Sec 7 Right To Information - 10 - 25

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
prosecution of the accused [Chavez v. PEA

RIGHT TO INFORMATION and Amari, supra.]. Likewise, in Garcia v.
Board of Investments, 177 SCRA 374, the
Right to information. Sec. 7, Art. Ill:
Supreme Court upheld the decision of the
“The right of the people to information on
Board of Investments in denying the
matters of public concern shall be
petitioner access to trade and industrial
recognized. Access to official records, and
secrets.
to documents and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as Need for publication of laws reinforces
well as to government research data used this right. In Tanadav. Tuvera, supra.,
as basis for policy development shall be the Court said: “Laws must come out in
afforded the citizen, subject to such the open in the clear light of the sun
limitations as may be provided by law”. instead of skulking in the shadows with
their dark, deep secrets. Mysterious
Scope of the Right. In Chavez v. PEA and
pronouncements and rumored rules
Amari, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002, it
cannot be recognized as binding unless
was held that the right to information
their existence and contents are
contemplates inclusion of negotiations
confirmed by a valid publication intended
leading to the consummation of the
to make full disclosure and give proper
transaction. Otherwise, the people can
notice to the people.”
never exercise the right if no contract is
consummated, or if one is consummated,
it may be too late for the public to expose
its defects. However, the right only NACHURA:
affords access to records, documents and
papers, which means the opportunity to In Baldoza v. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14, the
inspect and copy them at his expense. The Supreme Court sustained the right of a
exercise is also subject to reasonable municipal mayor to examine judicial
regulations to protect the integrity of records, subject to reasonable rules and
public records and to minimize disruption conditions. Quoting from Subido v.
of government operations. Ozaeta, 80 Phil 383, the Court said
“Except perhaps when it is clear that the
Exceptions. The right does not extend to
purpose of the examination is unlawful or
matters recognized as privileged
sheer, idle curiosity, we do not believe it is
information rooted in separation of
the duty under the law of registration
powers, nor to information on military
officers to concern themselves with the
and diplomatic secrets, information
motives, reasons and objects of the person
affecting national security, and
seeking access to the records”.
information on investigations of crimes
by law enforcement agencies before the In Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission,
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Victory with fear is hollow, endurance with resilience is triumph."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA |
Page | 1
MENDIOLA, MANILA
supra.,it was held that while the manner assume a public character. Moreover, the
of examining public records may be supposed borrowers were members of
subject to reasonable regulation by the the defunct Batasan Pambansa who
government agency in custody thereof, themselves appropriated funds for the
the duty to disclose the information of GSIS and were therefore expected to be
public concern, and to afford access to the first to see to it that the GSIS
public records, cannot be discretionary on performed its tasks with the greatest
the part of said agencies. Otherwise, the degree of fidelity and that all its
enjoyment of the constitutional right may transactions were above board.
be rendered nugatory by any whimsical
exercise of agency discretion. The
constitutional duty, not being GABBY RECITS:
discretionary, its performance may be
compelled by a writ of mandamus in a Q: In the right to information, is there a
proper case. In Chavez v. PCGG, G.R. No. need for a legislative act?
130716, December 9, 1998, the Supreme A: No. It is self-executing
Court upheld the right of the petitioner, a
former Solicitor General, to disclosure of Q: is there a difference when we talk
any agreement which may have been about right of information(ROI) from
arrived at concerning the purported ill- disclosure?
gotten wealth of the Marcoses. A: ROI merely relates to issues of public
concern while disclosure relates more to
In Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato, 203 public interest
SCRA 515, it was held that voting slips
constituting the decision of the members
of the Movie and Television. Review and i. THE RIGHT TO
Classification Board are not private nor INFORMATION ON MATTERS
confidential, because they are made in the OF PUBLIC CONCERN IS A
exercise of official functions. In Valmonte SELF-EXECUTING RIGHT
v. Belmonte, supra.,the Court rejected the  Theses constitutional
contention of GSIS that to give the provisions are self-executing.
information would violate the right to They supply the rules by means
confidentiality of the borrower, saying of which the right to
that this is a right personal to the information may be enjoyed by
borrower and may not be invoked by the guaranteeing the right and
GSIS. Further, the GSIS is a trustee of mandating the duty to afford to
contributions from the government and sources to information.
its employees and the administrator of  What may be provided for by
various insurance programs for the the Legislature are reasonable
benefit of the latter. Undeniably, its funds conditions and limitations

Page | 2
MENDIOLA, MANILA
upon the access to be afforded thereof, the duty to disclose the

which must, of necessity, be information of public concern,
consistent with the declared and to afford access to public
State policy, disclosure of all records cannot be
transactions involving public discretionary on the part of
interest. said agencies.
 The right may be properly
invoked in a MANDAMUS iii. EXEMPTIONS TO THE
proceeding CONSTITUTIONAL
 For every right of the people as GUARANTEES
fundamental, there lies a  The law may exempt certain
corresponding duty on the part types of information from
of those who govern, to respect public scrutiny, such as those
and protect that right. affecting national security
 In every case, the availability of
ii. THE DUTY TO REGULATE access to a particular public
INSPECTION OF THE PUBLIC record must be circumscribed
DOCUMENTS DOES NOT by the nature of the
INCLUDE THE POWER TO information sought, i.e.,
PROHIBIT (a) Being of public concern or
 Government agencies are one that involves public
without discretion in refusing interest
disclosure of, or access to, (b) Not being exempted by law
information of public concern, from the operation of the
 The power to regulate the constitutional guarantee
manner of examining public
records does not carry with it iv. MATTERS OF PUBLIC
the power to prohibit. A CONCERN
distinction has to be made  “Public concern” like “public
between the discretion to interest” is a term that eludes
refuse outright the disclosure exact definition. Both terms
of, or access to, particular embrace a broad spectrum of
information and the authority subjects which the public may
to regulate the manner in want to know either because;
which the access of the (a) These directly affect their
information is to be afforded. lives or,
 The manner of examining (b) Such matters naturally
public records may be subject arouse the interest of an
to reasonable regulation by the ordinary citizen.
government, agency in custody
Page | 3
MENDIOLA, MANILA
DOCTRINE: For every right of the people recognized

as fundamental, there lies a
Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission corresponding duty on the part of those
[G.R. No. 72119, May 29, 1987] who govern, to respect and protect that
right. That is the very essence of the Bill
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ON of Rights in a constitutional regime. Only
MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN IS A governments operating under
SELFEXECUTING RIGHT. These fundamental rules defining the limits of
constitutional provisions are self- their power so as to shield individual
executing. They supply the rules by rights against its arbitrary exercise can
means of which the right to information properly claim to be constitutional
may be enjoyed (Cooley, A Treatise on the (Cooley, supra. at p. 5).
Constitutional Limitations 167 [1927]) by
guaranteeing the right and mandating the Without a government's acceptance of the
duty to afford access to sources of limitations imposed upon it by the
information. Hence, the fundamental right Constitution in order to uphold individual
therein recognized may be asserted by liberties, without an acknowledgment on
the people upon the ratification of the its part of those duties exacted by the
constitution without need for any rights pertaining to the citizens, the Bill of
ancillary act of the Legislature. (Id. at, p. Rights becomes a sophistry, and liberty,
165) the ultimate illusion.
What may be provided for by the THE DUTY TO REGULATE INSPECTION

Legislature are reasonable conditions and OF THE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS DOES
limitations upon the access to be afforded NOT INCLUDE THE POWER TO
which must, of necessity, be consistent PROHIBIT. It is clear from the foregoing
with the declared State policy of full pronouncements of this Court that
public disclosure of all transactions government agencies are without
involving public interest (Constitution, discretion in refusing disclosure of, or
Art. II, Sec. 28). However, it cannot be access to, information of public concern.
overemphasized that whatever limitation This is not to lose sight of the reasonable
may be prescribed by the Legislature, the regulations which may be imposed by
right and the duty under Art. III, Sec. 7 said agencies in custody of public records
have become operative and enforceable on the manner in which the right to
by virtue of the adoption of the New information may be exercised by the
Charter. Therefore, the right may be public.
properly invoked in a Mandamus
proceeding such as this one. In the Subido case, We recognized the
authority of the Register of Deeds to
regulate the manner in which persons
Page | 4
MENDIOLA, MANILA
desiring to do so, may inspect, examine or has to be made between the discretion to
copy records relating to registered lands. refuse outright the disclosure of or access
However, the regulations which the to a particular information and the
Register of Deeds may promulgate are authority to regulate the manner in which
confined to: the access is to be afforded. The first is a
limitation upon the availability of access
. . . prescribing the manner and hours of to the information sought, which only the
examination to the end that damage to or
loss of, the records may be avoided, that Legislature may impose (Art. III, Sec. 6,
undue interference with the duties of the 1987 Constitution). The second pertains
custodian of the books and documents to the government agency charged with
and other employees may be prevented, the custody of public records. Its
that the right of other persons entitled to authority to regulate access is to be
make inspection may be insured . . . exercised solely to the end that damage to,
(Subido vs. Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383, 387). or loss of, public records may be avoided,
undue interference with the duties of said
Applying the Subido ruling by analogy, agencies may be prevented, and more
We recognized a similar authority in a importantly, that the exercise of the same
municipal judge, to regulate the manner constitutional right by other persons shall
of inspection by the public of criminal be assured (Subido vs. Ozaeta, supra).
docket records in the case of Baldoza vs.
Dimaano (Adm. Matter No. 1120-MJ, May Thus, while the manner of examining
5, 1976, 71 SCRA 14). Said administrative public records may be subject to
case was filed against the respondent reasonable regulation by the government
judge for his alleged refusal to allow agency in custody thereof, the duty to
examination of the criminal docket disclose the information of public concern,
records in his sala. Upon a finding by the and to afford access to public records
Investigating Judge that the respondent cannot be discretionary on the part of
had allowed the complainant to open and said agencies. Certainly, its performance
view the subject records, We absolved the cannot be made contingent upon the
respondent. In effect, We have also held discretion of such agencies. Otherwise,
that the rules and conditions imposed by the enjoyment of the constitutional right
him upon the manner of examining the may be rendered nugatory by any
public records were reasonable. whimsical exercise of agency discretion.
The constitutional duty, not being
In both the Subido and the Baldoza cases, discretionary, its performance may be
We were emphatic in Our statement that compelled by a writ of Mandamus in a
the authority to regulate the manner of proper case.
examining public records does not carry
with it the power to prohibit. A distinction
Page | 5
MENDIOLA, MANILA
EXEMPTIONS OF THE (b) not being exempted by law from the

CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE. The operation of the constitutional guarantee.
incorporation in the Constitution of a The threshold question is, therefore,
guarantee of access to information of whether or not the information sought is
public concern is a recognition of the of public interest or public concern.
essentiality of the free flow of ideas and
information in a democracy (Baldoza v. MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN,
Dimaano, Adm. Matter No. 1120-MJ, DEFINITION. In determining whether or
May 5, 1976, 17 SCRA 14). In the same not a particular information is of public
way that free discussion enables concern there is no rigid test which can be
members of society to cope with the applied. "Public concern" like "public
exigencies of their time (Thornhill vs. interest" is a term that eludes exact
Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102 [1939]), access definition. Both terms embrace a broad
to information of general interest aids the spectrum of subjects which the public
people in democratic decision-making (87 may want to know, either because these
Harvard Law Review 1505 [1974] by directly affect their lives, or simply
giving them a better perspective of the because such matters naturally arouse the
vital issues confronting the nation. interest of an ordinary citizen. In the final
analysis, it is for the courts to determine
But the constitutional guarantee to in a case by case basis whether the matter
information on matters of public concern at issue is of interest or importance, as it
is not absolute. It does not open every relates to or affects the public.
door to any and all information. Under the
Constitution, access to official records,
papers, etc., are "subject to limitations as
may be provided by law" (Art. III, Sec. 7, LEGASPI VS. CIVIL SEVICE COMMISSION
second sentence). The law may therefore 150 SCRA 530, 1987
exempt certain types of information from
public scrutiny, such as those affecting FACTS: The fundamental right of the
national security (Journal No. 90, people to information on matters of
September 23, 1986, p. 10; and Journal No. public concern is invoked in this special
91, September 24, 1986, p. 32, 1986 civil action for Mandamus instituted by
Constitutional Commission). It follows petitioner Valentin L. Legaspi against the
that, in every case, the availability of Civil Service Commission. The respondent
access to a particular public record must had earlier denied Legaspi's request for
be circumscribed by the nature of the information on the civil service
information sought, i.e., eligibilities of certain persons employed
as sanitarians in the Health Department of
(a) being of public concern or one that Cebu City. These government employees
involves public interest, and, had allegedly represented themselves as
Page | 6
MENDIOLA, MANILA
civil service eligibles who passed the civil limitations imposed upon it by the
service examinations for sanitarians. Constitution in order to uphold individual
liberties, without an acknowledgment on
ISSUE: Whether or not Legaspi should be its part of those duties exacted by the
allowed such right rights pertaining to the citizens, the Bill of
Rights becomes a sophistry, and liberty,
HELD: the ultimate illusion.
The constitutional right to information on
matters of public concern is recognized in In recognizing the people's right to be
the Bill of Rights. These constitutional informed, both the 1973 Constitution
provisions are self-executing. They and the New Charter expressly mandate
supply the rules by means of which the the duty of the State and its agents to
right to information may be enjoyed by afford access to official records,
guaranteeing the right and mandating the documents, papers and in addition,
duty to afford access to sources of government research data used as basis
information. Hence, the fundamental right for policy development, subject to such
therein recognized may be asserted by limitations as may be provided by law.
the people upon the ratification of the
constitution without need for any The guarantee has been further enhanced
ancillary act of the Legislature. What may in the New Constitution with the adoption
be provided for by the Legislature are of a policy of full public disclosure, this
reasonable conditions and limitations time "subject to reasonable conditions
upon the access to be afforded which prescribed by law," in Article II, Section
must, of necessity, be consistent with the 28 thereof, to wit:
declared State policy of full public
disclosure of all transactions involving Subject to reasonable conditions
public interest. prescribed by law, the State adopts and
implements a policy of full public
For every right of the people recognized disclosure of all its transactions involving
as fundamental, there lies a public interest. (Art. II, Sec. 28).
corresponding duty on the part of those
who govern, to respect and protect that In the Tanada case, supra, the
right. That is the very essence of the Bill constitutional guarantee was bolstered by
of Rights in a constitutional regime. Only what this Court declared as an imperative
governments operating under duty of the government officials
fundamental rules defining the limits of concerned to publish all important
their power so as to shield individual legislative acts and resolutions of a public
rights against its arbitrary exercise can nature as well as all executive orders and
properly claim to be constitutional. proclamations of general applicability. We
Without a government's acceptance of the granted Mandamus in said case, and in
Page | 7
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the process, We found occasion to discretion in refusing disclosure of, or

