Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 163 views

    AKBAYAN Vs AQUINO Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ella Perez
    Petitioners, including non-government organizations, congresspersons, citizens and taxpayers, sought to obtain the full text and details of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) that was being negotiated, as the initial drafts were not made public. A House committee requested a copy of the latest draft of the JPEPA from respondent Tomas Aquino, chairman of the negotiating committee, but he did not provide it. The court ruled that petitioners had standing to file the case given their right to information on matters of public concern as citizens, and that members of Congress additionally had standing due to their role in representing constituents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    AKBAYAN Vs AQUINO Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ella Perez
    163 views2 pages
    Petitioners, including non-government organizations, congresspersons, citizens and taxpayers, sought to obtain the full text and details of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) that was being negotiated, as the initial drafts were not made public. A House committee requested a copy of the latest draft of the JPEPA from respondent Tomas Aquino, chairman of the negotiating committee, but he did not provide it. The court ruled that petitioners had standing to file the case given their right to information on matters of public concern as citizens, and that members of Congress additionally had standing due to their role in representing constituents.

    Original Description:

    AKBAYAN vs AQUINO Digest

    Original Title

    AKBAYAN vs AQUINO Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners, including non-government organizations, congresspersons, citizens and taxpayers, sought to obtain the full text and details of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) that was being negotiated, as the initial drafts were not made public. A House committee requested a copy of the latest draft of the JPEPA from respondent Tomas Aquino, chairman of the negotiating committee, but he did not provide it. The court ruled that petitioners had standing to file the case given their right to information on matters of public concern as citizens, and that members of Congress additionally had standing due to their role in representing constituents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    163 views2 pages

    AKBAYAN Vs AQUINO Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ella Perez
    Petitioners, including non-government organizations, congresspersons, citizens and taxpayers, sought to obtain the full text and details of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) that was being negotiated, as the initial drafts were not made public. A House committee requested a copy of the latest draft of the JPEPA from respondent Tomas Aquino, chairman of the negotiating committee, but he did not provide it. The court ruled that petitioners had standing to file the case given their right to information on matters of public concern as citizens, and that members of Congress additionally had standing due to their role in representing constituents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    AKBAYAN vs AQUINO GR No.

    170516
    July 16, 2003

    FACTS:

    Petitioners — non-government organizations, Congresspersons, citizens and taxpayers


    — seek via the present petition for mandamus and prohibition 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. 

    Petitioners Congressmen Lorenzo R. Tañada III and Mario Joyo Aguja filed on January
    25, 2005 House Resolution No. 551 calling for an inquiry into the bilateral trade
    agreements then being negotiated by the Philippine government, particularly the
    JPEPA. In the course of its inquiry, the House Committee requested herein respondent
    Undersecretary Tomas Aquino (Usec. Aquino), Chairman of the Philippine Coordinating
    Committee created to study and negotiate the proposed JPEPA, and to furnish the
    Committee with a copy of the latest draft of the JPEPA. Usec. Aquino did not heed the
    request, however.

    Usec. Aquino, replied that the Congressman Aguja shall be provided with a copy thereof
    "once the negotiations are completed and as soon as a thorough legal review of the
    proposed agreement has been conducted."

    To date, the JPEPA is still being deliberated upon by the Senate.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 respondents enumerate as follows: 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.

    While the final text of the JPEPA has now been made accessible to the public since
    September 11, 2006, respondents do not dispute that, at the time the petition was filed
    up to the filing of petitioners' Reply — when the JPEPA was still being negotiated — the
    initial drafts thereof were kept from public view.

    ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners have standing to bring this action for mandamus in
    their capacity as citizen of the Republic, taxpayers and members of Congress.
    RULING:

    For a petition for mandamus such as the one at bar to be given due course, it must be
    instituted by a party aggrieved by the alleged inaction of any tribunal, corporation, board
    or person which unlawfully excludes said party from the enjoyment of a legal right. 

    In a petition anchored upon the right of the people to information on matters of public
    concern, which is a public right by its very nature, petitioners need not show that they
    have any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that they are
    citizens and, therefore, part of the general public which possesses the right. 9 As the
    present petition is anchored on the right to information and petitioners are all suing in
    their capacity as citizens and groups of citizens including petitioners-members of the
    House of Representatives who additionally are suing in their capacity as such, the
    standing of petitioners to file the present suit is grounded in jurisprudence.

    You might also like