Baldoza v. Dimaano (AM No.

1120-MJ, 5 May 1976) Facts: The Municipal Secretary of Taal, Batangas, Dominador Baldoza, charged Municipal Judge Rodolfo Dimaano of the same municipality with abuse of authority in refusing to allow employees of the Municipal Mayor to examine the criminal docket records of the Municipal Court to secure data in connection with their contemplated report on the peace and order conditions of the said municipality. The case was referred to Judge Francisco Mat. Riodique for investigation and report. At the preliminary hearing, Taal Mayor Corazon Caniza filed a motion to dismiss the complaint to preserve harmony and cooperation among officers in the same municipality. The motion was denied by the Investigating Judge, but after formal investigation, he recommended exoneration of the respondent Judge. Issue: W/N Judge Dimaano acted arbitrarily in refusing to allow employees of the Municipal Mayor to examine the criminal docket records of the Municipal Court. Ruling: NO. As found by the Investigating Judge, the respondent allowed the complainant to open and view the docket books, under certain conditions and under his control and supervision. It has not been shown that the rules and conditions imposed by the respondent Judge were unreasonable. Case against Judge Dimaano dismissed. The access to public records is predicated on the right of the people to acquire information on matters of public concern. Undoubtedly in a democracy, the public has a legitimate interest in matters of social and political significance. People ex rel. Guarantee & T. Co. v. Railly: While the Register of Deeds has discretion to exercise as to the manner in which persons desiring to inspect, examine, or copy the records in his office may exercise their rights, such power does not carry with it authority to prohibit. Except, perhaps, when it is clear that the purpose of the examination is unlawful, or sheer, idle curiosity, the Court does not believe it is the duty under the law of registration officers to concern themselves with the motives, reasons, and objects of the person seeking access to the records. It is not their prerogative to see that the information which the records contain is not flaunted before public gaze, or that scandal is not made of it. If it be wrong to publish the contents of the records, it is the legislature and not the officials having custody thereof which is called upon to devise a remedy. As to the moral or material injury which the publication might inflict on other parties, that is the publishers responsibility and lookout. The publication is made subject to the consequences of the law. The New Constitution now expressly recognizes that the people are entitled to information on matters of public concern and thus are expressly granted access to official records, as well as documents of official acts, or transactions, or decisions, subject to such limitations imposed by law. The incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental role of free exchange of information in a democracy. There can be no realistic perception by the public of the nations problems, nor a meaningful democratic decision making if they are denied access to information of general interest. Information is needed to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of the times. Maintaining the flow of such information depends on protection for both its acquisition and its dissemination since, if either process is interrupted, the flow inevitably ceases. However, restrictions on access to certain records may be imposed by law. Thus, access restrictions imposed to control civil insurrection have been permitted upon a showing of immediate and impending danger that renders ordinary means of control inadequate to maintain order. 22. Valmonte v. Belmonte (GR No. 74930, 13 February 1989) Facts: Ricardo Valmonte, a lawyer, member of the media, and citizen of the Republic of the Philippines, wrote to Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. in his capacity as the GSIS General Manager, with the request that he be furnished a copy of the names of the opposition members of the Batasang Pambansa who were able to secure a clean loan of P2,000,000.00 each on guaranty of Mrs. Imelda Marcos. He based his request on the provision of the Freedom Constitution which referred to the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. Meynardo Tiro, the Deputy General Counsel of GSIS, replied in behalf of Belmonte and told Valmonte that his request could not be granted because a confidential relationship existed between the GSIS and all those who borrow from it, and that the GSIS has a duty to its customers to preserve that confidentiality. He added that it would not be proper for GSIS to breach such confidentiality unless ordered by the courts. Valmonte, along with other media practitioners, petitioned the Supreme Court formandamus. Issue: W/N the documents evidencing loan transactions of the GSIS should be deemed outside the ambit of the right to information, in view of the right to privacy which is protected by the Constitution.