expound briefly on the nature of said access to, information of public concern.
duty: This is not to lose sight of the
reasonable regulations which may be
. . . That duty must be enforced if the imposed by said agencies in custody of
Constitutional right of the people to be public records on the manner in which
informed on matters of public concern is the right to information may be
to be given substance and reality. The law exercised by the public. In the Subido
itself makes a list of what should be case, We recognized the authority of the
published in the Official Gazette. Such Register of Deeds to regulate the manner
listing, to our mind, leaves respondents in which persons desiring to do so, may
with no discretion whatsoever as to what inspect, examine or copy records relating
must be included or excluded from such to registered lands. However, the
publication. (Tanada v. Tuvera, supra, at regulations which the
39)
Register of Deeds may promulgate are
The absence of discretion on the part of confined to:
government agencies in allowing the
examination of public records, . . . prescribing the manner and hours of
specifically, the records in the Office of examination to the end that damage to or
the Register of Deeds, is emphasized in loss of, the records may be avoided, that
Subido vs. Ozaeta, supra: is unlawful, or undue interference with the duties of the
sheer, idle curiosity, we do not believe it custodian of the books and documents
is the duty under the law of registration and other employees may be prevented,
officers to concern themselves with the that the right of other persons entitled to
motives, reasons, and objects of the make inspection may be insured . . .
person seeking access to the records. It (Subido vs. Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383, 387).
is not their prerogative to see that the
information which the records contain Applying the Subido ruling by analogy,
is not flaunted before public gaze, or We recognized a similar authority in a
that scandal is not made of it. If it be municipal judge, to regulate the manner
wrong to publish the contents of the of inspection by the public of criminal
records, it is the legislature and not the docket records in the case of Baldoza vs.
officials having custody thereof which is Dimaano (Adm. Matter No. 1120-MJ, May
called upon to devise a remedy. . . . 5, 1976, 71 SCRA 14). Said administrative
(Subido v. Ozaeta, supra at 388). case was filed against the respondent
judge for his alleged refusal to allow
It is clear from the foregoing examination of the criminal docket
pronouncements of this Court that records in his sala. Upon a finding by the
government agencies are without Investigating Judge that the respondent
Page | 8
MENDIOLA, MANILA
had allowed the complainant to open and public concern, and to afford access to
view the subject records, We absolved the public records cannot be discretionary
respondent. on the part of said agencies. Certainly,
its performance cannot be made
In effect, We have also held that the rules contingent upon the discretion of such
and conditions imposed by him upon the agencies. Otherwise, the enjoyment of
manner of examining the public records the constitutional right may be
were reasonable. In both the Subido and rendered nugatory by any whimsical
the Baldoza cases, We were emphatic in exercise of agency discretion. The
Our statement that the authority to constitutional duty, not being
regulate the manner of examining public discretionary, its performance may be
records does not carry with it the power compelled by a writ of Mandamus in a
to prohibit. A distinction has to be made proper case.
between the discretion to refuse outright
the disclosure of or access to a particular But what is a proper case for Mandamus
information and the authority to regulate to issue? In the case before Us, the public
the manner in which the access is to be right to be enforced and the concomitant
afforded. The first is a limitation upon the duty of the State are unequivocably set
availability of access to the information forth in the Constitution. The decisive
sought, which only the Legislature may question on the propriety of the issuance
impose (Art. III, Sec. 6, 1987 of the writ of Mandamus in this case is,
Constitution). whether the information sought by the
petitioner is within the ambit of the
The second pertains to the government constitutional guarantee. The
agency charged with the custody of public incorporation in the Constitution of a
records. Its authority to regulate access is guarantee of access to information of
to be exercised solely to the end that public concern is a recognition of the
damage to, or loss of, public records may essentiality of the free flow of ideas and
be avoided, undue interference with the information in a democracy (Baldoza v.
duties of said agencies may be prevented, Dimaano, Adm. Matter No. 1120-MJ,
and more importantly, that the exercise of May 5, 1976, 17 SCRA 14).
the same constitutional right by other
persons shall be assured (Subido vs. In the same way that free discussion
Ozaeta, supra). enables members of society to cope with
the exigencies of their time (Thornhill vs.
Thus, while the manner of examining Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102 [1939]), access
public records may be subject to to information of general interest aids the
reasonable regulation by the people in democratic decision-making (87
government agency in custody thereof, Harvard Law Review 1505 [1974] by
the duty to disclose the information of
Page | 9
MENDIOLA, MANILA
giving them a better perspective of the serve to dilute the constitutional right. As
vital issues confronting the nation. aptly observed,
But the constitutional guarantee to ". . . the government is in an advantageous

information on matters of public position to marshall and interpret
concern is not absolute. It does not open arguments against release . . ." To
every door to any and all information. safeguard the constitutional right, every
Under the Constitution, access to official denial of access by the government
records, papers, etc., are "subject to agency concerned is subject to review by
limitations as may be provided by law" the courts, and in the proper case, access
(Art. III, Sec. 7, second sentence). may be compelled by a writ of Mandamus.
The law may therefore exempt certain In determining whether or not a particular
types of information from public scrutiny, information is of public concern there is no
such as those affecting national security. rigid test which can be applied. " Public
It follows that, in every case, the concern" like "public interest" is a term
availability of access to a particular public that eludes exact definition . Both terms
record must be circumscribed by the embrace a broad spectrum of subjects
nature of the information sought, i.e., which the public may want to know ,
either 1 because these directly affect
(a) being of public concern or one that their lives , or simply because such
involves public interest, and, matters naturally arouse the interest of
(b) not being exempted by law from the an ordinary citizen. In the final analysis,
operation of the constitutional guarantee. it is for the courts to determine in a case
The threshold question is, therefore, by case basis whether the matter at
whether or not the information sought is of issue is of interest or importance, as it
public interest or public concern. relates to or affects the public.
This question is first addressed to the The public concern invoked in the case of
government agency having custody of the Tañada v. Tuvera, supra, was the need for
desired information. However, as already adequate notice to the public of the
discussed, this does not give the agency various laws which are to regulate the
concerned any discretion to grant or deny actions and conduct of citizens. In Subido
access. In case of denial of access, the vs. Ozaeta, supra, the public concern
government agency has the burden of deemed covered by the statutory right
showing that the information requested is was the knowledge of those real estate
not of public concern, or, if it is of public transactions which some believed to have
concern, that the same has been been registered in violation of the
exempted by law from the operation of Constitution.
the guarantee. To hold otherwise will
Page | 10
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The information sought by the petitioner civil service examinations, as in bar

in this case is the truth of the claim of examinations and licensure examinations
certain government employees that they for various professions, are released to
are civil service eligibles for the positions the public. Hence, there is nothing secret
to which they were appointed. The about one's civil service eligibility, if
Constitution expressly declares as a State actually possessed.
policy that: Appointments in the civil
service shall be made only according to Petitioner's request is, therefore, neither
merit and fitness to be determined, as far unusual nor unreasonable. And when, as
as practicable, and except as to positions in this case, the government employees
which are policy determining, primarily concerned claim to be civil service
confidential or highly technical, by eligibles, the public, through any citizen,
competitive examination. (Art. IX, B, Sec. has a right to verify their professed
2. [2]). eligibilities from the Civil Service
Commission. The civil service eligibility
Public office being a public trust, [Const., of a sanitarian being of public concern,
Art. XI, Sec: 1] it is the legitimate and in the absence of express
concern of citizens to ensure that limitations under the law upon access
government positions requiring civil to the register of civil service eligibles
service eligibility are occupied only by for said position, the duty of the
persons who are eligibles. Public respondent Commission to confirm or
officers are at all times accountable to deny the civil service eligibility of any
the people even as to their eligibilities person occupying the position becomes
for their respective positions. But then, imperative. Mandamus, therefore lies.
it is not enough that the information
sought is of public interest. For
Mandamus to lie in a given case, the
information must not be among the DOCTRINE:
species exempted by law from the i. RIGHT TO INFORMATION
operation of the constitutional CONCEPT
guarantee.  An informed citizenry with
access to the diverse currents
In the instant, case while refusing to in political, moral and artistic
confirm or deny the claims of eligibility, thought and data relative to
the respondent has failed to cite any them, and the free exchange of
provision in the Civil Service Law which ideas and discussions on issues
would limit the petitioner's right to know
thereon, is vital to the
who are, and who are not, civil service democratic government
eligibles. We take judicial notice of the
fact that the names of those who pass the
Page | 11
MENDIOLA, MANILA
envisioned under our DOCUMENTS OR TO DEMAND

Constitution. SUMMARIES THEREOF
 Denied access to information  Although citizens are afforded
on the inner workings of the the right to information and,
government, the citizenry can pursuant thereto, are entitled
become prey to the whims and to “access to official records,”
caprices of those whom the the constitution does not
power had been delegated. accord them a right to compel
 It is an essential premise of a custodians of official records to
meaningful right to speech and prepare lists, abstracts,
expression. summaries and the like in their
 It goes hand-in-hand with the desire to acquire information
constitutional policies of full or matters of public concern.
public disclosure and honesty  It is essential for a writ of
in the public service. mandamus to issue that the
applicant has a well-defined,
ii. THE RIGHT TO clear and certain legal right to
INFORMSTION EXTENDS TO the thing demanded and that it
GOCCs, AND MAY LIKEWISE is the imperative duty of the
COVER THE NEGOTATION defendant to perform the act
STAGE OF THE required.
TRANSACTIONS
 GOCCs whether performing
proprietary or governmental DOCTRINE:
functions are accountable to
the people. Valmonte vs. Belmonte, Jr. [G.R. No.
 Transactions entered into by 74930, February 13, 1989]
the GSIS, a GOCC created by
special legislation are within RIGHT TO INFORMATION, CONCEPT.
the ambit of the people’s right An informed citizenry with access to the
to be informed pursuant to the diverse currents in political, moral and
constitutional policy of artistic thought and data relative to them,
transparency in government and the free exchange of ideas and
dealings. discussion of issues thereon, is vital to the
democratic government envisioned under
iii. THE RIGHT TO our Constitution. The cornerstone of this
INFORMATION DOES NOT republican system of government is
INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO delegation of power by the people to the
DEMAND COPIES OF THE State.

