(a) the Marcos’s shall provide the gov’t assistance by way of testimony or disposition on any information

that may shed light on the cases;

(b) the assets determined to belong to the Marcos’s shall be net of and exempt from, any form of taxes
due the Republic of the Philippines;
(c) that all disclosures of assets shall not used as evidence by the Gov’t in any criminal, civil, tax or
administrative case against the former.

ISSUES:
(A) Procedural:
1) Whether or not the petitioner has the personality or legal standing to file the instant petition; and
2) Whether or not this Court is the proper court before which this action may be filed.
(B) Substantive:
1) Whether or not this Court could require the PCGG to disclose to the public the details of any
agreement, perfected or not, with the Marcos’s; and
2) Whether or not there exist any legal restraints against a compromise agreement between the Marcos’s
and the PCGG relative to the Marcos’s’ ill-gotten wealth.

HELD:
First Procedural Issue
The Petitioner has the legal standing to file the instant petition. In Legaspi vs. CSC, the Court declared
that “when a mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the requirement of personal
interest is satisfied by the mere fact that petitioner is a citizen and, therefore, part of the general public
which possesses the right.
The instant petition is anchored on the right of the people to information and access to official records and
documents which guaranteed under Sec. 7, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution. Due to the satisfaction of the
two basic requisites laid down by decisional law to sustain petitioner’s legal standing, i.e.
1) the enforcement of a public right;
2) espoused by a Filipino citizen, the Court ruled that the petition at bar should be allowed.
Second Procedural Issue
Section 5, Art. VIII of the Constitution expressly confers upon the Supreme Court original jurisdiction
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus. The Court ruled
that this petition is not confined to the Agreements that have already been drawn, but likewise to any
other ongoing or future undertaking towards any settlement on the alleged Marcos loot. Ineluctably, the
core issue boils down to the precise interpretation, in terms of scope, of the twin constitutional provisions
on “public transaction.” This broad and prospective relief sought by the instant petition brings it out of
the realm of Civil Case .
First Substantive Issue
The Court can require the PCGG to disclose to the public the details of any agreement, whether
perfected or not. Sec. 7, Art. III of the Constitution provides that 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 gov’t research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Such recognized restrictions are as follows:
a) national security matters and intelligence information;
b) trade secrets and banking transactions;
c) criminal matters and;
d) other confidential information.
The Court emphasized that ill-gotten wealth assumes a public character which refers to assets and
properties acquired, directly or indirectly, by former Pres. Marcos, his family and relatives through or as a
result of improper of illegal use of government funds or properties; or their having taken undue
advantage of their public office; or their use of powers or influences resulting in their unjust enrichment
and causing grave damage and prejudice to the Filipino People and the Republic of the Philippines. Thus,
the Court can require the PCGG to disclose sufficient public information on any agreement that may
arrived at and any proposed settlement concerning the Marcos’s’ purported ill-gotten wealth.

Second Substantive Issue

There are Legal Restraints existed against the compromise agreement between the PCGG and the Marcos
heirs. Generally, law encourages compromises in civil cases, except with regard to the following matters:
1)the civil status of persons,
2) the validity of a marriage of a legal separation,
3) any ground for legal separation,
4) future support,
5) the jurisdiction of courts, and
6) future legitimate.
A Compromise must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy or public order
In Republic & Campos Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, the power to grant criminal immunity was conferred on
PCGG by Section 5 of EO No. 14, as amended by EO No. 14-A, which provides:
Section 5. The PCGG is authorized to grant immunity from criminal prosecution to any person who
provides information or testifies in an investigation conducted by the Commission to establish the
unlawful manner in which any respondent, defendant or accused has acquired the properties in question in
any case where such information or testimony is necessary to ascertain or prove the latter’s guilt or his
civil liability. The immunity thereby granted shall be continued to protect the witness who repeats such
testimony before the Sandiganbayan when required to do so by the latter or by the Commission. In the
case at bar, the compromise agreements revealed serious flaws.
First, the agreements did not conform to the requirements of EO 14 and 14-A. Criminal immunity under
section 5 cannot be granted to the Marcos’s, who are the principal defendants in the ill-gotten wealth
cases. The provision is applicable mainly to witnesses who provide information against a respondent,
defendant or accused in an ill-gotten wealth case.
Second, under the General Agreement, the PCGG commits to exempt from all forms of taxes the
properties to be retained by the Marcos heirs. This is a clear violation of the Constitution. Sec. 28(4),
Art. VI of the Constitution specifically provides: “No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed
without the concurrence of a majority of all the Member of the Congress.” The PCGG has absolutely no
power to grant such exemptions.
Third, under the Agreement, the government binds itself to cause the dismissal of all cases against the
Marcos heirs, pending before the Sandiganbayan and other court. This is a direct encroachment on
judicial powers of the court which has the jurisdiction on dismissal. Hence, PCGG cannot guarantee the
dismissal of all such criminal cases against the Marcos’s.
Fourth, the government also waives all claims and counterclaims, whether past, present, or future against
the Marcos’s. This stipulation is contrary to the Civil Code which states that “an action for future fraud
may not be waived.” Further, the Agreements do not provide for a definite or determinable period within
which the parties shall fulfill their respective prestation’s. Based on the foregoing discussion, it is crystal
clear that the Agreements which PCGG entered into with the Marcos heirs violated the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The General and Supplemental Agreement dated December
28, 1993, which PCGG and the Marcos heirs entered into are hereby declared NULL AND VOID for
being contrary to law and the Constitution. Respondent PCGG, its officers and all government
functionaries and officials who are or may be directly ot indirectly involved in the recovery of the alleged
ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos’s and their associates are DIRECTED to disclose to the public the terms
of any proposed compromise settlement, as well as the final agreement, relating to such alleged ill-gotten
wealth, in accordance with the discussions embodied in this Decision.