THE PUBLICS RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Chapter Outline

Introduction
Concept of the Right
Rationale
History
Early History
The Right to Information and the United Nations
History and Development in the Philippines
The American Legacy: Right to Information as Statutory Right
Constitutionalizing the Right to Information
Expansion of the Constitutional Right to Information
Duty of the Government to Disclose Information of Public Concern
Right to Access of Government-Held Information
Right to Information as Self-executing Public Right
Right limited to information of Public Concern
Limitation on the Right to Access Government-Held Information
Procedural limitations
Substantive Limitation
Right to Information and the Right of Suffrage
Trends
Further Readings
Endnotes

An informed citizenry with access to the diverse currents in political, moral and artistic thought
and data 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 public office as a public trust, institutionalized in the Constitution
to protect the people from abuse of governmental power, would certainly be were empty words if
access to such information of public concern is denied, except under limitations prescribed by
implementing legislation adopted pursuant to the Constitution.- Valmonte v. Belmonte, 170 SCRA
256 at 264-265 (1989).

1
 INTRODUCTION

An open system of governance is an essential prerequisite for the fullest

blossoming of democracy. The free flow of information from the Government to the

people will not only create an enlightened and informed public opinion but also render

those in authority accountable.

The collective history of mankind has proven that democracy cannot work without

a transparent government that is accountable to the people. In the Philippines and

elsewhere, the lack of transparency in government dealings has been singled out as one of

the leading causes of corruption. The barrier to information is observed to facilitate

clandestine deals, arbitrary decisions, manipulations and embezzlements. Experience in

various countries around the word also point out that more often, the government lowers

the veil of secrecy in the guise of national security --- only to shield the guilty, protect

vested interests, or cover-up gross errors of judgments. Thus, in the past three decades,

the movement for recognition of the right of the public to information has been growing

exponentially. Under the auspices of the United Nations, a number of right to information

legislation dubbed as sunshine law, open records legislation or open meetings law

have been passed in around sixty five (65) countries1 and many more nations have

pending legislation2 to effectively enhance the public participation in governance and to

curb government corruption and excesses.

2
 In our jurisdiction, the right of the people to information on matters of public

concern is guaranteed by no less than the 1987 Constitution in section 7 of the Bill of

Rights, as follows:

Section 7.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
limitations as may be provided by law.

This constitutional guarantee is complemented by the policy of full public

disclosure of government transactions involving public interest,3 and several other pieces

of legislation calculated to enhance transparency and accountability in governance.4 At

present, Rep. Act No. 6713,5 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations provide the

basic framework for the scope and limitation of the citizens right to access government-

held information.

CONCEPT OF THE PUBLICS RIGHT TO INFORMATION

The right to information, also referred to as the right to know, is a public

right,6 which is self-executing.7 It is considered a fundamental human right8 and an

essential premise to a meaningful right of speech and expression.9 However, its

application is not limited to freedom of the press issues;10 the right to information covers

the broader ground concerning the constitutional policies on full public disclosure and

3
honesty in the public service as it is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry

in governmental decision-making as well as in checking abuse in government.11

The concept of the publics right to know encompasses both the right to receive

information and the right to seek information of public concern. The first aspect of the

publics right to know, i.e., the right to receive information is discussed more

elaborately in the Chapter dealing with press freedom. In this chapter, discussion on the

right to receive information centers on the correlative duty of the government to publish

relevant laws and issuances with general application; to warn the public concerning

environmental, security and health risks; and to preserve and document historical and

cultural events comprising our national heritage. This Chapter, thus, elucidates on the

second aspect of the right, i.e., the right to seek information of public concern through

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.

Like any other right, the right to information is not absolute; its application is

limited to matter of public concern or transactions involving public interest and not

to private transactions.12 Furthermore, its exercise may be further limited by law.13 The

details the restrictions are discussed and clarified in the succeeding sections.

4
 RATIONALE OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Culled from various jurisprudence, the publics right to know has three-fold

rationale: (1) the acknowledgment that an informed citizenry is a prerequisite to

meaningful participation in government;14 (2) the recognition that the free and general

discussion of public matters is essential to prepare the people for an intelligent exercise of

their rights a citizens;15 and (3) to hold public officials at all times accountable to the

people, for unless the citizens have the proper information, they cannot hold public

officials accountable for anything.16

The publics right to know hinges on the very essence of democracy and

republicanism that comprise the foundation of our constitutional government. Its

philosophical underpinnings can be derived from the Lockes social contract theory

which predicates the existence of government on the theory of consent and delegated

power, viz.:

Sect. 95. MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and
independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the
political power of another, without his own consent. The only way
whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the
bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into
a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst
another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security
against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it
injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty
of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to
make one community or government, they are thereby presently
incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right
to act and conclude the rest.

Sect. 96. For when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual,
made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a

5
 power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the
majority: for that which acts any community, being only the consent of the
individuals of it, and it being necessary to that which is one body to move one
way; it is necessary the body should move that way whither the greater force
carries it, which is the consent of the majority: or else it is impossible it should
act or continue one body, one community, which the consent of every individual
that united into it, agreed that it should; and so every one is bound by that
consent to be concluded by the majority. And therefore we see, that in
assemblies, impowered to act by positive laws, where no number is set by that
positive law which impowers them, the act of the majority passes for the act of
the whole, and of course determines, as having, by the law of nature and reason,
the power of the whole.

Sect. 97. And thus every man, by consenting with others to make one body
politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation, to every one of
that society, to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded
by it; or else this original compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one
society, would signify nothing, and be no compact, if he be left free, and under
no other ties than he was in before in the state of nature. For what appearance
would there be of any compact? what new engagement if he were no farther tied
by any decrees of the society, than he himself thought fit, and did actually
consent to? This would be still as great a liberty, as he himself had before his
compact, or any one else in the state of nature hath, who may submit himself, and
17
consent to any acts of it if he thinks fit.