Page | 12
MENDIOLA, MANILA
In this system, governmental agencies informed and thus able to formulate its
and institutions operate within the limits will intelligently. Only when the
of the authority conferred by the people. participants in the discussion are aware
Denied access to information on the inner of the issues and have access to
workings of government, the citizenry can information relating thereto can such
become prey to the whims and caprices of bear fruit. The right to information is an
those to whom the power had been essential premise of a meaningful right to
delegated. The postulate of public office speech and expression. But this is not to
as a public trust, institutionalized in the say that the right to information is merely
Constitution (in Art. XI, Sec. 1) to protect an adjunct of and therefore restricted in
the people from abuse of governmental application by the exercise of the
power, would certainly be mere empty freedoms of speech and of the press. Far
words if access to such information of from it. The right to information goes
public concern is denied, except under hand-in-hand with the constitutional
limitations prescribed by implementing policies of full public disclosure and
legislation adopted pursuant to the honesty in the public service. It is meant
Constitution. to enhance the widening role of the
citizenry in governmental decision-
Petitioners are practitioners in media. As making as well in checking abuse in
such, they have both the right to gather government.
and the obligation to check the accuracy
of information they disseminate. For them, THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
the freedom of the press and of speech is EXTENDS TO GOVERNMENT OWNED
not only critical, but vital to the exercise AND CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS,
of their professions. The right of access to AND MAY LIKEWISE COVER THE
information ensures that these freedoms NEGOTIATION STAGE OF THE
are not rendered nugatory by the TRANSACTIONS. First of all, the
government's monopolizing pertinent "constituent —ministrant" dichotomy
information. For an essential element of characterizing government function has
these freedoms is to keep open a long been repudiated. In ACCFA
continuing dialogue or process of v. Confederation of Unions and
communication between the government Government Corporations and Offices
and the people. It is in the interest of the [G.R. Nos. L-
State that the channels for free political 21484 and L-23605, November 29, 1969,
discussion be maintained to the end that 30 SCRA 644], the Court said that the
the government may perceive and be government, whether carrying out its
responsive to the people's will. sovereign attributes or running some
business, discharges the same function of
Yet, this open dialogue can be effective service to the people.
only to the extent that the citizenry is
Page | 13
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Consequently, that the GSIS, in granting the consummation of the contract, or does
the loans, was exercising a proprietary he refer to the contract itself?
function would not justify the exclusion of MR. OPLE. The "transactions" used here, I
the transactions from the coverage and suppose, is generic and, therefore, it can
scope of the right to information. cover both steps leading to a contract, and
Moreover, the intent of the members of already a consummated contract, Mr.
the Constitutional Commission of 1986, to Presiding Officer.
include government-owned and MR. SUAREZ. This contemplates inclusion
controlled corporations and transactions of negotiations leading to the
entered consummation of the transaction.
into by them within the coverage of the MR. OPLE. Yes, subject only to reasonable
State policy of full public disclosure is safeguards on the national interest.
manifest from the records of the MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. [V Record of the
proceedings: Constitutional Commission 24-25.]
(Emphasis supplied.)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Colayco).
Commissioner Suarez is recognized. Considering the intent of the framers of
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. May I ask the the Constitution which, though not
Gentleman a few question? binding upon the Court, are nevertheless
MR. OPLE. Very gladly. persuasive, and considering further that
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. When we government-owned and controlled
declare "a policy of full public disclosure corporations, whether performing
of all its transactions" —referring to the proprietary or governmental functions
transactions of the State —and when we are accountable to the people, the Court is
say the "State" which I suppose would convinced that transactions entered into
include all of the various agencies, by the GSIS, a government-controlled
departments, ministries and corporation created by special legislation
instrumentalities of the government. . . . are within the ambit of the people's right
MR. OPLE. Yes, and individual public to be informed pursuant to the
officers, Mr. Presiding Officer. constitutional policy of transparency in
MR. SUAREZ. Including government- government dealings.
owned and controlled corporations.
MR. OPLE. That is correct, Mr. Presiding In fine, petitioners are entitled to access
Officer. to the documents evidencing loans
MR. SUAREZ. And when we say granted by the GSIS, subject to reasonable
"transactions which should be regulations that the latter may
distinguished from contracts, agreements, promulgate relating to the manner and
or treaties or whatever, does the hours of examination, to the end that
Gentleman refer to the steps leading to damage to or loss of the records may be
avoided, that undue interference with the
Page | 14
MENDIOLA, MANILA
duties of the custodian of the records may respondent to perform the required act
be prevented and that the right of other must be clear and specific [Lemi v.
persons entitled to inspect the records Valencia, G.R. No. L-20768, November 29,
may be insured [Legaspi v. Civil Service 1968, 126 SCRA 203; Ocampo v. Subido,
Commission, supra at p. 538, quoting G.R. No. L-28344, August 27, 1976, 72
Subido v. Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383, 387.] The SCRA 443.] The request of the petitioners
petition, as to the second and third fails to meet this standard, there being no
alternative acts sought to be done by duty on the part of respondent to prepare
petitioners, is meritorious. the list requested.
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION DOES

NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND
COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS OR TO VALMONTE VS. BELMONTE
DEMAND SUMMARIES THEREOF. 170 SCRA 256, 1989
However, the same cannot be said with
regard to the first act sought by FACTS: Petitioner Valmonte wrote a
petitioners, i.e., "to furnish petitioners the letter to respondent Belmonte, General
list of the names of the Batasang Manager of GSIS, requesting the latter to
Pambansa members belonging to the furnish him the list of the names of the
UNIDO and PDP-Laban who were able to Batasang Pambansa members belonging
secure clean loans immediately before the to the UNIDO and PDP-Laban who were
February 7 election thru the able to secure clean loans immediately
intercession/marginal note of the then before the February 7 election thru the
First Lady Imelda Marcos." intercession/marginal note of the then
First Lady Imelda Marcos.
Although citizens are afforded the right to
information and, pursuant thereto, are The Deputy General counsel of the GSIS
entitled to "access to official records," the wrote back the petitioner turning down
constitution does not accord them a right his request on the ground that there
to compel custodians of official records to exists a confidential relationship between
prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the GSIS and all those who borrow from it,
the like in their desire to acquire which confidence it is the GSIS is duty
information or matters of public concern. bound to preserve.
It must be stressed that it is essential for a
writ of mandamus to issue that the ISSUE: Whether or not mandamus lies to
applicant has a well-defined, clear and compel respondent to perform the acts
certain legal right to the thing demanded sought by petitioner to be done, in
and that it is the imperative duty of pursuance of their right to information
defendant to perform the act required.
The corresponding duty of the HELD:
Page | 15
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Yes. The people’s right to information is performing proprietary functions, are

limited to matters of public concern and is outside the coverage of the people's right
further subject to such limitations as may of access to official records. It is further
be provided by law. The GSIS is a trustee contended that since the loan function of
of contributions from the government and the GSIS is merely incidental to its
its employees and administration of insurance function, then its loan
various insurance programs for the transactions are not covered by the
benefit of the latter. Undeniably, its constitutional policy of full public
funds assume a public character. It is disclosure and the right to information
the legitimate concern of the public to which is applicable only to "official"
ensure that these funds are managed transactions.
properly with the end in view of
maximizing the benefits to insured First of all, the "constituent ----ministrant"
government employees. dichotomy characterizing government
function has long been repudiated. In
The public nature of the loanable funds of ACCFA v. Confederation of Unions and
the GSIS and the public office held by the Government Corporations and Offices
alleged borrowers make the information [G.R. Nos. L-21484 and L-23605,
sought clearly a matter of public interest November 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 644], the
and concern. Furthermore, the Court said that the government, whether
"constituent-ministrant" dichotomy carrying out its sovereign attributes or
characterizing government function has running some business, discharges the
long been repudiated. That the GSIS, in same function of service to the people.
granting the loans, was exercising a Consequently, that the GSIS, in granting the
proprietary function would not justify the loans, was exercising a proprietary
exclusion of the transactions from the function would not justify the exclusion of
coverage and scope of the right to the transactions from the coverage and
information. scope of the right to information.
Respondent next asserts that the Moreover, the intent of the members of
documents evidencing the loan the Constitutional Commission of 1986,
transactions of the GSIS are private in to include government-owned and
nature and hence, are not covered by the controlled corporations and
Constitutional right to information on transactions entered into by them
matters of public concern which within the coverage of the State policy
guarantees "(a)ccess to official records, of full public disclosure is manifest from
and to documents, and papers pertaining the records of the proceedings
to official acts, transactions, or decisions" Considering the intent of the framers of the
only. It is argued that the records of the Constitution which, though not binding
GSIS, a government corporation upon the Court, are nevertheless persuasive,
Page | 16
MENDIOLA, MANILA
and considering further that government-  The Court finds that there is a
owned and controlled corporations, grave violation of the
whether performing proprietary or Constitution involved in the
governmental functions are accountable to matters of public concern (Sec
the people, the Court is convinced that 7 Art III) under a state policy of
transactions entered into by the GSIS, a full disclosure of all its
government-controlled corporation transactions involving public
created by special legislation are within interest (Art 2, Sec 28)
the ambit of the people's right to be including public consultation
informed pursuant to the constitutional under RA 7160 (Local
policy of transparency in government
Government Code of 1991).
dealings.
 The right to information
guarantees the right of the
In fine, petitioners are entitled to access to
people to demand information,
the documents evidencing loans granted by
the GSIS, subject to reasonable regulations while Sec 28 recognizes the
that the latter may promulgate relating to duty of officialdom to give
the manner and hours of examination, to information even if nobody
the end that damage to or loss of the demands. The complete and
records may be avoided, that undue effective exercise of the right to
interference with the duties of the information necessitates that
custodian of the records may be prevented its complementary provision
and that the right of other persons entitled on public disclosure derive the
to inspect the records may be insured same self-executory nature,
subject only to reasonable
However, although citizens are afforded safeguards or limitations as
the right to information and, pursuant may be provided by law.
thereto, are entitled to "access to official  The contents of the MOA-AD is
records," the Constitution does not a matter of paramount public
accord them a right to compel concern involving public
custodians of official records to prepare interest in the highest order. In
lists, abstracts, summaries and the like declaring that the right to
in their desire to acquire information information contemplates
on matters of public concern. steps and negotiations leading
to the consummation of the
DOCTRINE: contract, jurisprudence finds
no distinction as to the
PROVINCE OF COTABATO VS. GRP executory nature or
PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN

Page | 17
MENDIOLA, MANILA
commercial character of the with the national government being

agreement. fundamentally different from that of the
 E.O. No. 3 itself is replete with ARMM. Indeed, BJE is a state in all but
mechanics for continuing name as it meets the criteria of a state laid
consultations on both national down in the Montevideo Convention,
and local levels and for a namely, a permanent population, a
principal forum for consensus- defined territory, a government, and a
building. In fact, it is the duty of capacity to enter into relations with other
the Presidential Adviser on the states.
Peace Process to conduct
Even assuming arguendo that the MOA-
regular dialogues to seek AD would not necessarily sever any
relevant information, portion of Philippine territory, the spirit
comments, advice, and animating it – which has betrayed itself by
recommendations from peace its use of the concept of association – runs
partners and concerned sectors counter to the national sovereignty and
of society. territorial integrity of the Republic.
The defining concept underlying the

The concept of association is not relationship between the national
recognized under the present government and the BJE being itself
Constitution. No province, city, or contrary to the present Constitution, it is
municipality, not even the ARMM, is not surprising that many of the specific
recognized under our laws as having an provisions of the MOA-AD on the
“associative” relationship with the formation and powers of the BJE are in
national government. Indeed, the concept conflict with the Constitution and the
implies powers that go beyond anything laws.
ever granted by the Constitution to any
local or regional government. It also Article X, Section 18 of the Constitution
implies the recognition of the associated provides that “[t]he creation of the
entity as a state. The Constitution, autonomous region shall be effective
however, does not contemplate any state when approved by a majority of the votes
in this jurisdiction other than the cast by the constituent units in a
Philippine State, much less does it provide plebiscite called for the purpose, provided
for a transitory status that aims to that only provinces, cities, and geographic
prepare any part of Philippine territory areas voting favorably in such plebiscite
for independence. shall be included in the autonomous
region.”
It is not merely an expanded version of
the ARMM, the status of its relationship

Page | 18
MENDIOLA, MANILA
BJE IS MORE OF A STATE THAN AN of Philippine territory in a status which, in

AUTONOMOUS REGION. But even international practice, has generally been
assuming that it is covered by the term a preparation for independence, is
“autonomous region” in the constitutional certainly not conducive to national unity.
provision just quoted, the MOA-AD would
still be in conflict with it. Under
paragraph 2(c) on TERRITORY in relation
to 2(d) and 2(e), the present geographic The MOA-AD is also inconsistent with
area of the ARMM and, in addition, the IPRA.
municipalities of Lanao del Norte which
IPRA,lays down the prevailing procedure
voted for inclusion in the ARMM during
for the delineation and recognition of
the 2001 plebiscite – Baloi, Munai,
ancestral domains. The MOA-AD’s manner
Nunungan, Pantar, Tagoloan and
of delineating the ancestral domain of the
Tangkal– are automatically part of the BJE
Bangsamoro people is a clear departure
without need of another plebiscite, in
from that procedure. By paragraph 1 of
contrast to the areas under Categories A
TERRITORY of the MOA-AD, Parties
and B mentioned earlier in the overview.
simply agree that, subject to the
That the present components of the
delimitations in the agreed Schedules,
ARMM and the above- mentioned
“[t]he Bangsamoro homeland and historic
municipalities voted for inclusion therein
territory refer to the land mass as well as
in 2001, however, does not render
the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and
another plebiscite unnecessary under the
alluvial domains, and the aerial domain,
Constitution, precisely because what
the atmospheric space above it,
these areas voted for then was their
embracing the Mindanao- Sulu-Palawan
inclusion in the ARMM, not the BJE.
geographic region.”
Article II, Section 22 of the Constitution
International law has long recognized the
must also be amended if the scheme
right to self- determination of “peoples,”
envisioned in the MOA-AD is to be
understood not merely as the entire
effected. That constitutional provision
population of a State but also a portion
states: “The State recognizes and
thereof. The people’s right to self-
promotes the rights of indigenous cultural
determination should not, however, be
communities within the framework of
understood as extending to a unilateral
national unity and development.”
right of secession.
(Underscoring supplied) An associative
arrangement does not uphold national In a historic development last September
unity. While there may be a semblance of 13, 2007, the UN General Assembly
unity because of the associative ties adopted the United Nations Declaration
between the BJE and the national on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN
government, the act of placing a portion
Page | 19
MENDIOLA, MANILA
DRIP) through General Assembly peoples would also be the duty of States.
Resolution 61/295 the Philippines being Nor is there in the UN DRIP an
included among those in favor, The acknowledgement of the right of
Declaration clearly recognized the right of indigenous peoples to the aerial domain
indigenous peoples to self-determination, and atmospheric space. What it upholds,
encompassing the right to autonomy or in Article 26 thereof, is the right of
self- government. Self-government, as indigenous peoples to the lands,
used in international legal discourse territories and resources which they have
pertaining to indigenous peoples, has traditionally owned, occupied or
been understood as equivalent to otherwise used or acquired. Moreover,
“internal self- determination.” the UN DRIP, while upholding the right of
indigenous peoples to autonomy, does not
Assuming that the UN DRIP, like the obligate States to grant indigenous
Universal Declaration on Human Rights, peoples the near-independent status of an
must now be regarded as embodying associated state.
customary international law– still, the
obligations enumerated therein do not Even if the UN DRIP were considered as
strictly require the Republic to grant the part of the law of the land pursuant to
Bangsamoro people, through the Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, it
instrumentality of the BJE, the particular would not suffice to uphold the validity of
rights and powers provided for in the the MOA-AD so as to render its
MOA-AD. Even the more specific compliance with other laws unnecessary.
provisions of the UN DRIP are general in
scope, allowing for flexibility in its The policy of full public disclosure
application by the different States. enunciated in above-quoted Section 28
complements the right of access to
There is, for instance, no requirement in information on matters of public concern
the UN DRIP that States now guarantee found in the Bill of Rights. The right to
indigenous peoples their own police and information guarantees the right of the
internal security force. Indeed, Article 8 people to demand information, while
presupposes that it is the State which will Section 28 recognizes the duty of
provide protection for indigenous peoples officialdom to give information even if
against acts like the forced dispossession nobody demands. The effectivity of the
of their lands – a function that is normally policy of public disclosure need not await
performed by police officers. If the the passing of a statute.
protection of a right so essential to
indigenous people’s identity is IPRA.The ICCs/IPs have, under the IPRA,
acknowledged to be the responsibility of the right to participate fully at all levels of
the State, then surely the protection of decision-making in matters which may
rights less significant to them as such affect their rights, lives and destinies. The

