We bring together information on the legal frameworks for the right to information from more than 100 countries.
You are here: Home Cases Chavez v. National Housing Authority

Chavez v. National Housing Authority

last modified Aug 21, 2012 01:57 PM

Case number:
G.R. No. 164527
Country:
Philippines
Date of decision:
15 August 2007
Court / Arbiter:
Supreme Court ( Supreme )

Relevant law :
Constitution ( Constitution )

Decision:

The 1987 Constitution provides that, despite a lack of enabling law that could require government bodies to publicly disclose information related to government projects and policies, there is a still a duty to permit access to such information.


Keywords:
Constitution
Contracts / Agreements (use of public funds, negotiations)
Open government principles (including accountability, anti-corruption, democracy, participation in government, transparency)
Private entities (including entities that perform public functions or receive public funds, entities that manage privatized assets, state owned enterprises)
Public interest (including public interest override, information of public interest)

Case details:

Facts

In his capacity as taxpayer, Francisco Chavez petitioned the Court directly for, among other things, access to all documents and information relating to the Smokey Mountain Development and Reclamation Project (the “Project”), including its underlying Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) between the National Housing Authority (NHA), a government body, and R-II Builders, Inc. (RBI) ( pg. 1-3).

With Congress having approved the Project as a boost to infrastructure through its development of low-cost housing projects, a private sector joint venture scheme was pursued in accordance with the Build-Operate-and-Transfer Law whereby “the contractor undertakes the construction . . . [for] the government agency or local government unit concerned which shall pay the contractor its total investment expended on the project, plus reasonable rate of return” (pg. 5-10). After multiple design changes, cost overruns, and corresponding amendments to the JVA, the Project was ultimately suspended, and RBI made demands for payment. A few years later, the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council initiated a bidding process for the work remaining on the Project, and the NHA reached a settlement with RBI to terminate the original JVA (pg.39-47). Raising constitutional issues and asserting his right to all information related to the Project, Mr. Chavez filed a petition directly with the Court.

Decision

Deciding on the issue of whether the NHA must be compelled to disclose all information related to the Project, the Court ruled that relief must be granted because the right of the people to information on matters of public concern is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution (pg. 86). Specifically, Article II, Section 28 and Article III, Section 7 of the Constitution, taken together as “twin provisions,” adopt a policy of full public disclosure on all transactions involving public interest and acknowledge the people’s right to information. Case law further elucidates these constitutional tenets by stating that “an essential element of these freedoms is to keep open a continuing dialogue or process of communication between the government and the people . . . These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in the operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to exercise effectively other constitutional rights” (pg. 86-87). In defining the limits of these freedoms, the Court noted that such information requests must pertain to definite propositions of the government and that information might be shielded by applicable privileges (e.g. military secrets and information relating to national security) (pg. 88-90). Finally, the Court recognized that because no enabling law exists providing government agencies with the procedural mechanics to disclose such information, the NHA cannot be faulted for an inability to disclose. Nevertheless, where a duty to disclose does not exist, there still may exist a duty to permit access, and so the Court ordered the NHA to permit access to all information related to the Project (pg. 89-90).

Resources:

Judgment of the Court.