Indeed, without access to information on the inner workings of government, the

citizens can become hapless victims of the whims and caprices of those whom the power

had been delegated; and the postulate of public office as a public trust enshrined in

Constitution would remain mere lines and curves.

Beyond being a political imperative, however, the right to information also

essential in economic life. A free flow of official information widens the base for

generation of more knowledge about key development issues, safeguard against

corruption, and enhances economic performance by enabling the private sector to make

sound long-term economic decisions.18

6
 HISTORY OF THE PUBLICS RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Although the idea democratic system of government dates back to the time of

Plato and Aristotle, the recognition of the publics right to information is a much later

development. Compared with other democratic rights, the publics right to information

gained roots only during the past four decades and earned widespread recognition

internationally only during the last quarter of the century. The reason is quite simple:

until recently, no constitution in the world, even in advanced democracies, has

recognized the publics right to information as a fundamental right. The publics right to

know is merely a statutory right in most countries; its constitutional dimension is almost

invariably interpreted in the context of press freedom, and not much more.

Early History

The earliest known record that hinted on the publics right to information is the

Emperor of Tai Tang Zhong Dynasty of the 7th century China. In 627 A.D., Tai Zhong

renovated state apparatus by setting up a special group of highly educated scholar-

officials who not only recorded all government decisions and correspondence but who

were also expected to criticize the government, including the emperor.19 For unknown

reasons, Tai Zhongs idea did not fully develop. Nothing is heard of his innovations until

a Finnish priest Anders Chydenius, a member of the Parliament in dual king of Sweden-

Finland, came across the historic record in 1766. Impressed with Tai Zhongs ideas,

Chydenius authored the Freedom-of- Press and Right-of-Access to Public Records Act in

7
1766 where he wrote: that all citizens have a right to access to all-government-held

documents. The government should upon request immediately make available the official

documents to anyone making request at no charge.20 On the basis of this Act, even

documents such as letters from the Swedish emperor to foreign heads of state were, and

still are, open to public scrutiny. This remarkable achievement is coupled with the fact

that one year later, the Swedish Parliament enacted the Worlds first parliamentary

Ombudsman.21 No country, however, followed the Swedish Act and hence, the ideas

growth was again stunted.

The significance of publics right to information will once again take center stage

several centuries hence, but only in the context of the freedom of the press. The full

dynamics of the right is realized only when the wave of democratization movement

became stronger in the last quarter of the century.

The Right to Information and the United Nations

Since its founding, the United Nations has recognized the right to information as a

fundamental right.22 However, the freedom of information was not discussed separately

from the freedom of expression, although the latter was understood to include the right to

seek, receive and impart information. This view is reflected in the first major

instrument adopted by the UN General Assembly --- the Universal Declaration of Human

8
Rights (UDHR).23 Article 19 thereof, guaranteeing the freedom of information and

expression provides:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this

right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas though any media
and regardless of frontiers.

A similar provision can be found in the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights (ICCPR),24 a legally binding treaty to which the Philippines is a State-

Party, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966. Article 19 of the ICCPR25 also laid

down some of the generally accepted exceptions to the right to know, i.e., with respect to

the rights and reputation of others and the protection of national security, public health

and public morals.

Like its progenitor, Article 19 of the ICCPR has been largely understood in the

context of the freedom of the press issues. Observing the prevalence of censorship of

government-held information, the UN General Assembly appointed a Special Rapporteur

on the Freedom of Expression and Opinion to clarify the precise content of Article 19 of

the ICCPR. In his Annual Reports, the Special Rapporteur underscored the tendency of

many governments to withhold information from the people at large. In his 1998 Annual

Report, the Special Rapporteur declared that freedom of information includes the right to

access to information held by the State. The right to seek, receive and impart

information imposes a positive obligation on States to ensure access to information,

9
particularly with regard to information held by Government in all types of storage and

retrieval systems.26 In November 1999, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of

Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the

Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and

Expression came together for the first time and adopted a Joint Declaration which

included the following statement:

Implicit in freedom of expression is the publics right to open access to

information and to know what governments are doing on their behalf,
without which truth would languish and peoples participation in
government would remain fragmented.27

The UN Special Rapporteur further developed this commentary on the freedom of

Information in his 2000 Annual Report to the Commission,28 noting its fundamental

importance not only to democracy and freedom but also to the right to participate and

realization of the right to development. Part of his recommendation was the review of

existing legislation or the enactment of new one on access to information with the

following general principles as guidelines, 29 viz.:

Public bodies have an obligation to disclose information and every member of the
public has a corresponding right to receive information; information includes all
records held by a public body, regardless of the form in which it is stored;

Freedom of information implies that the public bodies publish and disseminate
widely documents of significant public interest, for example, operational
information about how the public body functions and the content of any decision
or policy affecting the public;

10
 As a minimum, the law on freedom of information should make provision for
public education and the dissemination of information regarding the right to have
access to information; the law should also provide for a number of mechanisms to
address the problem of a culture of secrecy within the government;

A refusal to disclose information not be based on the aim to protect the

government from embarrassment or the exposure of wrongdoing, a complete list
of the legitimate aims which may justify the non-disclosure should be provided in
the law and exceptions should be narrowly drawn as to avoid including material
which does not harm the legitimate interest;

All public bodies should be required to establish open, accessible internal systems
for ensuring the publics right to receive information; the law should provide for
strict time limits for the processing of requests for information and require that
any refusals be accompanied by substantive written reasons for the refusal(s);

The cost of gaining access to information held by public bodies should not be so
high as to deter potential applicants and negate the intent of the law itself;

The law should establish a presumption that all meetings of governing bodies are
open to the public;

The law should require that other legislation be interpreted, as far as possible, in
manner consistent with its provision for in the freedom of information law should
be comprehensive and other laws should not be permitted to extend it;

Individuals should be protected from any legal, administrative or employment-

related sanctions for releasing information on wrongdoing, viz, the commission of
a criminal offense or dishonesty, failure to comply with a legal obligation, a
miscarriage of justice, corruption or dishonesty or serious failures in the
administration of a public body.

