Scribd
Upload
74 views2 pages

Case of Valentin Legaspi

Legaspi filed a petition for mandamus against the Civil Service Commission to access their register of eligibles to verify the civil service eligibility of two individuals appointed as sanitarian positions. The Supreme Court ruled that access to official records is a constitutional right of the people on matters of public concern, subject to lawful limitations, and ordered the CSC to provide Legaspi the requested information to confirm the eligibility of the two appointees.

Uploaded by

Mariell Pahinag
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
74 views2 pages

Case of Valentin Legaspi

Legaspi filed a petition for mandamus against the Civil Service Commission to access their register of eligibles to verify the civil service eligibility of two individuals appointed as sanitarian positions. The Supreme Court ruled that access to official records is a constitutional right of the people on matters of public concern, subject to lawful limitations, and ordered the CSC to provide Legaspi the requested information to confirm the eligibility of the two appointees.

Uploaded by

Mariell Pahinag
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

L-72119 May 29, 1987

VALENTIN L. LEGASPI, petitioner,


vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, resp

CORTES, J.:

 The fundamental right of the people to information on matters of public concern is


invoked in this special civil action for mandamus instituted by petitioner Valentin L.
Legaspi against the Civil Service Commission.
 this time to demand access to the records of the Register of Deeds for the purpose of
gathering data on real estate transactions involving aliens (Subido vs. Ozaeta, 80 Phil.
383 [1948]).
 The constitutional right to information on matters of public concern first gained
recognition in the Bill of Rights, Article IV, of the 1973 Constitution, which states:

 Sec. 6. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, shall be afforded the citizen subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.
 n Article III, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution with the addition of the phrase, "as well as
to government research data used as basis for policy development." The new provision
reads:
 The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used
as basis. for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
stations as may be provided by law.
 1. To be given due course, a Petition for mandamus must have been instituted by a
party aggrieved by the alleged inaction of any tribunal, corporation, board or person
which unlawfully excludes said party from the enjoyment of a legal right. (Ant;-Chinese
League of the Philippines vs. Felix, 77 Phil. 1012 [1947]). The petitioner in every case
must therefore be an "aggrieved party" in the sense that he possesses a clear legal right
to be enforced and a direct interest in the duty or act to be performed.
 But what is clear upon the face of the Petition is that the petitioner has firmly anchored
his case upon the right of the people to information on matters of public concern,
which, by its very nature, is a public right. It has been held that:
 The petitioner is still part of the “public”
 2. For every right of the people recognized as fundamental, there lies a corresponding
duty on the part of those who govern, to respect and protect that right. That is the very
essence of the Bill of Rights in a constitutional regime. Only governments operating
under fundamental rules defining the limits of their power so as to shield individual
rights against its arbitrary exercise can properly claim to be constitutional (Cooley,
supra, at p. 5). Without a government's acceptance of the limitations imposed upon it
by the Constitution in order to uphold individual liberties, without an acknowledgment
on its part of those duties exacted by the rights pertaining to the citizens, the Bill of
Rights becomes a sophistry, and liberty, the ultimate illusion.
 Article 11, Section 28 thereof, to wit: Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by
law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest. (Art. 11, Sec. 28)
 3. 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 (Baldoza v. Dimaano, Adm. Matter No. 1120-MJ, May 5,
1976, 17 SCRA 14). In the same way that free discussion enables members of society to
cope with10/8/2020 the exigencies of their time (Thornhill vs. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88,102
[1939]), access to information of general interest aids the people in democratic
decision-making (87 Harvard Law Review 1505 [1974]) by giving them a better
perspective of the vital issues confronting the nation.
 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" (Art. III, Sec. 7, second sentence).

 The information sought by the petitioner in this case is the truth of the claim of
certain government employees that they are civil service eligibles for the positions to
which they were appointed. The Constitution expressly declares as a State policy that:

 WHEREFORE, the Civil Service Commission is ordered to open its register of eligibles
for the position of sanitarian, and to confirm or deny, the civil service eligibility of
Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas, for said position in the Health Department of
Cebu City, as requested by the petitioner Valentin L. Legaspi.

You might also like