Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

AKBAYAN v.

AQUINO

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

HELD:
• 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.”

Вам также может понравиться