In consonance with the recommendation of the Special Rapporteur, the United

Nations initiated moves to influence its member states to enact freedom of information

legislations, or amend existing ones in conformity with the guidelines above-enumerated.

11
Origin and Development of the Right to Information in the Philippines

The concept of the right to information in the Philippines developed earlier

compared with other countries, even with the United States, with whom our country owes

much of its constitutional history.

1. The American legacy: right to seek information as a statutory right

In the United States, there is no constitutional right to have access to particular

government information, or to require openness from the bureaucracy.30 While the right

to receive information of public concern is deemed protected by the First Amendment,

the right to seek and inspect government-held information is deemed a statutory

right.31 Thus, cases involving the right to access to information have been interpreted in

the light of the Freedom of Information Act and other public disclosure laws.

The constitutional dimension of the publics right to obtain government-held

information was first explored in the case of Houchins v. KQED, Inc.32 In the said case,

respondent broadcasting company, KQED, had been refused permission to inspect and

take photographs at a portion called Little Greystone of a county jail where a prisoner's

suicide reportedly had occurred and where conditions were asserted to be responsible for

prisoners problems. Respondents brought an action against petitioner Sheriff Houchins

of Alameda County who supervised the jail, claiming deprivation of their First

Amendment rights.

12
 The decision, penned by Chief Justice Burger, concluded that neither the First

Amendment nor the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution provides a right of

access to government information or sources of information within the governments

control.33 While acknowledging the public importance of conditions in penal facilities

and the medias role of providing information, the US Court rule that there is no basis for

reading into the Constitution a right of the public or the media to enter those institutions,

gather information, and take pictures for broadcast purposes, thus:

The public importance of conditions in penal facilities and the media's role
of providing information afford no basis for reading into the Constitution a
right of the public or the media to enter these institutions, with camera
equipment, and take moving and still pictures of inmates for broadcast
purposes. This Court has never intimated a First Amendment guarantee of
a right of access to all sources of information within government control.
Nor does the rationale of the decisions upon which respondents rely lead
to the implication of such a right.

Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra, and Mills v. Alabama, supra,

emphasized the importance of informed public opinion and the traditional
role of a free press as a source of public information. But an analysis of
those cases reveals that the Court was concerned with the freedom of the
media to communicate information once it is obtained; neither case
intimated that the Constitution compels the government to provide the
media with information or access to it on demand. Grosjean involved a
challenge to a state tax on advertising revenues of newspapers, the "plain
purpose" of which was to penalize the publishers and curtail the
publication of a selected group of newspapers. The Court summarized the
familiar but important history of the attempts to prevent criticism of the
Crown in England by the infamous licensing requirements and special
taxes on the press, and concluded that the First Amendment had been
designed to prevent similar restrictions or any other form of previous
restraint upon printed publications, or their circulation.34 (citations omitted)

13
 The early constitutional history of the Philippines followed the US Supreme

Courts interpretation of the First Amendment. As there was no express mention in the

1935 Philippine Constitution concerning the right to access to public records, Philippine

Supreme Court followed the ruling in Houchins in the case of Subido v. Ozaeta.35 In

the said case, Subido, editor of the Manila Post, filed a petition for mandamus to compel

the Secretary of Justice to furnish the former of the list of real estate sold to aliens and

registered with the Register of Deeds of Manila since the promulgation of the Department

of Justice Circular No. 128 or to allow the Subido to examine all records in the

respondents' custody relative to the said transactions after his requests to the Secretary of

Justice and the Registrar of Deeds were denied.

The Philippine Supreme Court upheld the contention of the Secretary of Justice

that the freedom of information or freedom to obtain information for publication is not

guaranteed by the 1935 Constitution. According to the Court, the right to examine or

inspect public records is purely a question of statutory construction.36 Fortunately for the

petitioner, the right of inspection of title records is guaranteed by section 56 of Act No.

496, as amended by Act No. 3300, providing that all records relating to registered lands

in the office of the Register of Deeds shall be open to the public subject to such

reasonable regulations as may be prescribed by the Chief of the General Land

Registration Office with the approval of the Secretary of Justice. On this basis, the

petition for mandamus was granted.

14
 Be that as it may, the Subido case is important in two respects: (1) it lays down the

rule concerning the limitation on the exercise of the right to inspect public records; and

(2) it lays down the rule that individuals need to have personal interest in the subject

matter.

2. Constitutionalizing the Right to Information

From the a purely statutory right, the publics right to information was elevated

and given a status of a self-executing constitutional right under the 1973 Philippine

Constitution. Article IV, section thereof 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, shall
be afforded the citizen subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.

According to the records, the original draft of this provision presented to the 1971

Constitutional Convention simply stated that access to official records and the right to

information shall be afforded the citizens as may be provided by law. However,

Delegate De la Serna, at the meeting of the 166-Man Special Committee on November

16, 1972, pointed out that the proposed provision did not grant a self-executory right to

citizens by a statute. De la Serna therefore proposed that the draft be reworded so that the

15
Constitution itself should give the right but subject to statutory limitations. The final

provision followed De la Sernas suggestion.37

3. The Expansion of the Constitutional Right to Information

The 1987 Constitution not only retained the constitutional status of the publics

right to information; it strengthened and expanded its scope. The right of the public to

information now includes government research data used as basis for policy

development. This addition is a reaction to the government practice during Martial law

of withholding social research data from the knowledge of the public whenever such data

contradicted policies which the government wanted to espouse.38 The discussions of the

Commissioners are enlightening:

MR. VILLACORTA. Mr. Presiding Officer.I would like to inquire from

the Committee whether or not the provision includes access to date of government
research projects and whether or not the phrase official records, and to
documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions
includes findings of government research. I have my doubts whether it covers
results of government research since such studies do not always pertain to official
acts, transactions or decisions. Their subjects usually include popular attitudes,
livelihood problems and manpower development, all of which do not comprise
official acts or transactions.

