SILVERIO VS.

CA
Facts: Silverio was charged with violation of Revised Securities Act.
In due time, he posted bail for his provisional liberty. After more than
2 years after filing the information, respondent filed an urgent ex
parte motion to cancel the passport of Silverio on the ground that he
had gone abroad several times without necessary court approval
resulting in postponements of the arraignment and scheduled
hearings.
RTC then issued an order directing the DFA to cancel the passport or
to deny his application and the Commission on Immigration to
prevent Silverio from leaving the country. This RTC finding that
Silverio has not been arraigned and never appeared in court on the
scheduled date of his arraignment, and Silverio has been going out of
the country without the court's knowledge and permission.
Petitioner contends that respondent Court of Appeals erred in not
finding that the Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing its Orders, dated 4 April
and 28 July 1988, (1) on the basis of facts allegedly patently
erroneous, claiming that the scheduled arraignments could not be
held because there was a pending Motion to Quash the Information;
and (2) finding that the right to travel can be impaired upon lawful
order of the Court, even on grounds other than the "interest of
national security, public safety or public health."
Held: Although the date of the filing of the Motion to Quash has been
omitted by Petitioner, it is apparent that it was filed long after the
filing of the Information in 1985 and only after several arraignments
had already been scheduled and cancelled due to Petitioner's nonappearance.
Warrants of Arrest having been issued against him for violation of the
conditions of his bail bond, he should be taken into custody. "Bail is
the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance
before any court when so required by the Court or the Rules. The
foregoing condition imposed upon an accused to make himself

available at all times whenever the Court requires his presence

operates as a valid restriction of his right to travel.
Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should by no
means be construed as delimiting the inherent power of the Courts to
use all means necessary to carry their orders into effect in criminal
cases pending before them. When by law jurisdiction is conferred on
a Court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, process and other
means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such
Court or officer.
CAUNCA VS. SALAZAR
Facts: This is an action for habeas corpus brought by Bartolome
Caunca in behalf of his cousin Estelita Flores who was employed by
the Far Eastern Employment Bureau, owned by Julia Salazar,
respondent herein. An advanced payment has already been given to
Estelita by the employment agency, for her to work as a maid.
However, Estelita wanted to transfer to another residence, which was
disallowed by the employment agency. Further she was detained and
her liberty was restrained. The employment agency wanted that
the advance payment, which was applied to her transportation
expense from the province should be paid by Estelita before she could
be
allowed
to
leave.
Issue: Whether or Not an employment agency has the right to
restrain and detain a maid without returning the advance payment it
gave?
Held: An employment agency, regardless of the amount it may
advance to a prospective employee or maid, has absolutely no power
to curtail her freedom of movement. The fact that no physical
force has been exerted to keep her in the house of the respondent
does not make less real the deprivation of her personal freedom of
movement, freedom to transfer from one place to another, freedom to
choose ones residence. Freedom may be lost due to external moral
compulsion, to founded or groundless fear, to erroneous belief in the
existence of an imaginary power of an impostor to cause harm if not
blindly obeyed, to any other psychological element that
may curtail the mental faculty of choice or the unhampered exercise

of the will. If the actual effect of such psychological spell is to place a

person at the mercy of another, the victim is entitled to the protection
of courts of justiceas much as the individual who is illegally
deprived of liberty by duress or physical coercion.

KANT KWONG and YIM KAM SHING v. PRESIDENTIAL

COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, SECRETARY RAMON A.
DIAZ and COMMISSIONER MARY CONCEPCION BAUTISTA
FACTS: Petitioners prayed that respondent Presidential Commission
on Good Government (PCGG, for Short) be commanded to lift without
delay the Hold-Orders issued against them by the said entity for
being in violation of their right to travel and for having been issued in
grave abuse of authority since they are in no way involved in ill-gotten
wealth nor in transactions connected therewith. Petitioners were
foreign nationals who are the representative of the Hongkong-Chinese
investors who own 33% of the shares of stock in two domestic
garment corporations namely, De Soleil Apparel Manufacturing
Corporation,
and
American
Inter-Fashion
Manufacturing
Corporation, which firms were ordered sequestered by the PCGG on
25 March 1986 on the thesis that the Marcoses, through nominess
and dummies, appear to control 67% of the firms shareholdings.
HELD: The Hold-Orders against petitioners preventing them from
leaving the country cannot be prolonged indefinitely. The right to
travel and to freedom 6 of movement is a fundamental right
guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution and the Universal declaration of
Human Rights to which the Philippines is a signatory. That right
extends to all residents regardless of nationality. And everyone has
the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals
for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
Constitution or by law. While such right is not absolute but must
yield to the States inherent police power upon which the Hold-Orders
were premised, no good reasons have been advanced which could
justify the continued enforcement of the Hold-Order.