Ruling: NO. The right to privacy belongs to the individual in his private capacity, and not to public and governmental agencies like the GSIS. The right cannot be invoked by juridical entities like the GSIS. 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. Neither can the GSIS through its General Manager(Belmonte) invoke the right to privacy of its borrowers. The right is purely personal in nature, and hence may be invoked only by the person whose privacy is claimed to be violated. But in this case, however, 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. Issue: W/N the documents are covered by the constitutional right to information on matters of public concern, which guarantees access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions. Ruling: YES. 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 that government-owned and controlled corporations, whether performing proprietary or governmental functions are accountable to the people, the transactions entered into by the GSIS, a GOCC created by special legislation, are within the ambit of the peoples right to be informed pursuant to the constitutional policy of transparency in government dealings. Issue:W/N Valmonte is entitled to the documents sought by virtue of his constitutional right to information. Ruling: YES. 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. 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, the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of1977 provides 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, 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. Furthermore, the supposed borrowers were members of the defunct Batansang 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 all its transactions were above board. Moreover, petitioners are practitioners in media. As such, they have both the right to gather and the obligation to check the accuracy of information they disseminate. For them, the freedom of the press and of 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 governments 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. It is in the interest of the State that the channels for free political discussion be maintained to the end that the government may perceive and be responsive to the peoples will. Yet, this open dialogue can be effective only to the extent that the citizenry is informed and thus able to formulate its will intelligently. Only when the participants in the discussion are aware of the issues and have access to information relating thereto can such bear fruit. THUS, the Supreme Court rules as such: Petitioners are entitled to access the documents evidencing loans granted by the GSIS, subject to reasonable regulations that the latter may promulgate relating to the manner and hours of examination, to the end that damage to or loss of the records may be avoided, that undue interference with the duties of the custodian of the records may be prevented and that the right of other persons entitled to inspect the records may be insured. However, the request of the petitioners to compel Belmonte to furnish the former the list of the names of the Batasang Pambansa members belonging to the UNIDO and PDP-Laban who were able to secure clean loans before the 7 February election through the intercession/marginal note of the then First Lady Imelda Marcos. Although citizens are afforded the right to information and, pursuant thereto, are entitled to access to official records, the Constitution does not

accord them a right to compel custodians of official records to preparelists, abstracts, summaries, and the like in their desire to acquire information on matters of public concern. An informed citizenry with access to the diverse currents in political, moral and artistic thought and date relative to them, and the free exchange of ideas and discussion of issues thereon, is vital to the democratic government envisioned under our Constitution. The cornerstone of this republican system of government is delegation of power by the people to the State. In this system, governmental agencies and institutions operate within the limits of the authority conferred by the people. Denied access to information on the inner workings of government, the citizenry can become prey to the whims and caprices of those to whom the power had been delegated. The postulate of a public office as a public trust, institutionalized in the Constitution to protect the people from abuse of governmental power, would certainly be empty words if access to such information of public concern is denied, except under limitations prescribed by implementing legislation adopted pursuant to the Constitution. The right to information is an essential premise of a meaningful right to speech and expression. But this is not to say that the right to information is merely an adjunct of and therefore restricted in application by the exercise of the freedoms of speech and of the press. Far from it. 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 constitutional guarantees, the right to information is not absolute. The peoples right to information is limited to matters of public concern and is further subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. Similarly, the States policy of full disclosure is limited to transactions involving public interest, and is subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law. Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission: 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 on a case by case basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it relates to or affects the public. The constituent-ministrant dichotomy characterizing government function has long been repudiated. The Government whether carrying out its sovereign attributes or running some business, discharges the same function of service to the people.

24. Chavez v. PCGG (GR No. 130716, 9 December 1998) Facts: Francisco Chavez, invoking his constitutional right to information and the correlative duty of the state to disclose publicly all its transactions involving national interest, demands that the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) be required to make public any and all negotiations and agreements pertaining to PCGGs task of recovering the Marcoss ill-gotten wealth. He claims that any compromise on the alleged billions of ill-gotten wealth involves an issue of paramount public interest since it has a debilitating effect on the countrys economy that would be greatly prejudicial to the national interest of the Filipino people. Hence, the people in general have a right to know the transactions or deals being contrived and effected by the government. Issue: W/N the Supreme Court could require the PCGG to disclose to the public the details of any agreement, perfected or not, with the Marcoses, regarding their ill-gotten wealth. Ruling: YES. It is incumbent upon the PCGG and its officers, as well as other government representatives, to disclose sufficient public information on any proposed settlement they have decided to take up with the ostensible owners and holders of ill-gotten wealth. Such information, though, must pertain to definite propositions of the government, not necessarily to intra-agency or inter-agency communications during the stage when common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the exploratory stage. There is a need, of course, to observe the same restrictions on disclosure of information in general, such as on matters involving national security, diplomatic or foreign relations, intelligence and other classified information. There is no doubt that the recovery of the Marcoses ill-gotten wealth is a matter of public concern and imbued with public interest. Ill-gotten wealth, by its very nature, assumes a public character. Based on

Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, and 14, ill-gotten wealth refers to assets and properties purportedly acquired, directly or indirectly, by former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives and close associates through or as a result of their improper or illegal use of government funds or properties; or their having taken undue advantage of their public office; or their use of powers, influences or relationships, resulting in their unjust enrichment and causing grave damage and prejudice to the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines. Clearly, the assets and properties referred to supposedly originated from the government itself. To all intents and purposes, therefore, they belong to the people. As such, upon reconveyance they will be returned to the public treasury, subject only to the satisfaction of positive claims of certain persons as may be adjudged by competent courts. Another declared overriding consideration for the expeditious recovery of ill-gotten wealth is that it may be used for national economic recovery. Agreements entered into by the PCGG with the Marcoses declared null and void for being contrary to law and the Constitution. PCGG directed to disclose to the public the terms of any proposed compromise settlement, aswell as the final agreement, relating to such alleged ill-gotten wealth. Access to public documents and records is a public right, and the real parties in interest are the people themselves. The information and the transactions referred to in Sections 7 and 28 of Article III of the 1987 Constitutions have as yet no defined scope and extent. There are no specific laws prescribing the exact limitations within which the right may be exercised or the correlative state duty may be obliged. However, the following are some of the recognized restrictions: (1) national security matters and intelligence information; (2) trade secrets and banking transactions; (3) criminal matters; and (4) other confidential information. O National security matters: There is a governmental privilege against public disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding military, diplomatic, and other national security matters. But where there is no need to protect such state secrets, the privilege may not be invoked to withhold documents and other information, provided they are examined in strict confidence and given scrupulousprotection. Likewise, information on inter-government exchanges prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements may be subject to reasonable safeguards for the sake of national interest. O Trade secrets and banking transactions: Trade or industrial secrets are exempted from compulsory disclosure pursuant to the Intellectual Property Code and other related laws, while banking transactions are exempted by the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act. O Criminal matters: Also excluded are classified law enforcement matters, such as those relating to the apprehension, the prosecution and the detention of criminals, which courts may not inquire into prior to such arrest, detention, and prosecution. Efforts at effective law enforcement would be seriously jeopardized by free public access to, for example, police information regarding rescue operations, the whereabouts of fugitives, or leads on covert criminal activities. O Other confidential information: The Ethical Standards Act prohibits officials and employees from using or divulging confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public. Other acknowledged limitations to information access include diplomatic correspondence, closed door Cabinet meetings and executive sessions of either house of Congress, as well as the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court. O 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 on a case by case basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it relates to or affects the public.

EN BANC [G.R. No. 92024. November 9, 1990.] CONGRESSMAN ENRIQUE T. GARCIA vs. THE BOARD OF INVESTMENTS Facts: This is a petition to annul and set aside the decision of the Board of Investments (BOI)/Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) approving the transfer of the site of the proposed petrochemical plant from Bataan to Batangas and the shift of feedstock for that plant from naphtha only to naphtha and/or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). The Bataan Refining Corporation (BRC) is

a wholly government owned corporation, located at Bataan. It produces 60% of the national output of naphtha. Taiwanese investors in a petrochemical project formed the Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC) and applied with BOI for registration as a new domestic producer of petrochemicals. Its application specified Bataan as the plant site. One of the terms and conditions for registration of the project was the use of naphtha cracker" and "naphtha" as feedstock or fuel for its petrochemical plant. The petrochemical plant was to be a joint venture with PNOC. However, in February, 1989, A.T. Chong, chairman of USI Far East Corporation, the major investor in BPC, personally delivered to Trade Secretary Jose Concepcion a letter dated January25, 1989 advising him of BPC's desire to amend the original registration certification of its project by changing the job site from Limay, Bataan, to Batangas. The reason adduced for the transfer was the insurgency and unstable labor situation, and the presence in Batangas of a huge liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) depot owned by the Philippine Shell Corporation. Issue: Whether the case presents a justiciable controversy. Held: Yes and the petition is granted. First, Bataan was the original choice as the plant site of the BOI to which the BPC agreed. That is why it organized itself into a corporation bearing the name Bataan. There is available 576 hectares of public land precisely reserved as the petrochemical zone in Limay, Bataan under P.D. No.1803. There is no need to buy expensive real estate for the site unlike in the proposed transfer to Batangas. The site is the result of careful study long before any covetous interests intruded into the choice. The site is ideal. It is not unduly constricted and allows for expansion. The respondents have not shown nor reiterated that the alleged peace and order situation in Bataan or unstable labor situation warrant a transfer of the plant site to Batangas. Certainly, these were taken into account when the firm named itself Bataan Petrochemical Corporation. In the light of all the clear advantages manifest in the plants remaining in Bataan, practically nothing is shown to justify the transfer to Batangas except a near-absolute discretion given by BOI to investors not only to freely choose the site but to transfer it from their own first choice for reasons which remain murky to say the least. And this brings us to a prime consideration which the Court cannot rightly ignore. Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution provides that: Xxx "The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices." The Court, therefore, holds and finds that the BOI committed a grave abuse of discretion in approving the transfer of the petrochemical plant from Bataan to Batangas and authorizing the change of feedstock from naphtha only to naphtha and/or LPG for the main reason that the final say is in the investor all other circumstances to the contrary notwithstanding. No cogent advantage to the government has been shown by this transfer. This is a repudiation of the independent policy of the government expressed in numerous laws and the Constitution to run its own affairs the way it deems best for the national interest. SUBIDO V. OZAETA 80 PHIL 383 FACTS: Petitioner was the editor of the Manila Post, who sought the inspection of real estates sold to aliens and registered with the RD. He was denied to do so which prompted him to file a petition for mandamus. HELD: Except when it is clear that the purpose of the inspection is unlawful, it is not the duty of the registrationofficers to concern themselves with the motives, purposes, and objects of the person seeking to inspect the records. It is not their prerogative to see that the information which the records contain is not flaunted before the public gaze.