FR. BERNAS. The access to official records is subject to reasonable

limitations. It was earlier asked whether the limitations envisioned are purely
procedural or also substantive; in other words, can the government prohibit
access to certain types of information?

I hesitate to state a general rule on this because, as I said, when we were

talking about this outside the session, for instance, I would have no difficulty if,
say, the DAP were to conduct an opinion poll about the present government, and
we were to give to the public access to the results of that opinion poll.

MR. VILLACORTA. I think so.

16
 FR. BERNAS. My judgment would be yes.

But suppose the government entered into a contract, let us say, with a drug
company to do a funded research on a particular kind of drug, will the public have
a right of access to information about the findings of that research? I think there
may be proprietary rights involved here.

MR. VILLACORTA. My point here, Mr. Presiding Officer, is that the

public should be more than just informed of official transactions. I think they have
the right to know data that concern them especially of they themselves are the
subject of surveys. The experience during the past dispensation was that state-
sponsored research as manipulated to serve the interest of the regime, to
legitimize its policies and perpetuate the power of its leaders. And since its think
tanks conduct research to have an empirical basis for policy formulation, the
public has the right to have access to these research findings.

FR. BERNAS. On those things, as I said, I have no difficulty making a

rule. I only have those areas where may be proprietary rights involved.

MR. VILLACORTA. Should not the popular interest prevail over

proprietary rights of research?

FR. BERNAS. They should.

MR. VILLACORTA. The data will not be reproduced anyway, Mr.

Presiding Officer. There will be no violation of copyright in this case, but we are
simply guaranteeing that the people will know what the findings are all about.

FR. BERNAS. Perhaps, we are not clear on what we mean by proprietary

rights. Perhaps, it would be better if the Commissioner gave examples of what he
has in mind so it will be easier to answer.

MR. VILLACORTA. I have in mind, for example, the research findings

on nutrition which the previous government suppressed because they proved that
we are among the most malnourished countries in the world. Researchers from
universities were refused access to data, for obvious political reasons. Since the
intent of this Section 6 is to adequately inform the public so that nothing vital in
state affairs is kept from them, then we should add to this provision access to the
results of government research.

FR. BERNAS. In that particular example, I would have no hesitation in

saying that that is something that should be made accessible.39

17
 Furthermore, it is very evident from the discussion of the Constitutional

Commissioners to include in the term transaction all negotiations leading to the

consummation of contracts:

MR. SUAREZ. And when we say 'transactions' which should be

distinguished from contracts, agreements, or treaties or whatever,
does the Gentleman refer to the steps leading to the consummation
of the contract, or does he refer to the contract itself?

MR. OPLE. The 'transactions' used here, I suppose, is generic and,

therefore, it can cover both steps leading to a contract, and already
a consummated contract, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. SUAREZ. This contemplates inclusion of negotiations

leading to the consummation of the transaction?

MR. OPLE. Yes, subject to reasonable safeguards on the national

interest.40

Solidifying the publics right to information, the framers of the 1987 Constitution

contained provisions complementing and strengthening the publics right to know by

articulating the policies on full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public

interest.41 This includes the provision on the access to information concerning loans

obtained or guaranteed by the Government,42 the deliberations, proceedings,43 records,

and book of account of Congress.44

DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO INFORM

The publics right to know gives the people the right to receive information from

the government and creates an active duty on the on the part of the government to

18
disseminate information of public concerns. It also obliges the government to make

official records, documents and proceedings accessible to the public, pursuant to the

policy of full disclosure of government dealings.

In Chavez vs. PEA,45 the Supreme Court stressed that the publics right to

information creates a positive duty on the Philippine Estate Authority (PEA) to disclose

matters relating to the disposition of its properties. This constitutional duty according to

Court is distinct and separate from the requirements of public bidding and must be done

by PEA on its own and without demand from anyone, thus:

Before the consummation of the contract, PEA must, on its own and
without demand from anyone, disclose to the public matters relating to the
disposition of its property. These include the size, location, technical description
and nature of the property being disposed of, the terms and conditions of the
disposition, the parties qualified to bid, the minimum price and similar
information. PEA must prepare all these data and disclose them to the public at
the start of the disposition process, long before the consummation of the contract,
because the Government Auditing Code requires public bidding. If PEA fails to
make this disclosure, any citizen can demand from PEA this information at any
time during the bidding process.46

Giving flesh to the constitutional provision creating positive duty to the

government to inform the public about matters of public concern, Congress enacted

Republic Act No. 671347 obliging all public officials and employees to provide

information on their policies and procedures in clear and understandable language, ensure

openness of information, public consultations and hearings.48 In this wise, the heads of

departments, offices and agencies are tasked to establish measures and standards that will

ensure transparency of and openness in public transactions in their respective offices,

19
such as biddings, purchases, other internal transactions, including contracts, status of

projects, and all other matters involving public interest.49 They are likewise obliged to

establish information systems that will inform the public of the following: (a) policies,

rules, and procedures; (b) work programs, projects, and performance targets; (c)

performance reports; and (d) all other documents as may hereafter be classified as public

information.50

Complementing this duty to inform is the requirement of publication of all laws of

general application pursuant to the In Taada v. Tuvera51 where the Supreme Court

emphasized the significance of the publication requirement, to wit:

The requirement of publication in order for laws to be valid has a clear

objective: to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which
are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and
publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia
legis non excusat. It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise
burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had no notice
whatsoever, not even a constructive one.