MANOTOC VS CA

Facts: Ricardo Manotoc Jr. was one of the two principal stockholders
of Trans-Insular Management Inc. and the Manotoc Securities Inc.
(stock brokerage house). He was in US for a certain time, went home
to file a petition with SEC for appointment of a management
committee for both businesses. Such was granted. However, pending
disposition of a case filed with SEC, the latter requested the
Commissioner
of
Immigration
not
to
clear
him
for
departure. Consequently, a memorandum to this effect was issued.
There was a torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc
Securities Inc which was suspected to be fake. 6 of its clients filed
separate criminal complaints against the petitioner and Leveriza,
President and VP respectively. He was charged with estafa and was
allowed by the Court to post bail.
Petitioner filed before each trial court motion for permission to leave
the country stating his desire to go to US relative to his business
transactions and opportunities. Such was opposed by the
prosecution and was also denied by the judges. He filed petition for
certiorari with CA seeking to annul the prior orders and the SEC
communication request denying his leave to travel abroad.
According to the petitioner, having been admitted to bail as a matter
of right, neither the courts that granted him bail nor SEC, which has
no jurisdiction over his liberty, could prevent him from exercising his
constitutional right to travel.
ISSUE: Whether petitioners constitutional right to travel was
violated.
HELD: NO. The court has power to prohibit person admitted to bail
from leaving the country because this is a necessary consequence of
the nature and function of a bail bond. The condition imposed
upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever
the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on
his constitutional right to travel. In case he will be allowed to leave
the country without sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the
reach of courts.

Furthermore, petitioner failed to satisfy trial court and CA of the

urgency of his travel, duration thereof, as well as consent of his
surety to the proposed travel. He was not able to show the necessity
of his travel abroad. He never indicated that no other person in his
behalf could undertake such business transaction.
Article 3 Sec6: The liberty of abode and of changing the same shall
not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. According
to SC, the order of trial court in releasing petitioner on bail
constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the provision on
right to travel.
VILLAVICENCIO VS. LUKBAN
Facts: Justo Lukban as Manila City's Mayor together with Anton
Hohmann, the city's Chief of Police, took custody of about 170 women
at the night of October 25 beyond the latters consent and knowledge
and thereafter were shipped to Mindanao specifically in Davao where
they were signed as laborers. Said women are inmates of the houses
of prostitution situated in Gardenia Street, in the district of
Sampaloc.
That when the petitioner filed for habeas corpus, the respondent
moved to dismiss the case saying that those women were already out
of their jurisdiction and that , it should be filed in the city of Davao
instead.
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner with the instructions;
For the respondents to have fulfilled the court's order, three optional
courses were open: (1) They could have produced the bodies of the
persons according to the command of the writ; or (2) they could have
shown by affidavit that on account of sickness or infirmity those
persons could not safely be brought before the court; or (3) they could
have presented affidavits to show that the parties in question or their
attorney waived the right to be present.
Held: The court concluded the case by granting the parties aggrieved
the sum of 400 pesos each, plus 100 pesos for nominal damage due
to contempt of court. Reasoning further that if the chief executive of
any municipality in the Philippines could forcibly and illegally take a
private citizen and place him beyond the boundaries of the

