P Ol I T Ic A L L Aw
P Ol I T Ic A L L Aw
119
u s t l aw l aw r e v i e w, v ol lv i i , n o . 1 , n o v e m be r 2 0 1 2
recent jurisprudence
120
that the right to information goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional polic
ies
of full public disclosure and honesty in the public service. It is meant to en
hance
the widening role of the citizenry in governmental decision-making as well
as in
checking abuse in government. The importance of the said right was pragm
atically
explicated that the incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recog
nition
of the fundamental role of free exchange of information in a democracy. Th
ere
can be no realistic perception by the public of the nations problems, nor a
meaningful democratic decision-making if they are denied access to inform
ation
of general interest. Information is needed to enable the members of societ
y to
cope with the exigencies of the times. However, restrictions on access to ce
rtain
records may be imposed by law.
Thus, while public concern like public interest eludes exact defini
tion
and has been said to embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the publi
c may
want to know, either because such matters directly affect their lives, or sim
ply
because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen, t
he
Constitution itself, under Section 17, Article XI, has classified the informati
on
disclosed in the SALN as a matter of public concern and interest. In other
words,
a duty to disclose sprang from the right to know. Both of constitution
al
origin, the former is a command while the latter is a permission. Hence, th
ere is
a duty on the part of members of the government to disclose their SALNs t
o the
public in the manner provided by law.
In the case at bar, the Court notes the valid concerns of the other
magistrates regarding the possible illicit motives of some individuals in th
eir
requests for access to such personal information and their publication. Ho
wever,
custodians of public documents must not concern themselves with the moti
ves,
reasons and objects of the persons seeking access to the records. The mor
al
or material injury which their misuse might inflict on others is the requesto
rs
responsibility and lookout. While public officers in the custody or control of
public records have the discretion to regulate the manner in which records
may
be inspected, examined or copied by interested persons, such discretion do
es not
carry with it the authority to prohibit access, inspection, examination, or co
pying
of the records. After all, public office is a public trust.
u s t l aw l aw r e v i e w, v ol lv i i , n o . 1 , n o v e m be r 2 0 1 2