The very first clause of Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 reads:

"There shall be published in the Official Gazette . . ." The word "shall" used
therein imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty. That duty must be
enforced if the Constitutional right of the people to be informed on matters of
public concern is to be given substance and reality. The law itself makes a list of
what should be published in the official Gazette. Such listing, to our mind, leaves
respondents with no discretion whatsoever as to what must be included or
excluded from such publication.

Strengthening the right of the public to information, the Administrative Code of

1987 requires the publication of all administrative rules and regulations in Office of the

National Administrative Register.52

20
 T HE R IGHT OF THE P UBLIC TO A CCESS G OVERNM ENT -H ELD
I NFORM ATION

The second component of the right to information is the right to access

information held by the government which is considered a self-executing public right.

Hence, in mandamus proceedings, the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the

mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part of the general public which

possesses the right.53 The petitioner need not even allege the reason for exercising the

right. Any citizen may exercise his right to know either because the subject matter of the

proceeding directly affects his life, or simply because such matters naturally arouse the

interest of an ordinary citizen.54

As a self-executing right, the right to access to information, thus, may be asserted

by the people upon the ratification of the constitution without need for any ancillary act

of Congress. What may be provided for by the Congress are reasonable conditions and

limitations upon the access to be afforded which must, of necessity, be consistent with the

declared State policy of full public disclosure of all transactions involving public

interest.55 Thus, the threshold question in the exercise of the constitutional right to

information is whether or not the information sought is of public concern.

Right to Access is limited to information of public concern

21
 In a number of cases, the Supreme Court held that there is no rigid test whether

particular information is of public concern; the term, public concern like public

interest eludes exact definition. Declining to define bounds of information calling for the

application of the constitutional right, the Supreme Court has ruled that 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.56

However, in the fairly recent case of Chavez v. PEA,57 the Supreme Court

clarified that the right to information covers three categories of information which are

considered matters of public concern, namely: (1) official records; (2) documents and

papers pertaining to official acts, transactions and decisions; and (3) government research

data used in formulating policies.58 The first category refers to any document that is part

of the public records in the custody of government agencies or officials. The second

category refers to documents and papers recording, evidencing, establishing, confirming,

supporting, justifying or explaining official acts, transactions or decisions of government

agencies or officials.59 The third category refers to research data, whether raw, collated or

processed, owned by the government and used in formulating government policies.60

1. records pertaining to the loans granted by GSIS

In Valmonte v. Belmonte,61 the Court ruled that records pertaining to the loans

granted by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) were of public concern,

and hence granted the petition for mandamus filed by the petitioner to compel the GSIS

22
to furnish him the list of the MPs of the defunct Batasang Pambansa who were granted

loan by GSIS and were guaranteed by the former First Lady Imelda Marcos, and to give

him access to the records relative to such loans.

2. Records pertaining to the service eligibity of government employees

Similarly, in Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission,62 the Supreme Court held that

documents concerning the civil service eligibility of government employees are matters

of public concern. It stressed that citizens have the right to ensure that government

positions requiring civil service eligibility are occupied only by persons who are eligible

and hence granted the petition for mandamus filed the petitioner to compel the Civil

Service Commission to divulge information concerning the eligibilities of the private

respondents who claimed that they passed the CSC exam for sanitarians.

3. Information on transactions leading to consummation of contracts

The constitutional provision likewise guarantees access to information regarding

on-going negotiations or proposals prior to the final agreement. This was clarified by the

Constitutional Commissioners during their deliberations. Thus, considering the intent of

the framers of the Constitution, the Supreme Court in Chavez vs. PCGG63 stated that 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

23
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 recommendations or communications during

the stage when common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in

the exploratory stage. The Court rejected PCGGs claim that the provision right to

access pertains only to completed and operative official acts, not to those still being

considered. The Court also ruled that a consummated contract is not a requirement for the

exercise of the right to information. Otherwise, the people can never exercise the right if

no contract is consummated, and if one is consummated, it may be too late for the public

to expose its defects.

Meanwhile in Chavez v. PEA,64 the Supreme Court said that while the on-going

evaluation or review of bids or proposals being undertaken by the bidding or review

committee is not immediately accessible under the right to information. While the

evaluation or review is still on-going, there are no official acts, transactions, or

decisions on the bids or proposals. However, once the committee makes its official

recommendation, there arises a definite proposition on the part of the government.

From this moment, the public's right to information attaches, and any citizen can access

all the non-proprietary information leading to such definite proposition.65

4. Information on the names of executive officials holding multiple positions

24
 In Gonzales v. Narvasa,66 the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner, as a tax

payer, has the right to access information concerning the names of presidential

consultants, advisers and assistants who hold multiple positions, as well as, inspect and

reproduce copies of their appointments.

5. Copy of decisions

Decisions rendered by the Court in a criminal case form part of public records and

hence the public has the right to ask for copy of the same. Thus, in Lantaco, Sr. v.

Llamas,67 the Supreme Court found the respondent judge guilty of grave abuse of

authority for refusing to give Lantaco, Sr. and the other complainants a copy of the

decision thereby denying their right to access public records, as well as gross ignorance

of the law and disrespect to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court emphasized the

importance of access to public records, predicated on the right of the people to acquire

information on matters of public concern in which the public has a legitimate interest.

6. Application with Board of Investments

In Garcia v. Board of Investments,68 the Court stated that the Omnibus

Investments Code requires the publication of applications for registration. Since the

BPCs amended application particularly the change of location from Bataan to Batangas

was in effect a new application, it should have been published so that whoever may have

25
any objection to the transfer may be heard. The BOIs failure to publish such notice and

to hold a hearing on the amended application deprived the oppositors, like Garcia, of due

process and amounted to a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the BOI.

Garcias request for photostatic copies of certain documents filed by BPC together

with its original application, and its amended application for registration with BOI, may

not be denied, as it is the constitutional right of a citizen to have access to information on

matters of public concern under Article III, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution.