Page | 20
MENDIOLA, MANILA
MOA-AD, an instrument recognizing

ancestral domain, failed to justify its non- The parties met in Kuala Lumpur on
compliance with the clear-cut March 24, 2001, with the talks being
mechanisms ordained in IPRA, which facilitated by the Malaysian government,
entails, among other things, the the parties signing on the same date the
observance of the free and prior informed Agreement on the General Framework for
consent of the ICCs/IPs. The IPRA does the Resumption of Peace Talks Between
not grant the Executive Department or the GRP and the MILF. The MILF
any government agency the power to thereafter suspended all its military
delineate and recognize an ancestral actions.
domain claim by mere agreement or
compromise. In proceeding to make a Formal peace talks between the parties
sweeping declaration on ancestral were held in Tripoli, Libya from June 20-
domain, without complying with the IPRA, 22, 2001, the outcome of which was the
which is cited as one of the TOR of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace
MOA-AD, respondents clearly (Tripoli Agreement 2001) containing the
transcended the boundaries of their basic principles and agenda on the
authority. (J. Carpio-Morales) following aspects of the negotiation:
Security Aspect, Rehabilitation Aspect,
and Ancestral Domain Aspect. With
regard to the Ancestral Domain Aspect,
PROVINCE OF NORTH COTOBATO VS. the parties in Tripoli Agreement 2001
GRP PEACE PANEL simply agreed “that the same be discussed
GR No. 183591, October 14, 2008
further by the Parties in their next
meeting.”
FACTS: When President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo assumed office, the
A second round of peace talks was held in
military offensive against the MILF was
Cyberjaya, Malaysia on August 5-7, 2001
suspended and the government sought a
which ended with the signing of the
resumption of the peace talks. The MILF,
Implementing Guidelines on the Security
according to a leading MILF member, Aspect of the Tripoli Agreement 2001
initially responded with deep reservation, leading to a ceasefire status between the
but when President Arroyo asked the
parties. This was followed by the
Government of Malaysia through Prime Implementing Guidelines on the
Minister Mahathir Mohammad to help Humanitarian Rehabilitation and
convince the MILF to return to the
Development Aspects of the Tripoli
negotiating table, the MILF convened its
Agreement 2001, which was signed on
Central Committee to seriously discuss
May 7, 2002 at Putrajaya, Malaysia.
the matter and, eventually, decided to
Nonetheless, there were many incidence
meet with the GRP. of violence between government forces
Page | 21
MENDIOLA, MANILA
and the MILF from 2002 to 2003. AD and the holding of a public
Meanwhile, then MILF Chairman Salamat consultation thereon.
Hashim passed away on July 13, 2003 and
he was replaced by Al Haj Murad, who Supplementarily, petitioners pray that the
was then the chief peace negotiator of the MOA-AD be declared unconstitutional.
MILF. Murad’s position as chief peace This initial petition was followed by
negotiator was taken over by Mohagher several other petitions by other parties.
Iqbal. The Court ordered the consolidation of
the petitions.
In 2005, several exploratory talks were
held between the parties in Kuala Lumpur, ISSUE:
eventually leading to the crafting of the Whether there is a violation of the
draft MOA-AD in its final form, which, as people’s right to information on matters
mentioned, was set to be signed last of public concern (1987 Constitution,
August 5, 2008. Before the Court is what Article III, Sec. 7) under a state policy of
is perhaps the most contentious full disclosure of all its transactions
“consensus” ever embodied in an involving public interest (1987
instrument – the MOA-AD which is Constitution, Article II, Sec. 28) including
assailed principally by the present public consultation under Republic Act No.
petitions bearing docket numbers 183591, 7160 (LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF
183752, 183893, 183951 and 183962. 1991?
Commonly impleaded as respondents are
the GRP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain HELD: YES. The right of the people to
and the Presidential Adviser on the Peace information on matters of public concern
Process (PAPP) Hermogenes Esperon, Jr. shall be recognized. Access to official
On July 23, 2008, the Province of North records, and to documents, and papers
Cotabato[and Vice-Governor Emmanuel pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
Piñol filed a petition, docketed as G.R. No. decisions, as well as to government
183591, for Mandamus and Prohibition research data used as basis for policy
with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of development, shall be afforded the citizen,
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary subject to such limitations as may be
Restraining Order. Invoking the right to provided by law.
information on matters of public concern,
petitioners seek to compel respondents to As early as 1948, in Subido v. Ozaeta, the
disclose and furnish them the complete Court has recognized the statutory right
and official copies of the MOA-AD to examine and inspect public records, a
including its attachments, and to prohibit right which was eventually accorded
the slated signing of the MOA-AD, pending constitutional status. The right of access
the disclosure of the contents of the MOA- to public documents, as enshrined in
both the 1973 Constitution and the
Page | 22
MENDIOLA, MANILA
1987 Constitution, has been recognized ideas among a well-informed public that a
as a self-executory constitutional right. government remains responsive to the
changes desired by the people.
In the 1976 case of Baldoza v. Hon. Judge
Dimaano,the Court ruled that access to
public records is predicated on the right The MOA-AD is a matter of public concern
of the people to acquire information on That the subject of the information
matters of public concern since, sought in the present cases is a matter
undoubtedly, in a democracy, the pubic of public concern faces no serious
has a legitimate interest in matters of challenge. In fact, respondents admit
social and political significance. The that the MOA-AD is indeed of public
incorporation of this right in the concern. In previous cases, the Court
Constitution is a recognition of the found that the regularity of real estate
fundamental role of free exchange of
transactions entered in the Register of
information in a democracy. There can be
Deeds, the need for adequate notice to
no realistic perception by the public of the the public of the various laws, the civil
nation’s problems, nor a meaningful service eligibility of a public employee,
democratic decision-making if they are the proper management of GSIS funds
denied access to information of general allegedly used to grant loans to public
interest. Information is needed to enable officials, the recovery of the Marcoses’
the members of society to cope with the alleged ill-gotten wealth,[120] and the
exigencies of the times. As has been aptly identity of party-list nominees, among
observed: “Maintaining the flow of such others, are matters of public concern.
information depends on protection for
both its acquisition and its dissemination
Undoubtedly, the MOA-AD subject of the
since, if either process is interrupted, the present cases is of public concern,
flow inevitably ceases.” involving as it does the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the State, which
In the same way that free discussion directly affects the lives of the public at
enables members of society to cope with large. Matters of public concern covered
the exigencies of their time, access to by the right to information include
information of general interest aids the steps and negotiations leading to the
people in democratic decision-making by consummation of the contract. In not
giving them a better perspective of the distinguishing as to the executory nature
vital issues confronting the nation, so that or commercial character of agreements,
they may be able to criticize and the Court has categorically ruled that the
participate in the affairs of the
right to information “contemplates
government in a responsible, reasonable inclusion of negotiations leading to the
and effective manner. It is by ensuring an consummation of the transaction.”
unfettered and uninhibited exchange of
Page | 23
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Certainly, a consummated contract is not officialdom to give information even if

a requirement for the exercise of the right nobody demands.
to information. Otherwise, the people can
never exercise the right if no contract is The policy of public disclosure establishes
consummated, and if one is consummated, a concrete ethical principle for the
it may be too late for the public to expose conduct of public affairs in a genuinely
its defects. open democracy, with the people’s right
to know as the centerpiece. It is a
Requiring a consummated contract will mandate of the State to be accountable by
keep the public in the dark until the following such policy. These provisions
contract, which may be grossly are vital to the exercise of the freedom of
disadvantageous to the government or expression and essential to hold public
even illegal, becomes fait accompli. This officials at all times accountable to the
negates the State policy of full people. Whether Section 28 is self-
transparency on matters of public executory, the records of the
concern, a situation which the framers deliberations of the Constitutional
of the Constitution could not have Commission so disclose.
intended. Such a requirement will
prevent the citizenry from participating
in the public discussion of any proposed DOCTRINE:
contract, effectively truncating a basic
right enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Echagaray vs. Secretary of Justice [G.R.
NO. 132601, October 12, 1998]
We can allow neither an emasculation of a
constitutional right, nor a retreat by the  The requirement of
State of its avowed “policy of full confidentiality of the contents
disclosure of all its transactions involving of the manual even when
public interest.” Intended as a “splendid respect to the convict is unduly
symmetry” to the right to information suppressive.
under the Bill of Rights is the policy of  The contents of the manual are
public disclosure under Section 28, Article matters of public concern
II of the Constitution. The policy of full “which the public may want to
public disclosure enunciated in above- know, either because these
quoted Section 28 complements the right directly affects their lives, or
of access to information on matters of simply because such matters
public concern found in the Bill of Rights. arouse the interest of an
The right to information guarantees the ordinary citizen.”
right of the people to demand information,  The incorporation in the
while Section 28 recognizes the duty of Constitution of a guarantee of
access to information of public

Page | 24
MENDIOLA, MANILA
concern is recognition of the implementing rules a veritable vacuum.

essentiality of the free flow of The Secretary of Justice has practically
ideas and information in a abdicated the power to promulgate the
democracy. manual on the execution procedure to the
 Free discussion enables Director of the Bureau of Corrections, by
members of society to cope not providing for a mode of review and
with the exigencies of their approval thereof. Being a mere
rime, access to information of constituent unit of the Department of
general interests aid the people Justice, the Bureau of Corrections could
in decision-making by giving not promulgate a manual that would not
them a better perspective of bear the imprimatur of the administrative
the vital issues confronting the superior, the Secretary of Justice as the
nation. rule-making authority under R.A. No.
8177. Such apparent abdication of
departmental responsibility renders the
THE MANUAL FOR DEATH EXECUTION said paragraph invalid.
IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
However, the Rules and Regulations to As to the second paragraph of section 19,
Implement Republic Act No. No. 8177 the Court finds the requirement of
suffer serious flaws that could not be confidentiality of the contents of the
overlooked. To begin with, something manual even with respect to the convict
basic appears missing in Section 19 of the unduly suppressive. It sees no legal
implementing rules which provides: impediment for the convict, should he so
desire, to obtain a copy of the manual. The
"SEC. 19. EXECUTION PROCEDURE. — contents of the manual are matters of
Details of the procedure prior to, during public concern "which the public may
and after administering the lethal injection want to know, either because these
shall be set forth in a manual to be directly affect their lives, or simply
prepared by the Director. The manual shall because such matters naturally arouse the
contain details of, among others, the interest of an ordinary citizen." Section 7
sequence of events before and after of Article III of the 1987 Constitution
execution; procedures in setting up the provides:
intravenous line; the administration of the "SEC. 7. The right of the people to
lethal drugs; the pronouncement of death; information on matters of public concern
and the removal of the intravenous system. shall be recognized. Access to official
records, and to documents and papers
Said manual shall be confidential and its pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
distribution shall be limited to authorized decisions, as well as to government
prison personnel." Thus, the Court finds research data used as a basis for policy
in the first paragraph of Section 19 of the development, shall be afforded the citizen,
Page | 25
MENDIOLA, MANILA
subject to such limitation as may be the 10 year-old daughter of his common-

provided by law." law spouse and the imposition upon him
of the death penalty for the said crime.
The incorporation in the Constitution of a Petitioner duly filed a Motion for
guarantee of access to information of Reconsideration raising mainly factual
public concern is a recognition of the issues, and on its heels, a Supplemental
essentiality of the free flow of ideas and Motion for Reconsideration raising for the
information in a democracy. In the same first time the issue of the constitutionality
way that free discussion enables of Republic Act No. 7659 (the death
members of society to cope with the penalty law) and the imposition of the
exigencies of their time, access to death penalty or the crime of rape.
information of general interest aids the
people in democratic decision-making by On February 7, 1998, this Court denied
giving them a better perspective of the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration
vital issues confronting the nation. and Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration with a finding that
Congress duly complied with the
NACHURA: requirements for the reimposition of the
death penalty and therefore the death
In Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. penalty law is not unconstitutional.
No. 132601, October 12, 1998, it was
held that Sec. 19 of the rules and In the meantime, Congress had seen it fit
regulations implementing R.A. 8177, to change the mode of execution of the
which provides that the manual setting death penalty from electrocution to lethal
forth the procedure for administering the injection,[4] and passed Republic Act No.
lethal injection shall be confidential, was 8177, AN ACT DESIGNATING DEATH BY
unduly suppressive, because the contents LETHAL INJECTION AS THE METHOD OF
of the manual are matters of public CARRYING OUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT,
concern affecting the lives of the people AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE
and such matters naturally arouse the 81 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS
interest of the individual citizen. AMENDED BY SECTION 24 OF REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 7659.[5] Pursuant to the
provisions of said law, the Secretary of
Justice promulgated the Rules and
ECHAGARAY V. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE Regulations to Implement Republic Act
G.R. No. 132601, October 12, 1998 No. 8177 ("implementing rules")[6] and
directed the Director of the Bureau of
FACTS: On June 25, 1996, this Court Corrections to prepare the Lethal
affirmed the conviction of petitioner Leo Injection Manual.
Echegaray y Pilo for the crime of rape of

