Case Summary (G.R. No. 140835)
Mootness of the PCCR Challenge
Petitioner sought to enjoin the PCCR’s existence and halt its activities. Because the PCCR had completed its work, disbanded, and spent its funds by the time of decision, the Court held the petition as to the PCCR moot and academic. Prohibition, a preventive remedy, cannot restrain an entity that no longer exists, and issuing an advisory opinion on a dissolved body exceeds judicial power under the 1987 Constitution.
Standing Doctrine: Citizen and Taxpayer Challenge to PCCR
The Court emphasized that a citizen’s standing requires proof of a direct, personal injury fairly traceable to the challenged government act and likely redressable by court relief. Petitioner alleged only a generalized interest as citizen and taxpayer. Citing Valmonte v. PCSO and Kilosbayan v. Morato, the Court found no direct injury from the PCCR’s creation. As to taxpayer standing, disbursements must originate from a legislative appropriation; here, funds derived from the President’s Office under executive authority, not from Congress. Absent any congressional taxing or spending action, petitioner failed to demonstrate requisite personal or taxpayer interest and thus lacked locus standi.
Challenge to Presidential Consultants, Advisers, and Assistants
Petitioner also questioned the constitutionality of approximately seventy presidential consultants, advisers, and assistants appointed in 1995–1996. He alleged the President lacked authority to create these positions. The petition, however, did not identify the instrumental executive act (e.g., E.O., administrative order) establishing these offices, nor did it show personal or taxpayer injury. Without factual or legal specificity, the Court deemed the challenge inadequately pleaded and refused to entertain it.
Writ of Mandamus for Information Requests
Petitioner requested mandamus relief compelling Executive Secretary Zamora to disclose: (a) names and appointment documents of officials holding multiple government positions; and (b) recipients of luxury vehicles seized by the Bureau of Customs. Under Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, and RA 6713, citizens have self-executing rights to information on matters of public
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 140835)
Facts of the Case
- On December 9, 1999, Ramon A. Gonzales, acting as a citizen and taxpayer, filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus.
- He challenged the constitutionality of:
• The creation of the Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reform (PCCR) by Executive Order No. 43 (as amended by E.O. No. 70).
• The creation and appointment of presidential consultants, advisers, and assistants. - He sought:
• An injunction against the PCCR and the presidential consultants/advisers/assistants.
• An order restraining Executive Secretary Zamora from enforcing their recommendations.
• An order restraining the Commission on Audit from passing their expenditures.
• A writ of mandamus compelling Zamora to furnish information concerning multiple‐office holders and recipients of seized luxury vehicles.
Procedural History
- January 28, 2000: Hon. Andres R. Narvasa filed his Comment as Chairman of the PCCR.
- March 7, 2000: The remaining respondents, through the Solicitor General, filed their Comment.
- April 24, 2000: Petitioner filed a Consolidated Reply.
- Case was thereafter submitted for decision.
Issues Presented
- Whether the creation of the PCCR by presidential executive orders is constitutional.
- Whether the President may constitutionally create and appoint presidential consultants, advisers, and assistants without legislative enactment.
- Whether petitioner is entitled to information under the constitutional right of access to official records.
Legal Analysis and Rulings
A. Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reform (PCCR)
The PCCR was established on November 26, 1998 by E.O. No. 43 to study and recommend amendments to the 1987 Constitutio