7. Voting Slips of Individual Members of the MTRCB

In Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato,69 the Supreme Court ruled that the decisions of

the Board and the individual voting slips accomplished by the members concerned are

acts made pursuant to their official functions, and as such, are neither personal nor private

in nature but rather public in character. They are, therefore, public records--- access to

which is guaranteed to the citizenry by no less than the fundamental law of the land.

Being a public right, the exercise thereof cannot be made contingent on the discretion,

nay, whim and caprice, of the agency charged with the custody of the official records

sought to be examined. The constitutional recognition of the citizen's right of access to

official records cannot be made dependent upon the consent of the members of the board

concerned, otherwise, the said right would be rendered nugatory. On this basis, the

petition for mandamus was granted.

26
 8. Lethal Injection Manual

In Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice,70 the Court declared that the contents of the

lethal injection manual were matters of public concern 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. Thus, the Court voided the Rules and

Regulations promulgated by the Department of Justice to implement Republic Act No.

8177, among other reasons, as it provides that [S]aid manual shall be confidential and its

distribution shall be limited to authorized prison personnel. The Court ruled that the

requirement of confidentiality of the contents of the manual even with respect to the

convict unduly suppressive. It sees no legal impediment for the convict, should he so

desire, to obtain a copy of the manual.

LIMITATIONS ON THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Like any other rights, the publics right to access government-held information is

not absolute; such may be subject to limitations which may either be procedural or

substantive in nature.

Procedural Limitations

The procedural limitations in the exercise of the right to access government-held

information pertains to reasonable regulations to protect the integrity of the public

27
records and to minimize disruption to government operations, like rules specifying when

and how to conduct the inspection and copying.71

Furthermore, the right to information does not compel the government agency

concerned to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like relating to the information

sought.72 According to the Court, the right to information only affords access to records,

documents and papers, which means the opportunity to inspect and copy them.73 Also,

one who exercises the right must copy the records, documents and papers at his

expense.74

To make government service responsive to the public, all public officials and

employees are required to respond to letters, telegrams or other means of communication

within fifteen (15) days, containing among others, the action taken on the request.75

Meanwhile, in departments, offices or agencies usually swamped with persons calling for

a particular type of service, the head of department, office or agency is required to devise

a mechanism so as to avoid long queues, such as by giving each person a ticket number

duly countersigned which shall specify the time and date when the person can be served

without delay.76

Substantive Limitations

28
 There are likewise established substantive limitations to the exercise of the right to

access government records. While generally, the information sought are of public

concern, public policy considerations generally grants the government agency concerned

to withhold certain information involving national security and diplomacy; the

administration of criminal justice; and privileged and confidential matters. Personal

information concerning private individuals may likewise be withheld pursuant to the right

to privacy. Also, information that may put the life and safety of an individual in imminent

danger,77 and those which, when prematurely disclosed, would likely to lead to

significant financial speculation in currencies, securities, or commodities or significantly

endanger the stability of any financial institution,78 may temporarily be withheld.

1. National security and diplomacy

The common law governmental privilege against public disclosure with respect to

state secrets regarding military, diplomatic and other national security matters is

expressly acknowledged in our jurisdiction.79 This includes information on inter-

government exchanges prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements.80

This is evident from the discussions of the delegates of the 1986 Constitution

Commission, to wit:

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, my main

objection here is he addition of ACCESS TO INFORMATION without
the qualifying phrase subject to limitations as provided by law. Does
this phrase ACCESS TO INFORMATION refer also to intelligence

29
 information gathered by the NICA- the National Intelligence Coordinating
Agency?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. There are limitations of access which

shall be defined by law, and these are defined in the Bill of Rights.

MR. DE CASTRO. So, in short, the Commissioner means that

when we speak of ACCESS TO INFORMATION, we do not include
intelligence information gathered by the police, the Armed Forces and the
NICA. Am I correct?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. These are exceptions, Mr. Presiding

Officer. These do not refer to the information in this particular provision.81

This constitutional intent is further bolstered with the enactment of Rep. Act No.

6713 which exempts from compulsory disclosure such information, record or document

must be kept secret in the interest of national defense or security or the conduct of foreign

affairs.82 The reason for the exception is self-evident: the State has to protect itself from

those who seek to imperil its stability. However, the exact metes and bounds of this

exception have not been fully discussed, and the absence of a law that would delimit the

invocation of the national security exception opens the floodgates for its abuse.

Nevertheless, in the Chavez v. PCGG, the Supreme Court held that [w]here there is no

need to protect such state secrets, the privilege may not be invoked to withhold

documents and other information provided that they are examined in strict confidence

and given scrupulous protection.83

2. administration of criminal justice

30
 Another exception pertains to the administration of criminal justice, which

likewise necessitates certain degree of secrecy as to become effective. This includes

information relating to the apprehension, the prosecution and the detention of criminals,

which courts may not inquire into prior to such arrest, detention and prosecution.84 Also

exempted from mandatory disclosure are investigatory records complied for law

enforcement purposes, or information which if written would be contained in such

records or information would interfere with enforcement proceedings, deprive a person of

a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, disclose the identity of a confidential

source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in

the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national

security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the

confidential source, or unjustifiably disclose investigative techniques and procedures.85

3. Privileged and Confidential matters

Privileged information rooted in the separation of powers is also an acknowledged

limitation on the exercise of the right to access government-held information such as

Presidential conversations, correspondences, or discussions during closed-door Cabinet

meetings, internal deliberations of the Supreme Court and other collegiate courts, or

executive sessions of either Houses of Congress.86 Similarly, drafts decisions, orders,

rulings, policy, decisions, memoranda, and the like are likewise exempt from disclosure.