Page | 26
MENDIOLA, MANILA
On March 2, 1998, petitioner filed a in consultation with the Department of

Petition for Prohibition, Injunction and/or Health.
Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin
respondents Secretary of Justice and However, the Rules and Regulations to
Director of the Bureau of Prisons from Implement Republic Act No. 8177 suffer
carrying out the execution by lethal serious flaws that could not be
injection of petitioner under R.A. No. 8177 overlooked. To begin with, something
and its implementing rules as these are basic appears missing in Section 19 of the
unconstitutional and void for being, implementing rules which provides:
among others:
"SEC. 19. EXECUTION PROCEDURE. -
(d)an undue delegation of legislative Details of the procedure prior to, during
power by Congress, and after administering the lethal
(e) an unlawful exercise by respondent injection shall be set forth in a manual to
Secretary of the power to legislate, and be prepared by the Director. The manual
(f) an unlawful delegation of delegated shall contain details of, among others, the
powers by the Secretary of Justice to sequence of events before and after
respondent Director. execution; procedures in setting up the
intravenous line; the administration of
ISSUE: Was there undue delegation with the lethal drugs; the pronouncement of
respect to the restriction imposed on the death; and the removal of the intravenous
accessibility of the Manual of Execution? system. Said manual shall be confidential
and its distribution shall be limited to
HELD: YES. A careful reading of R.A. No. authorized prison personnel."
8177 would show that there is no undue
delegation of legislative power from the Thus, the Courts finds in the first
Secretary of Justice to the Director of the paragraph of Section 19 of the
Bureau of Corrections for the simple implementing rules a veritable vacuum.
reason that under the Administrative The Secretary of Justice has practically
Code of 1987, the Bureau of Corrections is abdicated the power to promulgate the
a mere constituent unit of the Department manual on the execution procedure to
of Justice. Further, the Department of the Director of the Bureau of
Justice is tasked, among others, to take Corrections, by not providing for a
charge of the "administration of the mode of review and approval thereof.
correctional system." Hence, the import of Being a mere constituent unit of the
the phraseology of the law is that the Department of Justice, the Bureau of
Secretary of Justice should supervise the Corrections could not promulgate a
Director of the Bureau of Corrections in manual that would not bear the
promulgating the Lethal Injection Manual, imprimatur of the administrative
superior, the Secretary of Justice as the
Page | 27
MENDIOLA, MANILA
rule-making authority under R.A. No. information of general interest aids the
8177 . Such apparent abdication of people in democratic decision-making
departmental responsibility renders the by giving them a better perspective of
said paragraph invalid. the vital issues confronting the nation.
As to the second paragraph of section 19,

the Court finds the requirement of
confidentiality of the contents of the DOCTRINE
manual even with respect to the convict
unduly suppressive. It sees no legal Chavez vs. Presidential Commission on
impediment for the convict, should he so Good Government [G.R. No. 130716,
desire, to obtain a copy of the manual. December 9, 1998]
The contents of the manual are matters of
public concern "which the public may DOCTRINE:
want to know, either because these i. FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
directly affect their lives, or simply EXTENDS TO INFORMATION
because such matters naturally arouse the RELATIVE TO THE
interest of an ordinary citizen."[62] NEGOTATION OF THE PUBLIC
Section 7 of Article III of the 1987 TRANSACTION
Constitution provides:  It is incumbent upon the PCGG
and its officers, as well as other
"SEC. 7. The right of the people to government representatives, to
information on matters of public concern disclose sufficient public
shall be recognized. Access to official information on any proposed
records, and to documents and papers settlement they have decided
pertaining to official acts, transaction, or to take up with the ostensible
decisions, as well as to government owners and holders of ill-
research data used as a basis for policy gotten wealth.
development, shall be afforded the citizen,  Such information must pertain
subject to such limitation as may be to definite propositions of the
provided by law." government, not necessarily to
intra-agency or inter-agency
The incorporation in the Constitution of a recommendations or
guarantee of access to information of communications during the
public concern is a recognition of the stage when common assertions
essentiality of the free flow of ideas and are still in the process of being
information in a democracy. In the same formulated or are in the
way that free discussion enables “exploratory stage.”
members of society to cope with the
exigencies of their time, access to
Page | 28
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Q: Four groups of information which may  Closed door Cabinet meetings

be exempted  Executive sessions of either
ii. LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT house of Congress
TO INFORMATION  Internal deliberations of the
Supreme Court
(a) National Security Matters
 A governmental privilege
against public disclosure with
respect to state secrets FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE EXTENDS
regarding military, diplomatic TO INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE
and other national security NEGOTIATION OF THE PUBLIC
matters. But where there is no TRANSACTION. But does the
need to protect such state constitutional provision likewise
secrets, the privilege may not guarantee access to information
be invoked to withhold regarding ongoing negotiations or
documents and other proposals prior to the final agreement?
information, PROVIDED, that This same clarification was sought and
they are examined in “strict clearly addressed by the constitutional
confidence” and given commissioners during their deliberations,
“scrupulous protection.” which we quote hereunder:
(b) Trade Secrets and Banking "MR. SUAREZ. And when we say
Transactions 'transactions' which should be
distinguished from contracts, agreements,
(c) Criminal Matters or treaties or whatever, does the
 Those relating to apprehension, Gentleman refer to the steps leading to
the prosecution and the the consummation of the contract, or does
detention of criminals which he refer to the contract itself?
the courts may not inquire into "MR. OPLE. The 'transactions' used here, I
prior to such arrest, detention suppose, is generic and, therefore, it can
and prosecution. cover both steps leading to a contract, and
already a consummated contract, Mr.
(d) Other Confidential Presiding. Officer.
Information "MR. SUAREZ. This contemplates
 Confidential or classified inclusion of negotiations leading to the
information officially known to consummation of the transaction?
them by reason of their office "MR. OPLE. Yes, subject to reasonable
and not made available to the safeguards on the national interest."
public Considering the intent of the framers of
 Diplomatic correspondence the Constitution, we believe that it is

Page | 29
MENDIOLA, MANILA
incumbent upon the PCGG and its officers, Limitations to the Right:
as well as other government
representatives, to disclose sufficient (1) National Security Matters. At the
public information on any proposed very least, this jurisdiction recognizes the
settlement they have decided to take up common law holding that there is a
with the ostensible owners and holders of governmental privilege against public
ill-gotten wealth. Such information, disclosure with respect to state secrets
though, must pertain to definite regarding military, diplomatic and other
propositions of the government, not national security matters. But where
necessarily to intra-agency or inter- there is no need to protect such state
agency recommendations or secrets, the privilege may not be invoked
communications during the stage when to 100 withhold documents and other
common assertions are still in the process information, provided that they are
of being formulated or are in the examined "in strict confidence" and
"exploratory" stage. There is a need, of given "scrupulous protection."
course, to observe the same restrictions
on disclosure of information in general, as Likewise, information on inter-
discussed earlier — such as on matters government exchanges prior to the
involving national security, diplomatic or conclusion of treaties and executive
foreign relations, intelligence and other agreements may be subject to reasonable
classified information. safeguards for the sake of national
interest.
LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION. The "information" and (2) Trade Secrets and Banking
the "transactions" referred to in the Transactions. The drafters of the
subject provisions of the Constitution Constitution also unequivocally affirmed
have as yet no defined scope and extent. that, aside from national security matters
There are no specific laws prescribing the and intelligence information, trade or
exact limitations within which the right industrial secrets (pursuant to the
may be exercised or the correlative state Intellectual Property Code and other
duty may be obliged. However, the related laws) as well as banking
following are some of the recognized transactions (pursuant to the Secrecy of
restrictions: Bank Deposits Act) are also exempted
(1) national security matters and from compulsory disclosure.
intelligence information,
(2) trade secrets and banking (3) Criminal Matters. Also excluded are
transactions, classified law enforcement matters, such
(3) criminal matters, and as those relating to the apprehension, the
(4) other confidential information. prosecution and the detention of
criminals, which courts may not inquire
Page | 30
MENDIOLA, MANILA
into prior to such arrest, detention and compromise agreement with the
prosecution. Efforts at effective law Marcos heirs as regards their alleged
enforcement would be seriously ill-gotten wealth? More specifically, are
jeopardized by free public access to, for the "General Agreement" and
example, police information regarding "Supplemental Agreement," both dated
rescue operations, the whereabouts of December 28, 1993 and executed
fugitives, or leads an covert criminal between the PCGG and the Marcos heirs,
activities. valid and binding?
(4) Other Confidential Information. The Case

The Ethical Standards Act further These are the main questions raised in this
prohibits public officials and employees original action seeking
from using or divulging "confidential or
classified information officially known to (1) to prohibit and "enjoin respondents
them by reason of their office and not [PCGG and its chairman] from privately
made available to the public." Other entering into, perfecting and/or executing
acknowledged limitations to information any greement with the heirs of the late
access include diplomatic correspondence, President Ferdinand E. Marcos . . . relating
closed door Cabinet meetings and to and concerning the properties and
executive sessions of either house of assets of Ferdinand Marcos located in the
Congress, as well as the internal Philippines and/or abroad — including the
deliberations of the Supreme Court. so-called Marcos gold hoard"; and
(2) to "[c]ompel respondent[s] to make

public all negotiations and
CHAVEZ vs. PCGG agreement, be they ongoing or perfected,
G.R. No. 130716, December 9, 1998, and all documents related to or
PANGANIBAN, J.: relating to such negotiations and
agreement between the PCGG and the
FACTS: Petitioner asks this Court to Marcos heirs."
define the nature and the extent of the
people's constitutional right to The Facts
information on matters of public concern. Petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, as
Does this right include access to the "taxpayer, citizen and former government
terms of government negotiations prior official who initiated the prosecution of
to their consummation or conclusion? the Marcoses and their cronies who
May the government, through the committed unmitigated plunder of the
Presidential Commission on Good public treasury and the systematic
Government (PCGG), be required to subjugation of the country's economy,"
reveal the proposed terms of a alleges that what impelled him to bring
Page | 31
MENDIOLA, MANILA
this action were several news reports 2 compelled to make any disclosure, since
bannered in a number of broadsheets the proposed terms and conditions of the
sometime in September 1997. These news Agreements have not become effective
items referred to and binding.
(1) the alleged discovery of billions of
dollars of Marcos assets deposited in ISSUE:
various coded accounts in Swiss banks; Whether or not this Court could require
and the PCGG to disclose to the public the
(2) the reported execution of a details of any agreement, perfected or not,
compromise, between the government with the Marcoses?
(through PCGG) and the Marcos heirs, on
how to split or share these assets. HELD:
Petitioner, invoking his constitutional First Substantive Issue:

