LEGASPI v CSC

KEY TAKE-AWAY: Valentin Legaspi requested from the Civil Service Commission info regarding the civil service eligibilities of
certain government sanitarians. The CSC refused to divulge the information, thus Legaspi filed a case for mandamus. The people have
the right to information on matters of public concern, and access to official records shall be allowed to citizens as may be provided by
law. It is a self-executing provision. The right to information is a public right and every citizen is entitled thereto. Civil service
eligibility is a matter of public concern; there is nothing secret about it. Limitations upon the right to access information are
discretionary upon the Legislature, not the agency in question. Administrative agencies may only regulate, but may not prohibit
access, unless otherwise authorized by law.

The fundamental right of the people to information on matters of public concern is invoked by petitioner Valentin L. Legaspi in this
case against the Civil Service Commission. The respondent had earlier denied Legaspi's request for information on the civil service
eligibilities of certain persons employed as sanitarians in the Health Department of Cebu City. These government employees, Julian
Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas, had allegedly represented themselves as civil service eligibles who passed the civil service
examinations for sanitarians. Claiming that his right to be informed of the eligibilities of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas, is
guaranteed by the Constitution, and that he has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy to acquire the information, petitioner
prays for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel the respondent Commission to disclose said information. The
pertinent provision is Art III, Sec. 7.

The Solicitor General interposes procedural objections to Our giving due course to this Petition. He challenges the petitioner's
standing to sue upon the ground that the latter does not possess any clear legal right to be informed of the civil service eligibilities of
the government employees concerned. He calls attention to the alleged failure of the petitioner to show his actual interest in securing
this particular information. He further argues that there is no ministerial duty on the part of the Commission to furnish the petitioner
with the information he seeks.

ISSUE: W/N Legaspi has the right to access government records to validate the civil service eligibilities of the Health Department
employees

HELD: YES.
Government agencies are without discretion in refusing disclosure of, or access to, information of public concern. This is not to lose
sight of the reasonable regulations which may be imposed by said agencies in custody of public records on the manner in which the
right to information may be exercised by the public. Thus, while the manner of examining public records may be subject to reasonable
regulation by the government agency in custody thereof, the duty to disclose the information of public concern, and to afford access to
public records cannot be discretionary on the part of said agencies. Certainly, its performance cannot be made contingent upon the
discretion of such agencies. Otherwise, the enjoyment of the constitutional right may be rendered nugatory by any whimsical exercise
of agency discretion. The incorporation in the Constitution of a guarantee of access to information of public concern is a recognition
of the essentiality of the free flow of ideas and information in a democracy. But the constitutional guarantee to information on matters
of public concern is not absolute. It does not open every 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."

In case of denial of access, the government agency has the burden of showing that the information requested is not of public concern,
or, if it is of public concern, that the same has been exempted by law from the operation of the guarantee. To hold otherwise will serve
to dilute the constitutional right.

In the instant, case while refusing to confirm or deny the claims of eligibility, the respondent has failed to cite any provision in the
Civil Service Law which would limit the petitioner's right to know who are, and who are not, civil service eligibles. We take judicial
notice of the fact that the names of those who pass the civil service examinations, as in bar examinations and licensure examinations
for various professions, are released to the public. Hence, there is nothing secret about one's civil service eligibility, if actually
possessed. Petitioner's request is, therefore, neither unusual nor unreasonable. And when, as in this case, the government employees
concerned claim to be civil service eligibles, the public, through any citizen, has a right to verify their professed eligibilities from the
Civil Service Commission.

The civil service eligibility of a sanitarian being of public concern, and in the absence of express limitations under the law upon access
to the register of civil service eligibles for said position, the duty of the respondent Commission to confirm or deny the civil service
eligibility of any person occupying the position becomes imperative. Mandamus, therefore lies.
**when the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people
are regarded as the real party in interest and the relator at whose instigation the proceedings are instituted need not show that he has
any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution of the
laws * * * (Tanada et. al. vs. Tuvera, et. al)

In determining whether or not a particular information is of public concern there is no rigid test which can be applied. "Public
concern" like "public interest" is a term that eludes exact definition. Both terms embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public
may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an
ordinary citizen. In the final analysis, it is for the courts to determine in a case by case basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or
importance, as it relates to or affects the public.

Valmonte v Belmonte

KEY TAKE-AWAY: Valmonte was a member of the press who requested from the GSIS a list of people have been able to avail loans
through the intervention of Imelda Marcos. The GSIS refused to prepare the list and denied them access thereto invoking right to
privacy and privileged confidentiality. There is no such law granting the GSIS confidentiality with regard to its documents. Likewise,
corporations such as the GSIS have no right to privacy. Further, the funds of the GSIS assume a public character. It is a matter of
public interest; information pertaining thereto cannot be denied unless provided by law. The petitioners are thus entitled to access
official records. However, the right to information does not confer upon the citizens the right to compel agencies to prepare lists,
summaries, or other such documents. Only access to the records is permitted. Otherwise, they would unduly burden the agencies with
the preparation of their requested lists or summaries.