municipality, and then, when called upon to defend his official action,
could calmly fold his hands and claim that the person was under no
restraint and that he, the official, had no jurisdiction over this other
municipality.
We believe the true principle should be that, if the respondent is
within the jurisdiction of the court and has it in his power to obey the
order of the court and thus to undo the wrong that he has inflicted,
he should be compelled to do so. Even if the party to whom the writ
is addressed has illegally parted with the custody of a person before
the application for the writ is no reason why the writ should not
issue. If the mayor and the chief of police, acting under no authority
of law, could deport these women from the city of Manila to Davao,
the same officials must necessarily have the same means to return
them from Davao to Manila. The respondents, within the reach of
process, may not be permitted to restrain a fellow citizen of her liberty
by forcing her to change her domicile and to avow the act with
impunity in the courts, while the person who has lost her birthright
of liberty has no effective recourse. The great writ of liberty may not
thus be easily evaded.
Roan vs. Gonzales
FACTS: The challenged search warrant was issued by the respondent
judge on May 10, 1984. The petitioner's house was searched two
days later but none of the articles listed in the warrant was
discovered. However, the officers conducting the search found in the
premises one Colt Magnum revolver and eighteen live bullets which
they confiscated. They are now the bases of the charge against the
petitioner.
Respondent Judge said that when PC Capt. Mauro P. Quinosa
personally filed his application for a search warrant on May 10, 1984,
he appeared before him in the company of his two (2) witnesses,
Esmael Morada and Jesus Tohilida, both of whom likewise presented
to him their respective affidavits taken by Pat. Josue V. Lining, a
police investigator. As the application was not yet subscribed and
sworn to, he proceeded to examine Captain Quillosa on the contents
thereof to ascertain, among others, if he knew and understood the
same. Afterwards, he subscribed and swore to the same before him.

ISSUE:Whether the Respondent Judge failed to comply with the

proper procedure in issuing the Search Warrant.
HELD: Yes, mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are
thus not sufficient. The examining Judge has to take depositions in
writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and
attach them to the record. Such written deposition is necessary in
order that the Judge may be able to properly determine the existence
or non-existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the
person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false.
We, therefore, hold that the search warrant is tainted with illegality
by the failure of the Judge to conform with the essential requisites of
taking the depositions in writing and attaching them to the record,
rendering the search warrant invalid. (See Rule 126, Sec 4)
The respondent judge also declared that he "saw no need to have
applicant Quillosa's deposition taken considering that he was
applying for a search warrant on the basis of the information
provided by the witnesses whose depositions had already been taken
by the undersigned.

The issuance of the certificate was in pursuant to the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights on the Right to Travel. The Philippines,
even though it is under martial law, shall in no instance facilitate the
erosion of human rights. The Travel Processing Center should
exercise the utmost care to avoid the impression that certain citizens
desirous of exercising their constitutional right to travel could be
subjected to inconvenience or annoyance this is to avoid such
similar cases to face the Court which needlessly expire the Courts
effort and time.
READ THE FERDINAND MARCOS CASES OF AUGUST &
OCTOBER, 1989 (FERDINAND MARCOS, ET AL. VS. HON. RAUL
MANGLAPUS, ET AL., G.R. NO. 88211, September 15, 1989 and
the Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration dated October
27, 1989)
Right to travel; liberty of abode and right to return
En banc

In other words, the applicant was asking for the issuance of the
search warrant on the basis of mere hearsay and not of information
personally known to him, as required by settled jurisprudence.
SALONGA VS. HERMOSO
Facts: During the time of Martial Law, Jovito Salonga filed a
mandamus proceeding to compel Rolando Hermoso of the Travel
Processing Center to issue a certificate of eligibility to travel to

Cortes, J.
This is a petition for mandamus and prohibition asking the Supreme
Court to Order the respondents to issue travel documents to the
petitioners and to enjoin the implementation of the Presidents

Salonga.

decision to bar their return to the Philippines.

ISSUE: Whether or not the right to travel may be prohibited during

The case for the petitioners is founded on the assertion that their

martial law.
HELD: No. This issue became moot and academic because it appears
that Hermoso did issue and did not deny Salongas request for a
certificate of eligibility to travel.

right to return to the Philippines is guaranteed by the following

provisions of the Constitution:

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life liberty or property

security prevails over individual rights, citing Section 4, Art. II of the

without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied equal

1987 Philippine Constitution.

protection of the laws.

Issue:
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except in the interest of

Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted in the

national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided

Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning

by law.

to the Philippines.