right to information 3 and the correlative
duty of the state to disclose publicly all its Public Disclosure of Terms of Any
transactions involving the national Agreement, Perfected or Not
interest, 4 demands that respondents In seeking the public disclosure of
make public any and all negotiations and negotiations and agreements pertaining
agreements pertaining to PCGG's task of to a compromise settlement with the
recovering the Marcoses' ill-gotten wealth. Marcoses as regards their alleged ill-
He claims that any compromise on the gotten wealth, petitioner invokes the
alleged billions of ill-gotten wealth following provisions of the Constitution:
involves an issue of "paramount public
interest," since it has a "debilitating effect Sec. 7 [Article III]. The right of the people
on the country's economy" that would be to information on matters of public
greatly prejudicial to the national interest concern shall be recognized. Access to
of the Filipino people. Hence, the people official records, and to documents, and
in general have a right to know the papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions or deals being contrived and transactions, or decisions, as well as to
effected by the government. government research data used as basis
for policy development, shall be afforded
Respondents, on the other hand, do not the citizen, subject to such limitations as
deny forging a compromise agreement may be provided by law. Sec. 28 [Article
with the Marcos heirs. They claim, though, II]. Subject to reasonable conditions
that petitioner's action is premature, prescribed by law, the State adopts and
because there is no showing that he has implements a policy of full public
asked the PCGG to disclose the disclosure of all its transactions involving
negotiations and the Agreements. And public interest.
even if he has, PCGG may not yet be
Page | 32
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Respondents' opposite view is that the At the very least, this jurisdiction
above constitutional provisions refer to recognizes the common law holding that
completed and operative official acts, not there is a governmental privilege against
to those still being considered. As regards public disclosure with respect to state
the assailed Agreements entered into by secrets regarding military, diplomatic and
the PCGG with the Marcoses, there is yet other national security matters. But
no right of action that has accrued, where there is no need to protect such
because said Agreements have not been state secrets, the privilege may not be
approved by the President, and the invoked to withhold documents and other
Marcos heirs have failed to fulfill their information, provided that they are
express undertaking therein. examined "in strict confidence" and given
"scrupulous protection."
Thus, the Agreements have not become
effective. Respondents add that they are Likewise, information on inter-
not aware of any ongoing negotiation for government exchanges prior to the
another compromise with the Marcoses conclusion of treaties and executive
regarding their alleged ill-gotten assets. agreements may be subject to reasonable
safeguards for the sake of national
The "information" and the interest.
"transactions" referred to in the subject
provisions of the Constitution have as yet (2) Trade Secrets and Banking
no defined scope and extent. There are Transactions
no specific laws prescribing the exact The drafters of the Constitution also
limitations within which the right may unequivocally affirmed that, aside from
be exercised or the correlative state national security matters and intelligence
duty may be obliged. However, the information, trade or industrial secrets
following are some of the recognized (pursuant to the Intellectual Property Code
restrictions: and other related laws) as well as banking
transactions (pursuant to the Secrecy of
(1) national security matters and Bank Deposits Act 28) are also exempted
intelligence information from compulsory disclosure.
(2) trade secrets and banking
transactions (3) Criminal Matters
(3) criminal matters, and Also excluded are classified law
(4) other confidential information. enforcement matters, such as those
relating to the apprehension, the
Limitations to the Right: prosecution and the detention of
criminals, which courts may nor inquire
(1) National Security Matters into prior to such arrest, detention and
prosecution. Efforts at effective law
Page | 33
MENDIOLA, MANILA
enforcement would be seriously concern there is no rigid test which can be

jeopardized by free public access to, for applied. "Public concern" like "public
example, police information regarding interest" is a term that eludes exact
rescue operations, the whereabouts of definition. Both terms embrace a broad
fugitives, or leads on covert criminal spectrum of subjects which the public
activities. may want to know, either because these
directly affect their lives, or simply
(4) Other Confidential Information because such matters naturally arouse
The Ethical Standards Act further the interest of an ordinary citizen. In the
prohibits public officials and employees final analysis, it is for the courts to
from using or divulging "confidential or determine on a case by case basis
classified information officially known to whether the matter at issue is of interest
them by reason of their office and not or importance, as it relates to or affects
made available to the public." Other the public.
acknowledged limitations to information
access include diplomatic correspondence, Considered a public concern in the above-
closed door Cabinet meetings and mentioned case was the "legitimate
executive sessions of either house of concern of citizens to ensure that
Congress, as well as the internal government positions requiring civil
deliberations of the Supreme Court. service eligibility are occupied only by
persons who are eligibles." So was the
Scope: Matters of Public Concern and need to give the general public adequate
Transactions Involving Public Interest notification of various laws that regulate
and affect the actions and conduct of
In Valmonte v. Belmonte Jr., the Court citizens, as held in Tañada. Likewise did
emphasized that the information sought the "public nature of the loanable funds
must be "matters of public concern," of the GSIS and the public office held by
access to which may be limited by law. the alleged borrowers (members of the
Similarly, the state policy of full public defunct Batasang Pambansa)" qualify
disclosure extends only to "transactions the information sought in Valmonte as
involving public interest" and may also matters of public interest and concern.
be "subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law." As to the meanings of In Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato, the Court
the terms "PUBLIC INTEREST" and also held that official acts of public
"PUBLIC CONCERN," the Court, in officers done in pursuit if their official
Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, functions are public in character; hence,
elucidated: the records pertaining to such official
acts and decisions are within the ambit
In determining whether or not a of the constitutional right of access to
particular information is of public public records. Under Republic Act No.
Page | 34
MENDIOLA, MANILA
6713, public officials and employees are responsible, reasonable and effective
mandated to "provide information on manner.
their policies and procedures in clear
and understandable language, [and] Certainly, it is by ensuring an unfettered
ensure openness of information, public and uninhibited exchange of ideas among
consultations and hearings whenever a well-informed public that a government
appropriate . . .," except when remains responsive to the changes
"otherwise provided by law or when desired by the people.
required by the public interest." In
particular, the law mandates free The Nature of the Marcoses' Alleged Ill-
public access, at reasonable hours, to Gotten Wealth
the annual performance reports of Executive Order No. 1, promulgated on
offices and agencies of government and February 28, 1986, only two (2) days
government owned or controlled after the Marcoses fled the country,
corporations; and the statements of created the PCGG which was primarily
assets, liabilities and financial tasked to assist the President in the
disclosures of all public officials and recovery of vast government resources
employees. allegedly amassed by former President
Marcos, his immediate family, relatives
In general, writings coming into the and close associates both here and abroad.
hands of public officers in connection
with their official functions must be Under Executive Order No. 2, issued
accessible to the public, consistent with twelve (12) days later, all persons and
the policy of transparency of entities who had knowledge or
governmental affairs. This principle is possession of ill-gotten assets and
aimed at affording the people an properties were warned and, under pain
opportunity to determine whether those of penalties prescribed by law, prohibited
to whom they have entrusted the affairs from concealing, transferring or
of the government are honesty, dissipating them or from otherwise
faithfully and competently performing frustrating or obstructing the recovery
their functions as public servants. efforts of the government.
Undeniably, the essence of democracy
lies in the free flow of thought; but On May 7, 1986, another directive (EO No.
thoughts and ideas must be well- 14) was issued giving additional powers
informed so that the public would gain to the PCGG which, taking into account
a better perspective of vital issues the overriding considerations of national
confronting them and, thus, be able to interest and national survival, required it
criticize as well as participate in the to achieve expeditiously and effectively its
affairs of the government in a vital task of recovering ill-gotten wealth.

Page | 35
MENDIOLA, MANILA
With such pronouncements of our that may be arrived at concerning the

government, whose authority emanates Marcoses' purported ill-gotten wealth.
from the people, there is no doubt that
the recovery of the Marcoses' alleged ill- Access to Information on Negotiating
gotten wealth is a matter of public Terms
concern and imbued with public But does the constitutional provision
interest. We may also add that " ILL- likewise guarantee access to
GOTTEN WEALTH," by its very nature, information regarding ongoing
assumes a public character. Based on negotiations or proposals prior to the
the aforementioned Executive Orders, final agreement? This same
"ill-gotten wealth" refers to assets and clarification was sought and clearly
properties purportedly acquired, addressed by the constitutional
directly or indirectly, by former commissioners during their
President Marcos, his immediate family, deliberations, which we quote
relatives and close associates through hereunder:
or as a result of their improper or
illegal use of government funds or MR. SUAREZ. And when we say
properties; or their having taken undue "transactions" which should be
advantage of their public office; or their distinguished from contracts, agreements,
use of powers, influences or or treaties or whatever, does the
relationships, "resulting in their unjust Gentleman refer to the steps leading to
enrichment and causing grave damage the consummation of the contract, or does
and prejudice to the Filipino people and he refer to the contract itself?
the Republic of the Philippines." Clearly,
the assets and properties referred to MR. OPLE. The "transactions" used here, I
supposedly originated from the suppose, is generic and, therefore, it can
government itself. To all intents and cover both steps leading to a contract, and
purposes, therefore, they belong to the already a consummated contract, Mr.
people. As such, upon reconveyance they Presiding Officer.
will be returned to the public treasury,
subject only to the satisfaction of positive MR. SUAREZ. This contemplates inclusion
claims of certain persons as may be of negotiations “leading” to the
adjudged by competent courts. Another consummation of the transaction?
declared overriding consideration for the
expeditious recovery of ill-gotten wealth MR. OPLE. Yes, subject to reasonable
is that it may be used for national safeguards on the national interest.
economic recovery. We believe the
foregoing disquisition settles the question Considering the intent of the
of whether petitioner has a right to Constitution, we believe that it is
respondents' disclosure of any agreement incumbent upon the PCGG and its
Page | 36
MENDIOLA, MANILA
officers, as well as other government such as the sui generis impeachment trial.
representatives, to disclose sufficient As far as the Court is concerned, its
public information on any proposed Members and officials involved in all
settlement they have decided to take up proceedings are duty-bound to observe
with the ostensible owners and holders the privileged communication and
of ill-gotten wealth. Such information, confidentiality rules if the integrity of the
though, must pertain to definite administration of justice were to be
propositions of the government, not preserved – i.e., not even Members of the
necessarily to intra-agency or inter- Court, on their own and without the
agency recommendations or consent of the Supreme Court, can testify
communications during the stage when on matters covered by the prohibitions
common assertions are still in the and exclusions, particularly with respect
process of being formulated or are in to matters pending resolution before the
the "exploratory" stage. Supreme Court.
There is a need, of course, to observe the

same restrictions on disclosure of ARE COURT RECORDS CONSIDERED
information in general, as discussed
CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED?
earlier — such as on matters involving
national security, diplomatic or foreign As to Court Deliberations:
relations, intelligence and other classified
information. In the Judiciary, privileges against
disclosure of official records “create a
hierarchy of rights that protect certain
confidential relationships over and
above the public’s evidentiary need” or
In Re: Production of Court Records and “right to every man’s evidence.”
Documents and the Attendance of Accordingly, certain information
Court officials and employees as contained in the records of cases
witnesses under the subpoenas of before the Supreme Court are
February 10, 2012 and the various considered confidential and are
letters for the Impeachment exempt from disclosure. To reiterate,
Prosecution Panel dated January 19
the need arises from the dictates of the
and 25, 2012 integrity of the Court’s decision-making
JUDICIAL PRIVILEGE, MEANING. In fine, function which may be affected by the
there are Philippine laws, rules and disclosure of information.
jurisprudence prohibiting the revelation
of confidential or “secret” information
that causes damage to public interest
even in judicial and other proceedings
Page | 37
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court deliberations are

Court (IRSC) prohibits the disclosure of traditionally recognized
as privileged
(1) the result of the raffle of cases, communication. Section 2,
Rule 10 of the IRSC
(2) the actions taken by the Court on
each case included in the agenda of the provides:
Court’s session, Section 2. Confidentiality of
court sessions. – Court
(3) the deliberations of the Members in
sessions are executive in
court sessions on cases and matters
character, with only the
pending before it.
Members of the Court
Rule 7, Section 3 of the IRSC10 declares present. Court
that the results of the raffle of cases deliberations are
shall only be available to the parties and confidential and shall not
their counsels, unless the cases involve be disclosed to outside
bar matters, administrative cases and parties, except as may be
criminal cases involving the penalty of life provided herein or as
imprisonment, which are treated with authorized by the Court.
strict confidentiality and where the raffle [emphasis ours]
results are not disclosed even to the
Justice Abad discussed the rationale for
parties themselves.
the rule in his concurring opinion to the
Rule 10, Section 2 of the IRSC provides Court Resolution in Arroyo v. De Lima13
that the actions taken in each case in (TRO on Watch List Order case): the
the Court’s agenda, which are noted by rules on confidentiality will enable the
the Chief Justice or the Division Chairman, Members of the Court to “freely discuss
are also to be treated with strict the issues without fear of criticism for
confidentiality. Only after the official holding unpopular positions” or fear of
release of the resolution embodying humiliation for one’s comments. The
the Court action may that action be privilege against disclosure of these kinds
made available to the public. A of information/communication is known
resolution is considered officially as deliberative process privilege,
released once the envelope containing involving as it does the deliberative
its final copy, addressed to the parties, process of reaching a decision. “Written
has been transmitted to the process advice from a variety of individuals is
server for personal service or to the an important element of the
mailing section of the Judicial Records government’s decision-making process
Office. and that the interchange of advice
could be stifled if courts forced the