Petitioners in this special civil action for mandamus with preliminary injunction invoke their right to information and pray that
respondent be directed:
(a) to furnish petitioners the list of the names of the Batasang Pambansa members belonging to the UNIDO and PDP-Laban who were
able to secure clean loans immediately before the February 7 election thru the intercession/marginal note of the then First Lady Imelda
Marcos; and/or
(b) to furnish petitioners with certified true copies of the documents evidencing their respective loans; and/or
(c) to allow petitioners access to the public records for the subject information.

The controversy arose when petitioner Ricardo Valmonte wrote respondent Feliciano Belmonte, GSIS General Manager, requesting
that the former be furnished with the list of names of the opposition members of the Batasang Pambansa who were able to secure a
clean loan of P2 million each on guaranty of Mrs. Imelda Marcos with the certified true copies of the documents evidencing their loan.
Petitioner premised his letter on the provision of the Freedom Constitution of the present regime stating the right to be informed on
matters of public concern.

Deputy General Counsel of Belmonte, Atty. Tiro, replied to the said letter stating that confidential relationship exists between the
GSIS and all those who borrow from it and that the GSIS has a duty to its customers to preserve this confidentiality. Apparently not
having yet received the reply of the GSIS Deputy General Counsel, petitioner Valmonte wrote respondent another letter stating that
they are free to do whatever action is necessary in pursuance of public interest. Valmonte, joined by the other petitioners, filed the
instant suit.

The Daily Express carried a news item reporting that 137 former members of the defunct interim and regular Batasang Pambansa,
including ten (10) opposition members, were granted housing loans by the GSIS.

Issue/s:
1. Whether or not petitioners are entitled to access to the documents evidencing loans granted by the GSIS
2. Whether or not confidential relationship exists between GSIS and its borrowers

HELD:
1. Yes

Petitioners are practitioners in media. As such, they have both the right to gather and the obligation to check the accuracy of
information the disseminate. For them, the freedom of the press and o speech is not only critical, but vital to the exercise of their
professions. The right of access to information ensures that these freedoms are not rendered nugatory by the government's
monopolizing pertinent information. For an essential element of these freedoms is to keep open a continuing dialogue or process of
communication between the government and the people.
The right to information is an essential premise of a meaningful right to speech and expression. The right to information goes hand-in-
hand with the constitutional policies of full public disclosure and honesty in the public service. It is meant to enhance the widening
role of the citizenry in governmental decision-making as well as in checking abuse in government.

Like all the constitutional guarantees, the right to information is not absolute. First, it must be clear that the information sought is of
"public interest" or "public concern. Second, information is not exempted by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee.

The GSIS is a trustee of contributions from the government and its employees and the administrator of various insurance programs for
the benefit of the latter. Undeniably, its funds assume a public character. More particularly, Secs. 5(b) and 46 of P.D. 1146, as amended
(the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977), provide for annual appropriations to pay the contributions, premiums,
interest and other amounts payable to GSIS by the government, as employer, as well as the obligations which the Republic of the
Philippines assumes or guarantees to pay. Considering the nature of its funds, the GSIS is expected to manage its resources with
utmost prudence and in strict compliance with the pertinent laws or rules and regulations.

Consequently, as respondent himself admits, the GSIS is not supposed to grant 'clean loans.' It is therefore the legitimate concern of
the public to ensure that these funds are managed properly with the end in view of maximizing the benefits that accrue to the insured
government employees. Moreover, the supposed borrowers were Members of the defunct Batasang Pambansa who themselves
appropriated funds for the GSIS and were therefore expected to be the first to see to it that the GSIS performed its tasks with the
greatest degree of fidelity and that its transactions were above board.

In sum, the public nature of the loanable funds of the GSIS and the public office held by the alleged borrowers make the information
sought clearly a matter of public interest and concern.

2. No
Respondent maintains that a confidential relationship exists between the GSIS and its borrowers. It is argued that a policy of
confidentiality restricts the indiscriminate dissemination of information.

Respondent, however, failed to cite any law granting the GSIS the privilege of confidentiality as regards the documents subject of this
petition. His position is apparently based merely on considerations of policy. The judiciary does not settle policy issues. The Court can
only declare what the law is, and not what the law should be. Under our system of government, policy issues are within the domain of
the political branches of the government, and of the people themselves as the repository of all State power.

There can be no doubt that right to privacy is constitutionally protected. When the information requested from the government
intrudes into the privacy of a citizen, a potential conflict between the rights to information and to privacy may arise. However, the
competing interests of these rights need not be resolved in this case. Apparent from the above-quoted statement of the Court in Morfe
is that the right to privacy belongs to the individual in his private capacity, and not to public and governmental agencies like the GSIS.
Moreover, the right cannot be invoked by juridical entities like the GSIS. As held in the case of Vassar College v. Loose Wills Biscuit
Co., a corporation has no right of privacy in its name since the entire basis of the right to privacy is an injury to the feelings and
sensibilities of the party and a corporation would have no such ground for relief.