4. Invasion of the Right to Privacy

31
 Disclosure of information of a personal nature would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy87 is another established exception to the right to

information. This includes information concerning the identity of rape victims and

proceedings involving children,88 and other information protected by several other pieces

of legislation.89

To successfully invoke the right to privacy, however, the information sought must

be purely personal in nature, and not made pursuant to official actions. Moreover, the

right to be privacy must be invoked by the individual whose right is invaded. Thus, in

ordering the disclosure of the list of Batasang Pambansa members granted loan by the

GSIS in Valmonte v. Belmonte,90 the Court ratiocinated as follows:

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. [197 F. 982 (1912)], 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, the respondent, invoke
the right to privacy of its borrowers. The right is purely personal in nature [Cf.
Atkinson v. John Doherty & Co., 121 Mich 372, 80 N.W. 285, 46 L.RA. 219
(1899); Schuyler v. Curtis, 147 N.Y. 434, 42 N.E. 22, 31 L.R.A. 286 (1895)), and
hence may be invoked only by the person whose privacy is claimed to be violated.

32
 Similarly, in declining the claim of privacy in Sarmiento v. Morato, the Supreme

Court ruled that the individual voting slips of the members of the MTCRB were

accomplished in their official capacities; hence, the right to privacy may not be invoked:

The term private has been defined as "belonging to or concerning,

an individual person, company, or interest"; whereas, public means
"pertaining to, or belonging to, or affecting a nation, state, or community
at large" (People v. Powell, 274 NW 372 [1937]). May the decisions of
respondent Board and the individual members concerned, arrived at in an
official capacity, be considered private? Certainly not. As may be gleaned
from the decree (PD 1986) creating the respondent classification board,
there is no doubt that its very existence is public is character; it is an office
created to serve public interest. It being the case, respondents can lay no
valid claim to privacy. The right to privacy belongs to the individual
acting in his private capacity and not to a governmental agency or officers
tasked with, and acting in, the discharge of public duties (See Valmonte v.
Belmonte, Jr., supra.) There can be no invasion of privacy in the case at
bar since what is sought to be divulged is a product of action undertaken in
the course of performing official functions. To declare otherwise would be
to clothe every public official with an impregnable mantle of protection
against public scrutiny for their official acts.

Further, the decisions of the Board and the individual voting slips
accomplished by the members concerned are acts made pursuant to their
official functions, and as such, are neither personal nor private in nature
but rather public in character.

THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE

As a democratic-republic State, the electoral process has a special place in our

system. Time and again, the Supreme Court cautioned that [T]he exercise of the right of

suffrage should be an enlightened one and hence, there is a need for the voter to be

afforded sufficient time and information91 especially those matters which have a direct

bearing on his vote. Thus, in Sanidad v. COMELEC, the Resolution No. 2167 which

provided that no mass media columnist, commentator, announcer or personality shall use

33
his column or radio or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues

during the plebiscite campaign period, on the day before and on plebiscite day violated

not only the right to press freedom but also of the right of the public to information, thus:

Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and importance. The people's right to be informed
and to be able to freely and intelligently make a decision would be better served by access to an
unabridged discussion of the issues, including the forum. The people affected by the issues
presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum where the
right to expression may be exercised. COMELEC spaces and COMELEC radio time may provide
a forum for expression but they do not guarantee full dissemination of information to the public
concerned because they are limited to either specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or
television times.

Similarly, in Adiong v. COMELEC,92 the Supreme Court stressed that when

faced with border line situations where freedom to speak by a candidate or party and

freedom to know on the part of the electorate are invoked against actions intended for

maintaining clean and free elections, the police, local officials and COMELEC should

lean in favor of freedom. For in the ultimate analysis, the freedom of the citizen and the

States power to regulate are not antagonistic. Emphasizing that there can be no free

and honest elections if in the efforts to maintain them, the freedom to speak and the right

to know are unduly curtailed, the Supreme Court invalidated the Resolution 2347

prohibiting the posting of decals and stickers in "mobile" places like cars and other

moving vehicles.

In like manner, in Hassan v. COMELEC93 invalidated the May 29 rescheduled

elections in Lanao considering the insufficiency of notice given as to the time and

transfer of the polling place.

34
 FURTHER READINGS

1. Coronel, The Right to Know: Access to Information in Southeast Asia (PCIJ

2001).
2. Fernandez, Perfecto V. (1994): Manual on the Right to Information. Quezon City:
Institute of Human Rights- UP Law Center
3. Obrien, David M. (1981). The Publics Right to Know: The Supreme Court and
the First Amendment. New York: Praeger Publishers.

ENDNOTES

1
Nurhan Kocaoglu and Andrea Figari (eds.), Using the Right to Information as an Anti-Corruption
Tool (2006), p.3. Among the countries with existing right to information legislation are as follows:
Albania, Australia, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, European Union, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, India,
Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Norway, Republic of Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia,
Sweden, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Pakistan, Paraguay, United Kingdom and the United States.
See <http:// www.freedominfo.org> for more information on the freedom of information legislations
in various countries.
2
Among the countries with pending legislation are as follows: Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Botswana, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, the Maldives, Mozambique, Nauru, Nigeria,
Sri Lanka and Uganda.
3
CONSTITUTION, Art. II, Sec. 28. 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.
4
For instance, Republic Act No. 9184 (2003), otherwise known as the Government Procurement
Reform Act.
5
Otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees. Rep. Act No. 6713 was enacted on February 20, 1989.
6
Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. L-72119, 29 May 1987, 150 SCRA 530 at 534.
7
Id. at 566.
8
UN General Assembly Resolution No. 59 (1), 14 December 1946.
9
Valmonte v. Belmonte, 170 SCRA 256 (1989) at 265.

