Right to Information

1. Legaspi v Civil Service Commission (confirmation of civil service eligibility is public concern)
Legaspi's request for information on the civil service eligibilities of certain persons employed as sanitarians in the Health
Department of Cebu City but the Civil Service Commission denied his request.

Claiming that his right to be informed of the eligibilities of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas, is guaranteed by the Constitution,
and that he has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy to acquire the information, petitioner prays for the issuance of the
extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel the respondent Commission to disclose said information.

The Solicitor General challenges the petitioner's standing to sue upon the ground that the latter does not possess any clear legal
right to be informed of the civil service eligibilities of the government employees concerned.

WON the information sought is of public concern

Article III, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution: 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.

These constitutional provisions are self-executing. The fundamental right recognized may be asserted by the people upon the
ratification of the constitution without need for any ancillary act of the Legislature.

When the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people
are regarded as the real party in interest and the relator at whose instigation the proceedings are instituted need not show that he
has any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution
of the laws

Government agencies are without discretion in refusing disclosure of, or access to, information of public concern. The authority to
regulate the manner of examining public records does not carry with it the power to prohibit.

The constitutional guarantee to information on matters of public concern is not absolute, access to official records, papers, etc., are
"subject to limitations as may be provided by law.”

The availability of access to a particular public record must be:

a) being of public concern or one that involves public interest, and,

b) not being exempted by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee.

The civil service eligibility of a sanitarian being of public concern, and in the absence of express limitations under the law upon
access to the register of civil service eligibles for said position, the duty of the respondent Commission to confirm or deny the civil
service eligibility of any person occupying the position becomes imperative.

2. Valmonte v Belmonte Commission (GSIS as GOCC, its transaction is matter of public concern)
Petitioners invoke their right to information and pray that be furnished with the list of names of the opposition members of Batasang
Pambansa who were able to secure a clean loan of P2 million each on guarantee of Mrs. Imelda Marcos and to allow have access
to the public records for the subject information.

Respondent contends that the documents evidencing loan transactions of the GSIS must be deemed outside the ambit of the right
to information as right to privacy which is equally protected by the Constitution and by existing laws.

Respondent asserts that the documents evidencing the loan transactions of the GSIS are private in nature and not 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" only.

The loan function of the GSIS is merely incidental to its insurance function, then its loan transactions are not covered by the
constitutional policy of full public disclosure and the right to information which is applicable only to "official" transactions.

WON petitioners are entitled to the documents sought, by virtue of their constitutional right to information

Art. 111, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution: 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.

Right to information is limited to "matters of public concern," and is further "subject to such limitations as may be provided by law."

Citizens are afforded the right to information and are entitled to "access to official records," but the Constitution does not accord
them a right to compel custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to acquire
information on matters of public concern.

Public officers may not invoke right to privacy 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.

Petitioners are practitioners in media. As such, they have both the right to gather and the obligation to check the accuracy of
information the disseminate. For them, the freedom of the press and of speech is not only critical, but vital to the exercise of their
professions.
The GSIS is a trustee of contributions from the government and its employees, its funds assume a public character. 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.

The right to privacy belongs to the individual in his private capacity, and not to public and governmental agencies like the GSIS.
The right to privacy may be invoked only by the person whose privacy is claimed to be violated.

Transactions entered into by the GSIS, a government-controlled corporation created by special legislation are within the ambit of
the people's right to be informed pursuant to the constitutional policy of transparency in government dealings.

Petitioners are entitled to access to the documents evidencing loans granted by the GSIS, subject to reasonable regulations.

3. Province of North Cotabato v Government of the RPH on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD is governmental
act subject of public concern)
The Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the MILF were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement on
the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia but the
signing of the MOA-AD between the GRP and the MILF was not to materialize.

The MOA-AD contained, the commitment of the parties to pursue peace negotiations, protect and respect human rights, negotiate
with sincerity in the resolution and pacific settlement of the conflict, and refrain from the use of threat or force to attain undue
advantage while the peace negotiations on the substantive agenda are on-going.

The Province of North Cotabato filed a petition, invoking the right to information on matters of public concern, petitioners seek to
compel respondents to disclose and furnish them the complete and official copies of the MOA-AD.

Petitioners' assertion that the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 declares it a State policy to "require all national agencies and
offices to conduct periodic (prior) consultations with appropriate local government units, non-governmental and people's
organizations, and other concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in their respective
jurisdictions

WON there is a violation of the people's right to information on matters of public concern

Article III Sec. 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.

Article II Section 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 (splendid symmetry)

The acts of the government subject to public scrutiny and available always to public cognizance. Matters of public concern covered
by the right to information include steps and negotiations leading to the consummation of the contract.

The MOA-AD is a matter of public concern involving as it does the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, which directly
affects the lives of the public at large.

The policy of full public disclosure enunciated complements the right of access to information on matters of public concern found in
the Bill of Rights. The right to information guarantees the right of the people to demand information, while Section 28 recognizes
the duty of officialdom to give information even if nobody demands.

The effectivity of the policy of public disclosure need not await the passing of a statute. Thus, respondents cannot point to the
absence of an implementing legislation as an excuse in not effecting such policy.