The petitioners contend that the President has no power to impair the

The sub-issues, which could help in the determination of the main

liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only the Courts may do so

issue, are:

within the limits prescribed by law. Nor may the President impair
the right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so.

1. Does the President have the power to bar the Marcoses to return to
the Philippines?

Also, the petitioners claim that under international law, particularly

the Universal Declaration of Humjan Rights guaranteed the right of
the Marcoses to return to the Philippines. Thus:

a. Is this a political question?

2. Assuming that the President has the power to bar former Pres.

Art. 13 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and

Marcos and his family from returning to the Philippines, in the

residence within the borders of each state.

interest of national security, public safety or public health, has the

President made a finding that the return of the petitioners to the

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own,

Philippines is a clear and present danger to national security, public

AND TO RETURN TO HIS COUNTRY.

welfare or public health. And if she has made that finding, have the
requirements of due process been complied with in making such

Likewise, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political

finding? Has there been prior notice to the petitioners?

Rights, which had been ratified by the Philippines, provides:

Art. 12
4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own
country.
The respondents argue that the issue in this case involves a political
question which is therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.
Furthermore, they argue that the right of the state to national

Held:
It must be emphasized that the individual right involved in this case
is not the right to travel from the Philippines to other countries or
within the Philippines. These are what the right to travel connote.
Essentially, the right to return to ones country, a totally distinct right
under international law, independent from, though related to the
right to travel. Thus, even the Universal declaration of Human Rights
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the

right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of the

HAZEL ANTOLIN VS. ATTY. ABELARDO DOMONDON

state, the right to leave a country and the right to enter ones country
as separate and distinct rights.
THE RIGHT TO RETURN TO ONES COUNTRY IS NOT AMONG THE
RIGHTS SPECIFICALLY GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
WHICH TREATS ONLY OF THE LIBERTY OF ABODE AND THE
RIGHT TO TRAVEL, BUT IT IS OUR WELL-CONSIDERED VIEW THAT
THE RIGHT TO RETURN MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A GENERALLY
ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, UNDER OUR
CONSTITUTION, IS PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND.
To the President, the problem is one of balancing the general
welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of
certain individuals. The power involved is the

Presidents

RESIDUAL POWER to protect the general welfare of the people.

The court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that
the country is not besieged by the insurgency, separatist movement
in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to grab power, etc. With these
before her, the President cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily,
capriciously and whimsically.
Lastly, the issue involved in the case at bar is not political in nature
since under Section 1, Art. VIII of the Constitution, judicial power
now includes the duty to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Facts: Hazel Ma. C. Antolin (Petitioner) failed the Certified Public

Accountant (CPA) Licensure Exam she took in October 1997.
Convinced she deserved to pass the Exam, she wrote to the Board of
Accountancy (Board), requesting that her answer sheets be recorrected. She was shown her answer sheets but since these showed
only shaded marks, she was unable to determine why she failed the
Exam. Consequently, she asked the Board for copies of the
questionnaire, her answer sheets, the answer keys and an
explanation of the grading system (collectively, the Examination
Papers). Her request was denied on two grounds: (1) Section 36,
Article III of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Regulation and
Practice of Professionals, as amended by Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC) Resolution No. 332, series of 1994, only allowed
access to her answer sheets, and reconsideration of the result of her
examination can be made only on grounds of mechanical error in the
grading of the answer sheets, or malfeasance; and (2) the Board was
precluded from releasing the Examination Papers (other than the
answer sheets) by Section 20, Article IV of PRC Resolution No. 338,
series of 1994. The Board later informed her that her exam was
investigated and no mechanical error was found in the grading.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Mandamus with Damages, with
application for preliminary mandatory injunction, against the Board
and its members before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), praying that
the Board provide her with all documents that would show whether
the Board fairly administered the exam and correctly graded her
answers, and if warranted, to issue to her a certificate of registration
as a CPA. She later amended her Petition to clarify that she only
wanted access to the documents requested, not recorrection of her
exam, deleting in the process her original prayer for issuance of a
certificate of registration as CPA.
Petitioner passed the May 1998 CPA Licensure Exam and took her
oath as a CPA. Consequently, the RTC denied her application for
mandatory injunction for being moot. She amended her Petition a
second time to implead the PRC and to ask, in addition to access to
the documents she had requested, that if warranted, appropriate
revisions in the October 1997 Exam results be made by the Board
and the PRC. The RTC considered the matter moot and dismissed the
petition. On her motion, however, the RTC reconsidered the