The concerned borrowers themselves may not succeed if they choose to invoke their right to privacy, considering the public offices
they were holding at the time the loans were alleged to have been granted. It cannot be denied that because of the interest they
generate and their newsworthiness, public figures, most especially those holding responsible positions in government, enjoy a more
limited right to privacy as compared to ordinary individuals, their actions being subject to closer public scrutiny

Consequently, that the GSIS, in granting the loans, was exercising a proprietary function would not justify the exclusion of the
transactions from the coverage and scope of the right to information.

**Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution which, though not binding upon the Court, are nevertheless persuasive, and
considering further that governmentowned and controlled corporations, whether performing proprietary or governmental functions are
accountable to the people, the Court is convinced that transactions entered into by the GSIS, a governmentcontrolled corporation
created by special legislation are within the ambit of the people's right to be informed pursuant to the constitutional policy of
transparency in government dealings.
Sereno v Committee

Key Takeaway: The constitutional guarantee to information does not open every door to any and all information, but is rather confined
to matters of public concern. It is subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The States policy of full public disclosure is
restricted to transactions involving public interest, and is tempered by reasonable conditions prescribed by law.

On May 23, 2005, the CTRM, an office under the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), held a meeting in which it
resolved to recommend to President Gloria MacapagalArroyo the lifting of the suspension of the tariff reduction schedule on
petrochemicals and certain plastic products, thereby reducing the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) rates on products
covered by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 161 from 7% or 10% to 5% starting July 2005.

On June 9, 2005, Wilfredo A. Paras (Paras), then the Chairman of the Association of Petrochemical Manufacturers of the Philippines
(APMP), the main industry association in the petrochemical sector, wrote to the CTRM Secretariat, through its Director Brenda
Mendoza (Director Mendoza), to request a copy of the minutes of the meeting held on May 23, 2005.

Director Mendoza denied the request. The APMP sent another letterrequest to the CTRM through Director Mendoza reminding about
the legal implications of the refusal to furnish copies of the minutes as in violation of the petitioners Constitutional right of access to
information on matters of public concern. However, the CTRM continued to refuse access to the documents sought by the APMP

Meanwhile, President Arroyo signed Executive Order No. 486, dated January 12, 2006, to lift the suspension of the tariff reduction on
petrochemical resins and other plastic products under the ASEAN Free Trade Area Common Effective Preferential Tariff (AFTA-
CEPT) Scheme.

APMP filed with the RTC to compel the CTRM to provide the copy of the minutes and to grant access to the minutes. The RTC
declared that the "CTRM is an advisory body composed of various department heads or secretaries and is classified as cabinet
meetings and interagency communications;" and that the record of the communications of such body "falls under the category of
privileged information because of the sensitive subject matter which could seriously affect public interest."

ISSUE: W/N the minutes of the meeting held on May 23, 2005 in relation to EO 486 is exempt from the Constitutional right of access
to information? YES

HELD:
Two requisites must concur before the right to information may be compelled by writ of mandamus. Firstly, the information sought
must be in relation to matters of public concern or public interest. And, secondly, it must not be exempt by law from the operation of
the constitutional guarantee.

First Requisite - The recommendation, which would be effected through E.O. No. 486, not only brought significant losses to the
petrochemical industry that undermined the industrys longterm viability and survival, but also conflicted with official government
pronouncements, policy directives, and enactments designed to support and develop an integrated petrochemical industry. He has
claimed that the implementation of E.O. No. 486 effectively deprived the industry of tariff support and market share, thereby
jeopardizing large investments without due process of law.

The Philippine petrochemical industry centers on the manufacture of plastic and other related materials, and provides essential input
requirements for the agricultural and industrial sectors of the country. Thus, the position of the petrochemical industry as an essential
contributor to the overall growth of our countrys economy easily makes the information sought a matter of public concern or interest.

Second Requisite - the May 23, 2005 meeting was classified as a closeddoor Cabinet meeting by virtue of the committees
composition and the nature of its mandate dealing with matters of foreign affairs, trade and policymaking. It is always necessary, given
the highly important and complex powers to fix tariff rates vested in the President, that the recommendations submitted for the
Presidents consideration be wellthought out and welldeliberated. In Almonte v. Vasquez, the Court has stressed the need for
confidentiality and privacy, stating thusly: "A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of
shaping policies
and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately." Without doubt, therefore, ensuring
and promoting the free exchange of ideas among the members of the committee tasked to give tariff recommendations to the President
were truly imperative.
**In Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, we have said that executive privilege is properly invoked in relation to specific categories of
information, not to categories of persons. As such, the fact that some members of the committee were not part of the Presidents
Cabinet was of no moment. What should determine whether or not information was within the ambit of the exception from the
peoples right to access to information was not the composition of the body, but the nature of the information sought to be accessed

In case of conflict, there is a need to strike a balance between the right of the people and the interest of the Government to be
protected. Here, the need to ensure the protection of the privilege of nondisclosure is necessary to allow the free exchange of ideas
among Government officials as well as to guarantee the wellconsidered recommendation free from interference of the inquisitive
public.