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 people's will.

The MOA-AD, an instrument recognizing ancestral domain, failed to justify its non-compliance with the clear-cut mechanisms
ordained in Local Government Code, respondents clearly transcended the boundaries of their authority.

Echegaray v Sec. of Justice (Section 17 inconsistent with Article 83 of RPC)

The Court convicted petitioner Leo Echegaray y Pilo for the crime of rape of the 10-year-old daughter of his common-law spouse
and the imposition upon him of the death penalty.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration raising for the first time the issue of the constitutionality of the death penalty law and
the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of rape.

In the meantime, Congress changed the mode of execution of the death penalty from electrocution to lethal injection and passed
Republic Act No. 8177.

Petitioner filed a Petition to enjoin respondents Secretary of Justice from carrying out the execution by lethal injection of petitioner
under R.A. No. 8177 and its implementing rules as these are unconstitutional and void.

The Solicitor General contends that the execution by lethal injection, as authorized under R.A. No. 8177 and the questioned rules,
is constitutional.

Petitioner filed a Reply stating that the Court is not barred from exercising judicial review over the death penalty per se, the death
penalty for rape and lethal injection as a mode of carrying out the death penalty.
Petitioner contends that Section 17 is unconstitutional for being discriminatory as well as for being an invalid exercise of the power
to legislate by respondent Secretary.

Petitioner insists that Section 17 amends the instances when lethal injection may be suspended, without an express amendment of
Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by section 25 of R.A. No. 7659.

WON RA 8177 is unconstitutional for being violative of the right to information

The Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act No. 8177 suffer serious flaws. Said manual shall be confidential and its
distribution shall be limited to authorized prison personnel.

The contents of the manual are 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.

Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, suspends the implementation of the
death penalty while a woman is pregnant or within one (1) year after delivery, Section 17 of the implementing rules omits the one
(1) year period following delivery as an instance when the death sentence is suspended, and adds a ground for suspension of
sentence no longer found under Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, which is the three-year reprieve after a woman
is sentenced. This addition is, in petitioner's view, tantamount to a gender-based discrimination sans statutory basis, while the
omission is an impermissible contravention of the applicable law.

In case of discrepancy between a provision of statute and a rule or regulation issued to implement said statute, the statutory
provision prevails. Since the cited clause in Section 17 which suspends the execution of a woman within the three (3) years next
following the date of sentence finds no supports in Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, perforce Section 17 must be
declared invalid.

Chavez v PCGG (ill-gotten wealth is matter of public concern but subject to law on disclosing its information)
Petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, as "taxpayer, initiated the prosecution of the Marcoses and their cronies who committed unmitigated
plunder of the public treasury. Petitioner, invoking his constitutional right to information demands that respondents make public all
negotiations and agreements pertaining to PCGG's task of recovering the Marcoses' ill-gotten wealth.

Respondents claim that PCGG may not yet be compelled to make any disclosure, since the proposed terms and conditions of the
Agreements have not become effective and binding.

The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining respondent, their agents and/or representatives from "entering into, or
perfecting and/or executing any agreement with the heirs of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos relating to and concerning their
ill-gotten wealth.

In seeking the public disclosure of negotiations and agreements pertaining to a compromise settlement with the Marcoses as
regards their alleged ill-gotten wealth, petitioner invokes right to information.

Respondents viewed that the assailed Agreements entered into by the PCGG with the Marcoses, there is yet no right of action that
has accrued, because said Agreements have not been approved by the President, and the Marcos heirs have failed to fulfill their
express undertaking therein. Thus, the Agreements have not become effective.

WON the Court could require the PCGG to disclose to the public the details of any agreement, perfected or not, with the
Marcoses

Sec. 7 [Article III]. 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.

Sec. 28 [Article II]. 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.

The following are some of the recognized restrictions of right to information:

(1) national security matters and intelligence information,

(2) trade secrets and banking transactions,
(3) criminal matters, and
(4) other confidential information.

The information sought must be "matters of public concern," access to which may be limited by law. Similarly, the state policy of full
public disclosure extends only to "transactions involving public interest" and may also be "subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law.

Public concern" like "public interest are those as it relates to or affects the public.

Official acts of public officers done in pursuit if their official functions are public in character, hence, the records pertaining to such
official acts and decisions are within the ambit of the constitutional right of access to public records.

Under Republic Act No. 6713, public officials and employees are mandated to "provide information on their policies and procedures
in clear and understandable language, ensure openness of information, public consultations and hearings whenever appropriate
except when "otherwise provided by law or when required by the public interest.

Writings coming into the hands of public officers in connection with their official functions must be accessible to the public,
consistent with the policy of transparency of governmental affairs.
 "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."

The assets and properties referred to supposedly originated from the government itself. To all intents and purposes, therefore, they
belong to the people. The recovery of the Marcoses' alleged ill-gotten wealth is a matter of public concern and imbued with public
interest.

The "transactions" is generic and, therefore, it can cover both steps leading to a contract, and already a consummated contract.
This contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction, subject to reasonable safeguards on
the national interest.

There is a need, 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.