dismissal, holding that her passing of the subsequent CPA

examination did not render the petition moot because the relief and
if warranted, to issue to her a certificate of registration as Certified
Public Accountant was deleted from the original petition. As regards
whether she had the constitutional right to have
access to the documents she requested, the RTC resolved to let the
parties first adduce evidence, and to have PRC air its side of the case.
The RTC also ordered the PRC to preserve and safeguard the
questionnaire, petitioners answer sheets, and the answer keys for
theOctober 1997 CPA Licensure Exam.
When their motion for reconsideration was denied,
respondents brought the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) which set
aside the RTCs decision and ordered the dismissal of the case
because: (1) the petition was mooted when petitioner passed the May
1998 CPA exam; (2) Section 20, Article IV of PRC Resolution No. 338,
series of 1994, constituted a valid limitation on her right to
information and access to government documents; (3) the
ExaminationDocuments were not of public concern, because she
merely sought review of her failing marks; (4) it was not the
ministerial or mandatory function of the respondents to review and
reassess
the answers to examination questions of a failing examinee; and (5)
she failed to exhaust administrative remedies when she did not
elevate thematter to the PRC before seeking judicial intervention.
Petitioner, thus, brought thematter to the SupremeCourt.
Issues: (1)Whether or not petitioner may seek judicial intervention to
compel the re-correction of her examination; (2)Whether or not
petitioner failed to exhaust the administrative remedies; (3)Whether
or not the case was mooted by petitioners passing the May
1998 CPA Licensure Examination; and (4)Whether or not petitioner
has the constitutional right to have access to the Examination
Papers.
Held: (4) Like all the constitutional guarantees, the right to
information is not absolute; it is limited to matters of public
concern and is further subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law (Section 7, Article III, 1987 Constitution). Similarly,
the States policy of full disclosure is limited to transactions

involving public interest, and is subject to reasonable conditions

prescribed by law (Sec. 28, Art. II, 1987 Constitution). The Court has
always grappled with the meanings of public interest and public
concern which 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, and which are, in the final analysis, up to the
courts to determine on a case by case basis [Legaspi v. Civil
ServiceCommission, 234 Phil. 521, 535 (1987)]. National board
examinations such as the CPA Board Exams are matters of public
concern. The populace in general, and the examinees in particular,
would understandably be interested in the fair and competent
administration of these exams in order to ensure that only those
qualified are admitted into the accounting profession. And as with all
matters pedagogical, these examinations could be notmerely
quantitativemeans of assessment, but also means to further improve
the teaching and learning of
the art and science of accounting.
The Court, nonetheless, realizes that there may be valid
reasons to limit access to the Examination Papers in order to properly
administer the exam. More than the mere convenience of the
examiner, it may well be that there exist inherent difficulties in the
preparation, generation, encoding, administration, and checking of
these multiple choice exams that require that the questions and
answers remain confidential for a limited duration. The PRC, however,
had not been given an opportunity to explain the reasons behind
their regulations or articulate the justification for keeping the
Examination Papers confidential.
In view of the far-reaching implications of this case, whichmay
impact on every board examination administered by the PRC, and in
order that all relevant issuesmay be ventilated, the Court deemed it
best to remand the case to the RTC for further proceedings.
PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO VS. GOV. OF REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL
FACTS: The Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and
the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) were scheduled to sign a
Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD). This

Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the

GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement of Peace of 2001 is a codification of
consensus points reached between GRP and MILF Peace Panel and of
the aspiration of the MILF to have a Bangasmoro Homeland
According to the stipulations in the MOA-AD, Ownership of the
Bangasmoro Homeland is vested to the Bangasmoro people. MOA-AD
describes the Bangasmoro people as the first nation with defined
territory and with a system of government having entered into
treaties of amity and commerce with foreign nations. The
Bangasmoro Juridical Entity (BJE) is granted by the MOA-AD the
authority
and
jurisdiction
over
the
Ancestral
Domain
and Ancestral Lands of the Bangasmoro. It was also stipulated that
BJE shall have jurisdiction over all natural resources within its
internal waters.
ISSUES: (4) Whether there is a violation of the peoples right to
information on matters of public concern.