35
10
Ibid.
11
Id.at 266-267.
12
Vda. de Urbano v. GSIS, G.R. No. 137904, 19 Oct. 2001, 367 SCRA 672, 698.
13
Chaves v. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744 (1999).
14
Baldoza v. Dimaano, Adm. Matter No. 1120-MJ, 5 May 1976, 17 SCRA 14.
15
Id.
16
Chavez v. PEA, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002, 384 SCRA 152 ,184.
17
Locke, Second Treatise on Government 95-97.
18
N. A Malaluan, Democracy, Development and Access to Official Information in the Philippines
(2001).
19
The Access to Public Information and its Development in the light of Commissioner for Access to
Public Information. <
20
Lamble, Stepehen (2002), Freedom of Information, a Finnish Clergymans Gift to Democracy, 97
Freedom Information Review, 2-8.
21
Id.
22
During its first session on December 14, 1946, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 59
which stated: Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and . the touchstone of all the
freedoms to which the UN is consecrated.
23
Adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly resolution 217 A(III) of 10 December 1948.
24
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by the General Assembly resolution 2200 A (XXI)
of 16 December 1966.

25
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to
seek, receive and impart information of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in
writing or in print, in the form of art or through any media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special
duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall
only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputation of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public
health or morals.
26
Report of the Special Rapporteur, Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and
Expression, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1998/40, 28 January 1998.

36
27
26 November 1999.
28
Report of the Special Rapporteur, Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and
Expression, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/63, 18 January 2000.
29
Id. at para. 44.
30
Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (1928) at 14.
31
Id. at 14-15.
32
Supra.
33
Id. at 15.
34
Id. at 9.
35
80 Phil 383 (1948).
36
Id.
37
Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (1996 edition), pp.
333-334.
38
Id. at 334-335.
39
V RECORDS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION (1986), pp. 708-709.
40
IV RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION (1986), pp. 24-25.
41
CONSTITUTION, Article II, Sec. 28 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.
42
CONSTITUTION, Article XI, Sec. 21 Foreign loans may be incurred in accordance with law and the
regulation of the monetary authority. Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the
Government shall be made available to the public.
43
CONSTITUTION, Art. VI, Sec. 16 (4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from
time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security;
and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be
entered in the Journal. Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.
44
CONSTITUTION, Art. VI, Sec. 20 The records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be
preserved and be open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the
Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses
incurred for each Member.
45
G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002, 384 SCRA 152.

37
46
Id. at 186.
47
Supra.
48
Id. at Sec. 4 (e).
49
Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,
Rule IV, sec. 2 (1).
50
Id. at Rule IV, sec. 2 (2).
51
G.R. No. L-63915, 24 April 1985 ,136 SCRA 27.
52
Executive Order No. 292 (1987), Book VII, Chapter 2, Sec. 3 provides [E]very agency shall file
with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by
it.
53
Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, supra at 536.
54
Id. at 541; Gonzales v. Narvaes, G.R. No. 140835, 14 Aug. 2000, 337 SCRA 733 at 747.
55
Id. at 535.
56
Id. at 541.
57
384 SCRA 152 (2002).
58
Id. at 187.
59
Ibid.
60
Id. at 187-188.
61
170 SCRA 256 (9189).
62
150 SCRA 530 (1987).
63
299 SCRA 744 (1999).
64
Supra.
65
Id. at 186.
66
337 SCRA 733 (2000).
67
Admin. Matter No. 1037-CJ, 28 Oct. 1981, 108 SCRA 502.
68
177 SCRA 374 (1989).
69
203 SCRA 515 (1991).

38
70
G.R. No. 132601, 12 October 1998.
71
Chavez v. PEA, supra at 188.
72
Ibid., citing Chavez v. PCGG, supra.
73
Ibid.
74
Ibid.
75
Rep. Act No.6713, sec. 5 (a).
76
Rules and Regulations Implementing Rep. Act No. 6713, Rule VI, sec. 2.
77
Id. at Rule IV, sec.3 (b).
78
Id. at Rule IV, sec. 3 (g).
79
Chavez v. PCGG, supra; Chavez v. PEA, supra at 188.
80
Id., citing V RECORDS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION (1986) 25.
81
IV RECORDS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION (1986) 921.
82
Rules and Regulations Implementing Rep. Act No. 6713, Rule IV, sec. 3 (a).
83
Chavez v. PCGG, supra, citing Almonte v. Vasquez, 244 SCRA 286 (1995).
84
Id. citing 66 Am Jur 27, Records and Recording Laws.
85
Rules and Regulations Implementing Rep. Act No. 6713, Rule IV, sec. 3 (f)
86
Chavez v. PEA, supra at 188-189.
87
Rules and Regulations Implementing Rep. Act No. 6713, Rule IV, sec. 3 (e)
88
Rep. Act No. 8369, sec. 12; Pres. Decree No. 603, Art. 200; Rep. Act No. 7610, sec. 29; Rep. Act No.
6425, sec. 32; Rule on Examination of Child Witness, sec. 32; Rule on Juvenile in Conflict with the
Law, sec. 38.
89
Section 270 of the National Internal Revenue Code punishes any officer or employee of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue who divulges to any person, except as allowed by law, information regarding the
business, income, or estate of any taxpayer, the secrets, operation, style of work, or apparatus of any
manufacturer or producer, or confidential information regarding the business of any taxpayer,
knowledge of which was acquired by him in the discharge of his official duties. Section 14 of R.A.
No. 8800 (Safeguard Measures Act) prohibits the release to the public of confidential information
submitted in evidence to the Tariff Commission. Section 3 (n) of R.A. No. 8504 (Philippine AIDS
Prevention and Control Act) classifies as confidential the medical records of HIV patients. Section 6
(j) of R.A. No. 8043 (Inter-Country Adoption Act) classifies as confidential the records of the

39
 adopted child, adopting parents, and natural parents. Section 94 (f) of R.A. No. 7942 (Philippine
Mining Act) requires the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to maintain the
confidentiality of confidential information supplied by contractors who are parties to mineral
agreements or financial and technical assistance agreements.
90
Supra.
91
Tolentino v. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702
92
207 SCRA 712 (1992).
93
264 SCRA 125.

40