Page | 38
MENDIOLA, MANILA
government to disclose those Senate Committee on Accountability of

recommendations;” the privilege is Public Officers and Investigations:19
intended “to prevent the ‘chilling’ of
deliberative communications.” Significantly, this type of
privilege is not for the
The privilege is not exclusive to the Executive to enjoy alone.
Judiciary. We have in passing recognized All the great branches of
the claim of this privilege by the two government are entitled
other branches of government in Chavez v. to this treatment for their
Public Estates Authority17 (speaking own decision and policy
through J. Carpio) when the Court making conversations
declared that - and correspondence. It is
unthinkable that the
[t]he information x x x disclosure of internal
like internal debates and deliberations
deliberations of the of the Supreme Court or the
Supreme Court and other executive sessions of either
collegiate courts, or Houses of Congress can be
executive sessions of compelled at will by outside
either house of Congress, parties. [emphasis ours]
are recognized as
confidential. This kind of Thus, a Senator may invoke legislative
information cannot be pried privilege when he or she is questioned
open by a co-equal branch outside the Senate about information
of government. A frank gathered during an executive session of
exchange of exploratory the Senate’s legislative inquiry in aid of
ideas and assessments, legislation. In the same manner, a justice
free from the glare of of the court or a judge may invoke judicial
publicity and pressure by privilege in the Senate sitting as an
interested parties, is Impeachment Court, for proceedings in
essential to protect the the performance of his or her own judicial
independence of functions. What applies to magistrates
decision-making of those applies with equal force to court
tasked to exercise officials and employees who are privy
Presidential, Legislative to these deliberations. They may
and Judicial power.18 likewise claim exemption when asked
(emphases ours) about this privileged information.
Justice Brion noted this fact in his While Section 2, Rule 10 of the IRSC cited
Separate Concurring Opinion in Neri v. above speaks only of the confidentiality of
court deliberations, it is understood that
Page | 39
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the rule extends to documents and order is made public,

other communications which are part such information that a
of or are related to the deliberative justice or judge uses in
process. The deliberative process preparing a decision,
privilege protects from disclosure resolution, or order shall
documents reflecting advisory opinions, remain confidential.
recommendations and deliberations that [emphases ours]
are component parts of the process for
formulating governmental decisions and To qualify for protection under the
policies. Obviously, the privilege may also deliberative process privilege, the agency
be claimed by other court officials and must show that the document is both (1)
employees when asked to act on these predecisional and (2) deliberative.
documents and other communications. A document is “predecisional” under the
The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel in deliberative process privilege if it
fact provides that access shall be denied precedes, in temporal sequence, the
with respect to information or records decision to which it relates. In other
relating to drafts of decisions, rulings, words, communications are considered
orders, or internal memoranda or internal predecisional if they were made in the
reports. In the 2007 Resolution on Access attempt to reach a final conclusion.
to Justice for the Poor Project, the Court A material is “deliberative,” on the other
excluded the same information and hand, if it reflects the giveand- take of
records from the public by classifying the consultative process. The key
them as confidential: question in determining whether the
Article 1. Definition of material is deliberative in nature is
Terms. whether disclosure of the information
would discourage candid discussion
2. Confidential within the agency. If the disclosure of the
information generally information would expose the
refers to information not government’s decision making process in
yet made a matter of a way that discourages candid discussion
public record relating to among the decision-makers (thereby
pending cases, such as undermining the courts’ ability to
notes, drafts, research perform their functions), the information
papers, internal discussion, is deemed privileged.
internal memoranda,
records of internal Court records which are “predecisional”
deliberations, and similar and “deliberative” in nature are thus
papers. Even after the protected and cannot be the subject of
decision, resolution, or a subpoena if judicial privilege is to be

Page | 40
MENDIOLA, MANILA
preserved. The privilege in general judicial duties. [emphasis

insulates the Judiciary from an improper ours]
intrusion into the functions of the judicial
branch and shields justices, judges, and This rule of judicial ethics complements
court officials and employees from public the rule of evidence that disqualifies
scrutiny or the pressure of public opinion public officials from testifying on
that would impair a judge’s ability to information they acquire in confidence in
render impartial decisions. The the course of their duties:
deliberative process can be impaired by Rules of Court, Rule 130,
undue exposure of the decision-making Section 24. Disqualification
process to public scrutiny before or even by reason of privileged
after the decision is made, as discussed communication. – The
below. following persons cannot
Additionally, two other grounds may be testify as to matters learned
cited for denying access to court records, in confidence in the
as well as preventing members of the following cases:
bench, from being subjected to
xxxx
compulsory process:
(1) the disqualification by reason of
privileged communication and (e) A public officer cannot
be examined during his
(2) the pendency of an action or matter. term of office or
afterwards, as to
communications made to
The prohibition against disclosure of him in official confidence,
confidential information is required to be when the court finds that
observed by members of the Court under the public interest would
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the suffer by the disclosure.
Philippine Judiciary. Section 9, Canon 4 [emphasis ours]
(Propriety) states:
Under the law, therefore, the Members of
Section 9. Confidential the Court may not be compelled to
information acquired by testify in the impeachment
judges in their judicial proceedings against the Chief Justice
capacity shall not be used or or other Members of the Court about
disclosed for any other information they acquired in the
purpose related to their performance of their official function
of adjudication, such as information on

Page | 41
MENDIOLA, MANILA
how deliberations were conducted or barred from disclosing (1) the result of
the material inputs that the justices the raffle of cases, (2) the actions taken by
used in decision-making, because the the Court on each case included in the
end-result would be the disclosure of agenda of the Court’s session, and (3) the
confidential information that could deliberations of the Members in court
subject them to criminal prosecution. sessions on cases and matters pending
Such act violates judicial privilege (or the before it. They are subject as well to the
equivalent of executive privilege) as it disqualification by reason of privileged
pertains to the exercise of the communication and the sub judice rule. As
constitutional mandate of adjudication. stated above, these rules extend to
documents and other communications
Jurisprudence implies that justices and which cannot be disclosed.
judges may not be subject to any
compulsory process in relation to the These privileges, incidentally, belong to
performance of their adjudicatory the Judiciary and are for the Supreme
functions. In Senate of the Philippines v. Court (as the representative and entity
Exec. Sec. Ermita,31 the Court declared speaking for the Judiciary), and not for
thatmembers of the Supreme Court are the individual justice, judge, or court
also exempt from [the Congress’] power official or employees to waive. Thus,
of inquiry [in aid of legislation]. Unlike the every proposed waiver must be referred
Presidency, judicial power is vested in a to the Supreme Court for its consideration
collegial body; hence, each member and approval.
thereof is exempt on the basis not only of
separation of powers but also on the fiscal In fine, there are Philippine laws, rules
autonomy and the constitutional and jurisprudence prohibiting the
independence of the judiciary. revelation of confidential or “secret”
information that causes damage to
This ruling was dictated in no small public interest even in judicial and
measure by the principle of comity other proceedings such as the sui
mentioned above. Inter-departmental generis impeachment trial. As far as
courtesy demands that the highest the Court is concerned, its Members
levels of each department be exempt and officials involved in all
from the compulsory processes of the proceedings are duty-bound to
other departments on matters related observe the privileged communication
to the functions and duties of their and confidentiality rules if the
office. integrity of the administration of
justice were to be preserved – i.e., not
With respect to Court officials and even Members of the Court, on their
employees, the same rules on own and without the consent of the
confidentiality that apply to justices Supreme Court, can testify on matters
and judges apply to them. They are
Page | 42
MENDIOLA, MANILA
covered by the prohibitions and in public or official books or records may

exclusions, particularly with respect to be proved by the production of the books
matters pending resolution before the or records themselves or by a copy
Supreme Court. certified by the legal keeper thereof.
These records, however, may be
To state the rule differently, Justices of presented and marked in evidence
the Court cannot be compelled to testify only where they are not excluded by
on matters relating to the internal reasons of privilege and the other
deliberations and actions of the Court, reasons discussed above.
in the exercise of their adjudicatory
functions and duties. This is to be The reasons for this rule are necessity
differentiated from a situation where the and trustworthiness. Necessity consists in
testimony is on a matter which is the inconvenience and difficulty of
external to their adjudicatory functions requiring the official’s attendance as a
and duties. witness to testify to the innumerable
transactions in the course of his duty. A
public officer is excused from
appearing in court in order that public
As to Court Records:
business may not be interrupted,
As a penultimate point, witnesses need hampered or delayed. Where there is no
not be summoned to testify on matters exception for official statements, hosts of
of public record. These are the records officials would be found devoting the
that a government unit is required by law greater part of their time attending as
to keep or which it is compelled to keep in witnesses in court, delivering their
the discharge of duties imposed by law. A deposition before an officer.
record is a public record within the Trustworthiness is a reason because of
purview of a statute providing that books the presumption of regularity of
and records required by law to be kept by performance of official duty. The law
a clerk may be received in evidence in any reposes a particular confidence in
court if it is a record which a public officer public officers that it presumes that
is required to keep and if it is filled in they will discharge their several trusts
such a manner that it is subject to public with accuracy and fidelity; and
inspection. Under the Rules of Court, the therefore, whatever acts they do in the
rule on public records is embodied in discharge of their public duty may be
Section 44, Rule 130. given in evidence and shall be taken to
be true under such a degree of caution
To restate the rule, entries in official as the nature and circumstances of
records may be presented without the each case may appear to require. Thus,
necessity of presenting in court the officer “[t]he trustworthiness of public
or person who made the entries. Entries documents and the value given to the

Page | 43
MENDIOLA, MANILA
entries made therein could be grounded During the impeachment proceedings

on: 1) the sense of official duty in the against Chief Justice Corona, the list of
preparation of the statement made, 2) the proposed witnesses included Justices of
penalty which is usually affixed to a the Supreme Court, and Court officials
breach of that duty, 3) the routine and and employees who will testify on
disinterested origin of most such matters, many of which are, internal to
statements, and 4) the publicity of record the Court. Letters were sent to the SC
which makes more likely the prior asking for the examination of records, and
exposure of such errors as might have the issuance of certified true copies of the
occurred.” rollos and the Agenda and Minutes of the
Deliberations of various cases decided by
As a last point and mainly for purposes of the SC for purposes of the Impeachment
stress, the privileges discussed above Complaint.
that apply to justices and judges apply
mutatis mutandis to court officials and Subpoena Ad Testificandum et Duces
employees with respect to their official Tecum and Subpoena Ad Testificandum
functions. If the intent only is for them to were also issued against Clerks of Court of
identify and certify to the existence and the SC.
genuineness of documents within their
custody or control that are not otherwise ISSUE:
confidential or privileged under the above Whether the letters and subpoenas
discussed rules, their presence before the issued by Prosecution Impeachment
Impeachment Court can be and should be Panel should be favored.
excused where certified copies of these
non-privileged and non-confidential RULING:
documents can be provided. IT DEPENDS. The right to information, by
its very nature and by the Constitution’s
own terms, is not absolute. Section 11,
In Re: Production of Court Records and Rule 136 of the Rules of Court grants
Documents and the Attendance of access to court records to any person,
Court officials and employees as subject to payment of fees and
witnesses under the subpoenas of compliance with rules; it is not necessary
February 10, 2012 and the various that the request be made by a party to the
letters for the Impeachment case. This is limited by the need to
Prosecution Panel dated January 19 preserve and protect the integrity of main
and 25, 2012. [SC Resolution dated adjudicative function of the Court and the
February 14, 2012) Judiciary. Based on the INTERNAL RULES
OF THE SUPREME COURT ( IRSC ) which
is applicable to judges and justices and
FACTS: court officials and employees:
Page | 44
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(2) Deliberative (or disclosure of the

information would discourage
candid discussion within the
agency). These privileges,
incidentally, belong to the
Judiciary and are for the Supreme
Court (as the representative and
entity speaking for the Judiciary),
and not for the individual
justice, judge, or court official or
employees to waive.
Thus, every proposed waiver must be

referred to the Supreme Court for its
consideration and approval. Additionally,
two other grounds may be cited for
denying access to court records, as well as
preventing members of the bench, from
No. 3 above as a privilege can also be being subjected to compulsory process:
raised by other branches of government
and is understood to extend to documents (1) the disqualification by reason of
and other communications which are part privileged communication and
of or are related to the deliberative (2) the pendency of an action or matter.
process. The deliberative process
privilege protects from disclosure Under existing laws, neither the
documents reflecting advisory opinions, Impeachment Court nor the Senate has
recommendations and deliberations that the power to grant immunity from
are component parts of the process for criminal prosecution for revealing
formulating governmental decisions and confidential information. In Senate of the
policies. Obviously, the privilege may also Philippines v. Exec. Sec. Ermita: “ Unlike
be claimed by other court officials and the Presidency, judicial power is vested in
employees when asked to act on these a collegial body; hence, each member
documents and other communications. To thereof is exempt (from compulsory
qualify for protection under the process of other departments) on the
deliberative process privilege, the agency basis not only of separation of
must show that the document is both powers but also on the fiscal autonomy
and the constitutional independence of
(1) Predecisional (or they were made the judiciary.
in the attempt to reach a final
conclusion) and
Page | 45
MENDIOLA, MANILA
To state the rule differently, Justices of under well-defined rules. At the most
the Court cannot be compelled to testify basic level and subject to the principle of
on matters relating to the internal comity/inter-departmental courtesy ,
deliberations and actions of the Court , in Members of the Court, and Court officials
the exercise of their adjudicatory and employees may not be compelled to
functions and duties. This is to be testify on matters that are part of the
differentiated from a situation where the internal deliberations and actions of the
testimony is on a matter which is Court in the exercise of their Adjudicatory
external to their adjudicatory functions functions and duties, while testimony on
and duties (e.g. a justice may testify as to matters external to their adjudicatory
the bribery as ground for the functions and duties may be compelled by
impeachment case of another justice since compulsory processes.
bribery is not part of adjudicatory
function). Witnesses need not be To summarize these rules, the following
summoned to testify on matters of public are privileged documents or
record (required by law to keep or which communications, and are not subject to
it is compelled to keep in the discharge of disclosure:
duties imposed by law).
(1) Court actions such as the result of the
Based on Section 44, Rule 130: Entries in raffle of cases and the actions taken by the
public or official books or records may be Court on each case included in the agenda
proved by the production of the books or of the Court’s session on acts done
records themselves or by a copy certified material to pending cases, except where a
by the legal keeper thereof. These records, party litigant requests information on the
however, may be presented and marked result of the raffle of the case, pursuant to
in evidence only where they are not Rule 7, Section 3 of the IRSC;
excluded by reasons of privilege and the
other reasons discussed above. The (2) Court deliberations or the
reasons for this rule are necessity deliberations of the Members in court
(difficulty in requiring attendance as it sessions on cases and matters pending
will hamper government operations) and before the Court;
trustworthiness (presumption of
regularity of performance of official duty). (3) Court records which are
“predecisional” and “deliberative” in
In sum, Philippine law (such as Article nature, in particular, documents and
229 of the Revised Penal Code, Section 3 other communications which are part of
(k) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti- or related to the deliberative process, i.e.,
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), rules notes, drafts, research papers, internal
and jurisprudence prohibit the disclosure discussions, internal memoranda, records
of confidential or privileged information
Page | 46
MENDIOLA, MANILA
of internal deliberations, and similar notes, drafts, research papers, internal

papers. discussions, internal memoranda,
records of internal deliberations, and
(4) Confidential Information secured by similar papers.
justices, judges, court officials and
employees in the course of their official (4) Confidential Information secured by
functions, mentioned in (2) and (3) above, justices, judges, court officials and
are privileged even after their term of employees in the course of their official
office. functions, mentioned in (2) and (3) above,
are privileged even after their term of
(5) Records of cases that are still pending office.
for decision are privileged materials that (5) Records of cases that are still
cannot be disclosed, except only for pending for decision are privileged
pleadings, orders and resolutions that
materials that cannot be disclosed, except
have been made available by the court to
only for pleadings, orders and resolutions
the general public. that have been made available by the
court to the general public.
NOTES: The following are privileged (6) The principle of comity or inter-
documents or communications, and are departmental courtesy demands that the
not subject to disclosure: highest officials of each department be
(1) Court actions such as the result of the exempt from the compulsory processes of
raffle of cases and the actions taken by the the other departments.
Court on each case included in the agenda
(7) These privileges belong to the
of the Court’s session on acts done Supreme Court as an institution, not to
material to pending cases, except where a any justice or judge in his or her
party litigant requests information on the individual capacity. Since the Court is
result of the raffle of the case, pursuant to higher than the individual justices or
Rule 7, Section 3 of the IRSC; judges, no sitting or retired justice or
(2) Court deliberations or the judge, not even the Chief Justice, may
deliberations of the Members in court claim exception without the consent of
sessions on cases and matters pending the Court.
before the Court;
(3) Court records which are In Re: Request for Live Radio-TV
“predecisional” and “deliberative” in Coverage of the Trial in the
nature, in particular, documents and Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases
other communications which are part of against former President Joseph
or related to the deliberative process, i.e.,