text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement

(JPEPA) including the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted
during the negotiation process and all pertinent attachments and
annexes thereto.
The JPEPA, which will be the first bilateral free trade
agreement to be entered into by the Philippines with another country
in the event the Senate grants its consent to it, covers a broad range
of topics which includes trade in goods, rules of origin, customs
procedures,

paperless

trading,

trade

in

services,

investment,

intellectual property rights, government procurement, movement of

natural persons, cooperation, competition policy, mutual recognition,
dispute avoidance and settlement, improvement of the business
environment, and general and final provisions.

Petitioners emphasize that the refusal of the government to

disclose the said agreement violates their right to information on

HELD: (4) Yes, there is a violation of the peoples right to
information.An essential element of this right is to keep a continuing
dialogue or process of communication between the government and
the people.The contents of the MOA-AD is a matter of paramount
public concern involving public interest in the highest order.
The invocation of the doctrine of executive privilege as a defense to
the general right to information or the specific right to consultation is
untenable. The various explicit legal provisions fly in the face of
executive secrecy. In any event, respondents effectively waived such
defense after it unconditionally disclosed the official copies of the
final draft of the MOA-AD, for judicial compliance and public
scrutiny.

Facts: Petitioners, as non-government orgs, congresspersons, citizens

and taxpayers, filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition seeking
compel

respondents,

Department

of

Trade

disclosure of the same documents undermines their right to effective

and reasonable participation in all levels of social, political and
economic decision making.

Respondent herein invoke executive privilege. They relied on

the ground that the matter sought involves a diplomatic negotiation

then in progress, thus constituting an exception to the right to
information and the policy of full disclosure of matters that are of
public concern like the JPEPA - that diplomatic negotiations are
covered by the doctrine of executive privilege.
Issues:

AKBAYAN VS. THOMAS AQUINO

to

matters of public concern and of public interest. That the non-

Industry

(DTI)

Undersecretary Thomas Aquino, et al., to furnish petitioners the full

1. Whether the claim of the petitioners is covered by the right to

information.

HELD: 1. YES. The right of people to information on matters of

public concern is a public right by its very nature so petitioners
need not show that they have any legal or special interest in the
result. It is enough that they are part of the general public who
possess the right. Since in the present position is anchored on the
right of information and the petitioners are suing in their capacity
as citizens, citizen-groups, petitioner-members of the House of Rep,
their standing to file the present suit is grounded on jurisprudence.
RE: REQUEST FOR COPY OF 2008 STATEMENT OF ASSETS,
LIABILITIES AND NETWORTH[SALN] AND PERSONAL DATA
SHEET ORCURRICULUM VITAE OF THE JUSTICES OF
THESUPREME COURT AND OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE
JUDICIARY. A. M. No. 09-8-6-SC, June 13, 2012.
Facts:Rowena Paraan, Research Director of the PCIJ, sought copies
of the SALN of the Justices of the SupremeCourt for the year 2008.
She also requested for copies of the Personal Data Sheet of the
Justices of thisCourt for the purpose of updating their database of
information on government officials.
Issue #1: Can the SALN of justices be accessed via the right
to information?
Ruling: Yes. The right to information goes hand-in-hand with the
constitutional policies of full public disclosureand honesty in the
public service
Issue #2:What are the limitations on the constitutional right to
information?
Ruling: The right to information is not absolute. It is further subject
to such limitations as may be provided bylaw. Jurisprudence has
provided the following limitations to that right:(1) national security
matters
andintelligence
information;(2)
trade
secrets
and
banking transactions;(3) criminal matters; and(4) other confidential
information such as confidential or classified information officially
known to public officersand employees by reason of their office and
not made available to the public as well as diplomaticcorrespondence,
closed door Cabinet meetings and executive sessions of either house
of Congress, andthe internal deliberations of the Supreme Court.
SABIO VS. GORDON

