leading to the consummation of the contract. In not distinguishing as to the
executory nature or commercial character of agreements, the Court has categorically ruled that
the right to information contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of
the transaction. Certainly, a consummated contract is not a requirement for the exercise of the
right to information. Otherwise, the people can never exercise the right if no contract is
consummated, and if one is consummated, it may be too late for the public to expose its
defects.
Requiring a consummated contract will keep the public in the dark until the contract,
which may be grossly disadvantageous to the government or even illegal, becomes fait
accompli. This negates the State policy of full transparency on matters of public concern, a
situation which the framers of the Constitution could not have intended. Such a requirement will
prevent the citizenry from participating in the public discussion of any proposed contract,
effectively truncating a basic right enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We can allow neither an
emasculation of a constitutional right, nor a retreat by the State of its avowed policy of full
disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest. Intended as a splendid symmetry to
the right to information under the Bill of Rights is the policy of public disclosure under Section
28, Article II of the Constitution. The policy of full public disclosure enunciated in above-quoted
Section 28 complements the right of access to information on matters of public concern found in
the Bill of Rights. The right to information guarantees the right of the people to demand
information, while Section 28 recognizes the duty of officialdom to give information even if
nobody demands.
The policy of public disclosure establishes a concrete ethical principle for the conduct of
public affairs in a genuinely open democracy, with the peoples right to know as the centerpiece.
It is a mandate of the State to be accountable by following such policy. These provisions are
vital to the exercise of the freedom of expression and essential to hold public officials at all times
accountable to the people.
Whether Section 28 is self-executory, the records of the deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission so disclose.