Page | 47
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Ejercito Estrada, Secretary of Justice broadcast. Only later will they be made
Hernando Perez v. Joseph Ejercito available for public showing.
Estrada, A.M. No. 00-1-4-03-SC, June 29,
2001, the Supreme Court denied In Bantay Republic Act No. 7941 (BA-
petitioners’ requestto televise and RA) v. Comelec, G.R. No. 177271,
broadcast live the trial of president May4,2007, the Court declared that the
Joseph Estrada before the Sandiganbayan. Comelec has the constitutional duty to
The Supreme Court said that when the disclose and release the names of the
constitutional guarantees of freedom of nominees of the party-list groups. The
the press and the right to public right to information is a public right,
information, on the one hand, and the where the real parties in interest are the
fundamental rights of the accused, on the public, or the citizens, to be precise. The
other hand, along with the constitutional right to information and its companion
power of a court to control its right of access to official records, like all
proceedings in ensuring a fair and constitutional guarantees, are not
impartial trial race against another, absolute. The people’s right to know is
jurisprudence tells us that the right of the limited to “matters of public concern” and
accused must be preferred to win. With is further subject to such limitation as
the possibility of losing not only the may be provided by law. Similarly, the
precious liberty but also the very life of an policy of public disclosure in Sec. 28, Art.II,
accused, it behoves aJI to make absolutely is confined to transactions involving
certain that an accused receives a verdict “public interest” and is subject to
solely on the basis of a just and reasonable conditions prescribed by law.
dispassionate judgment, a verdict that As may be noted, however, no national
would come only after the presentation of security or like concerns is involved in the
credible evidence testified to by unbiased disclosure of the names of the nominees
witnesses unswayed by any kind of of the party-list groups in question.
pressure, whether open or subtle, in
proceedings that are devoid of histrionics In Hilado v. Reyes, G.R. no. 163155, July
that might detract from its basic aim to 21, 2006, where petitioners, who had
ferret veritable facts free from improper filed an action for damages against the
influence, and decreed by a judge with an decedent during his lifetime and whose
unprejudiced mind unbridled by running claims for damages were included in the
emotions or passions. inventory of liabilities in the proceedings
for the settlement of the estate, sought to
In its resolution on the motion for see the court records and obtain true
reconsideration (September 13, 2001), copies of the inventory of the assets of the
the Court ordered the audio-visual deceased but was denied by the probate
recording of the trial for documentary court, the Supreme Court granted access
purposes, not for live or real time to the information sought. The Court held

Page | 48
MENDIOLA, MANILA
that unlike court orders and decisions, 1. The suspension of the privilege of
pleadings and other documents filed by the writ of habeas corpus must not
parties to a case need not be matters of exceed 60 days. Where the
public concern or interest, and that access invasion or rebellion still persists
to public records may be restricted on a after the lapse of 60 days,
showing of good cause. In the case at bar, Congress, may extend the period
given the rights of the parties based on upon initiative of the President.
relevant factors, including the nature of The period of extension is to be
the controversy and the privacy interests determined by Congress;
involved vis-avis the right to information, 2. Congress may revoke the
the purpose of petitioners to monitor the suspension made by the President
compliance with the rules governing the by at least a vote of the majority of
preservation and proper disposition of the members of Congress, voting
the assets of the estate is legitimate. jointly, which revocation may not
be set aside by the President;
3. The suspension of the privilege of
the writ is subject to judicial
ALBA-NOTES review upon petition of any
citizen;
4. The suspension of the privilege of
HABEAS CORPUS the writ shall apply only to
persons judicially charged for
Q: State the constitutional provision rebellion or offenses inherent in or
pertaining to the suspension of the directly connected with invasions
writ of habeas corpus. and not if a person is arbitrarily
detained;
ANS - The privilege of the writ of habeas 5. Persons detained or arrested
corpus shall not be suspended except in during the suspension of the
cases of invasion or rebellion when public privilege of the writ shall be
safety requires it. (sec 15 article 3 1987 judicially charged within 3 days,
constitution) otherwise, they will be released
(Sec. 18, Article VII)
Q: State the limitations on the

suspension of the writ of habeas Q: Is the suspension of the privilege of
corpus. the writ of habeas corpus a political or
justiciable controversy? Why?
ANS - The following are the limitations on
the power to suspend the writ of habeas ANS - It is a justiciable controversy. The
corpus: constitution authorizes the courts to
Page | 49
MENDIOLA, MANILA
review on the basis of an appropriate member. Despite the Department of

action, the factual basis for the Justice’s advice, Morato ignored it.
suspension of the privilege of the writ of Hence this petition. Decide.
habeas corpus.
ANS - The refusal to allow the petitioner
to examine the records of MTRCB, as well
Q: Is the right to bail suspended if the as the individual voting slips is violative
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus of Sec. 7, Article III of the Constitution
is suspended? which provides for the right of the people
ANS - No, even when the writ of habeas to information on matters of public
corpus is suspended, the right to bail is concerns.
available, except those charged with
security offenses. As has been held in Legaspi vs. Csc this
constitutional provision is self executing
and supplies the rules by means of which
Q: If a persons is arrested, within what the right to information may be enjoyed
period should he be charged? If not, guaranteeing the right and mandating the
what is the effect? duty to afford access to sources of
information.
ANS - The person is arrested should be
charged in court within 3 days otherwise,
he should be released. Q: Petitioner Ramon C. Gonzales filed a
petition for mandamus to compel
executive secretary Zamora to answer
RIGHT TO INFORMATION his letter requesting for the names of
the executive officials holding multiple
Q: Petitioner, a member of the MTRCB, positions in government, copies of
wrote the records officer requesting their appointments and a list of the
that she be allowed to examine the recipients of luxury vehicles seized by
Board’s records pertaining to the the Bureau of Customs turned over to
voting slips of individual members Malacañang. He invoked the right to
after a review of the movies and information enshrined in Sec. 7 of the
television productions. The records Bill of Rights. Is the petitioner entitled
officer was asked to seek clearance to the Writ? Why?
from the chairman, manoling morato.
The request was denied, contending ANS - Yes, becaue of the right to
that the individual voting slips partake information on matters of public concern.
of the nature of conscience votes, Sec7 of the Bill of rights provides that the
hence, are the private and personal right of the people to information on
and exclusive property of each public matters shall be recognized.
Page | 50
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Access to official records and to information , on

documents and papers pertaining to intergovernmental exchanges
official acts, transactions, or decisions as prior to the conclusion of treaties
well as to government research date used and other executive agreements;
as basis for policy development, shall be 2. Trade secrets and other banking
afforded the citizen, subject to such transactions pursuant to
limitations as may be provided by law. intellectual property code and the
secrecy of bank deposits act
3. Criminal matters or classified law
Q: Explain the nature and concept of enforcement matters
the right to information 4. Other confidential matters.
ANS - This is a self-executory provision Ethical standards act prohibits
which can be invoked by any citizen public officials and employees
before the courts. The court classified the from using or divulging
right to information as a public right. confidential or classified
However the congress may provide for information officially known to
reasonable conditions upon the access to them by reason of their office and
information. Such limitations are not made available to public.
embodied in the code of conduct and (Chavez vs. pcgg)
ethical standards of public officials and
employees.
Q: Petitioner filed a petition to compel
The incorporation of this right in the respondent and private respondent to
Constitution is recognition of the disclose information regarding the
fundamental role of free exchange of ongoing negotiations for the
information in a democracy. There can be reclamation of submerged areas
no realistic perception by the public of the surrounding the Freedom Islands. Is
nation’s problems, nor a meaningful the action proper? Why?
democratic decision making if they are
denied access to information of general ANS - No evaluation or review of bids or
interest. proposals is not accessible under the right
of information. Once official
recommendation is made, there arises
Q: What are the recognized limitation definite proposition on the part of the
on the right to information? government. From this moment the right
to information attaches. The contract
1. National Security Matters- these need not be consummated for the
include state secrets regarding exercise of the right to information.
military, diplomatic and other
national security concerns; and
Page | 51
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Q: May the ombudsman order an in informed. Is the contention correct?

camera inspection of an account as an Why?
exception to the law on secrecy of bank No the contention is not correct. The
deposits? right to information on matters of public
concern is not absolute. It is limited to
ANS - No. Such an in camera inspection matters of public concern and subject to
can only be allowed if there is a pending such limitations as may be provided by
case before the court of competent law. There is a need to preserve a
jurisdiction. It must be clearly identified, measure of confidentiality on matters
the inspection limited to the subject such as national security, trade secrets,
matter of the pending case before the banking transactions, criminal and
court. The bank personnel and the confidential matters. For this purpose,
account holder must be notified to be the CPA board examination is a matter of
present during the inspection, and such public concern (Antolin v. Domondon gr
inspection may cover only the account 165036, july 5, 2010)
identified in pending case (Lourdes
Marquez vsDesierto)
Q: A person took CPA Examination but

failed. Convinced that she passed the
examination she wrote the chairman of
the board of accountancy and
requested that her answer sheets be
re-corrected. It was denied hence she
filed a petition for mandamus for the
rechecking of her examination. Is the
contention correct? Why?
ANS - No any claim for re-correction or

reversion of her examination cannot be
compelled by mandamus. It was said that
for a writ of mandamus to issue, the
applicant must have a well-defined, clear
and certain legal right to the thing
demanded.
She contended that she may compel

access to the examination documents thru
mandamus, invoking her right to be
Page | 52

Sec 7 Right To Information - 10 - 25

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sec 7 Right To Information - 10 - 25

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sec 7 Right To Information - 10 - 25

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017

prosecution of the accused [Chavez v. PEA

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

upon the access to be afforded thereof, the duty to disclose the

DOCTRINE: For every right of the people recognized

What may be provided for by the THE DUTY TO REGULATE INSPECTION

EXEMPTIONS OF THE (b) not being exempted by law from the

the process, We found occasion to discretion in refusing disclosure of, or

But the constitutional guarantee to ". . . the government is in an advantageous

The information sought by the petitioner civil service examinations, as in bar

envisioned under our DOCUMENTS OR TO DEMAND

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION DOES

Yes. The people’s right to information is performing proprietary functions, are

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

commercial character of the with the national government being

The defining concept underlying the

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

BJE IS MORE OF A STATE THAN AN of Philippine territory in a status which, in

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MOA-AD, an instrument recognizing

Certainly, a consummated contract is not officialdom to give information even if

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

concern is recognition of the implementing rules a veritable vacuum.

subject to such limitation as may be the 10 year-old daughter of his common-

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

On March 2, 1998, petitioner filed a in consultation with the Department of

As to the second paragraph of section 19,

Q: Four groups of information which may  Closed door Cabinet meetings

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

(4) Other Confidential Information. The Case

(2) to "[c]ompel respondent[s] to make

Petitioner, invoking his constitutional First Substantive Issue:

enforcement would be seriously concern there is no rigid test which can be

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

With such pronouncements of our that may be arrived at concerning the

There is a need, of course, to observe the

The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court deliberations are

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

government to disclose those Senate Committee on Accountability of

the rule extends to documents and order is made public,

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

preserved. The privilege in general judicial duties. [emphasis

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

covered by the prohibitions and in public or official books or records may

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

entries made therein could be grounded During the impeachment proceedings

(2) Deliberative (or disclosure of the

Thus, every proposed waiver must be

of internal deliberations, and similar notes, drafts, research papers, internal

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Q: State the limitations on the

review on the basis of an appropriate member. Despite the Department of

Access to official records and to information , on

Q: May the ombudsman order an in informed. Is the contention correct?

Q: A person took CPA Examination but