On February 20, 2006, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago introduced

Senate Res. No. 455 directing an inquiry in aid of legislation on the
anomalous

losses

incurred

Telecommunications

by

Corporation

Communications Satellite Corporation

the

Philippines
(POTC),

Overseas
Philippine

(PHILCOMSAT),

and

PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC) due to the alleged

improprieties in their operations by their respective Board of
Directors. Pursuant to this, on May 8, 2006, Senator Richard
Gordon, wrote Chairman Camilo Sabio of the PCGG inviting him to be
one of the resource persons in the public meeting jointly conducted
by

the

Committee

on

Government

Corporations

and

Public

Enterprises and Committee on Public Services. Chairman Sabio

declined the invitation because of prior commitment. At the same
time, he invoked Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 No member or staff of the
Commission shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any
judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding concerning matters
within its official cognizance. Apparently, the purpose is to ensure
PCGGs unhampered performance of its task. Gordons Subpoenae Ad
Testificandum was repeatedly ignored by Sabio hence he threatened
Sabio to be cited with contempt.
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 4 of EO No. 1 is constitutional.
HELD: No. It can be said that the Congress power of inquiry has
gained more solid existence and expansive construal. The Courts
high regard to such power is rendered more evident in Senate v.
Ermita, where it categorically ruled that the power of inquiry is
broad enough to cover officials of the executive branch. Verily, the
Court reinforced the doctrine in Arnault that the operation of
government, being a legitimate subject for legislation, is a proper
subject for investigation and

that the power of inquiry is co-

extensive with the power to legislate. 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.

Article III, 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.
These

twin

provisions

of

the

Constitution

seek

to

promote

government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to

enable them to exercise effectively their constitutional rights. Armed
with the right information, citizens can participate in public
discussions leading to the formulation of government policies and
their effective implementation.

FACTS : Petitioners in this special civil action for mandamus with

preliminary injunction invoke their right to information and pray that
respondent be directed: (a) to furnish petitioners the list of the names
of the Batasang Pambansa members belonging to the UNIDO and
PDP-Laban who were able to secure clean loans immediately before
the February 7 election thru the intercession/marginal note of the
then First Lady Imelda Marcos; and/or (b) to furnish petitioners with
certified true copies of the documents evidencing their respective
loans; and/or (c) to allow petitioners access to the public records for
the subject information On June 20, 1986, apparently not having yet
received the reply of the Government Service and Insurance System
General

Counsel,

petitioner

Valmonte

wrote

respondent another letter, saying that for failure to receive a reply,

"(W)e are now considering ourselves free to do whatever action
necessary within the premises to pursue our desired objective in
pursuance

former First Lady Imelda Marcos to Batasang Pambansa members

belonging

to

the

UNIDO

and

PDP-Laban

political

parties.

HELD : Respondent has failed to cite any law granting the GSIS the

of

petition. His position is apparently based merely on considerations of

policy. The judiciary does not settle policy issues. The Court can only
declare what the law is, and not what the law should be. Under our
system of government, policy issues are within the domain of the
political branches of the government, and of the people themselves as
the repository of all State power. 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

VALMONTE VS. BELMONTE in relation to right to privacy

Deputy

taxpayers to inquire upon GSIS records on behest loans given by the

privilege of confidentiality as regards the documents subject of this

transparency in policy-making and in the operations of the

(GSIS)

ISSUE : Whether Valmonte, et. al. are entitled as citizens and

public

interest."

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 The "transactions" used here I suppose is generic and,
therefore, it can cover both steps leading to a contract, and already a
consummated contract, Considering the intent of the framers of the
Constitution which, though not binding upon the Court, are
nevertheless persuasive, and considering further that governmentowned and controlled corporations, whether performing proprietary
or governmental functions are accountable to the people, the Court is
convinced that transactions entered into by the GSIS, a governmentcontrolled corporation created by special legislation are within the
ambit of the people's right to be informed pursuant to the
constitutional

policy

of

transparency

in

government

dealings.

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 prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to

acquire information on matters of public concern.
LEGASPI VS. CSC
Facts: The petitioner invokes his constitutional right to information
on matters of public concern in a special civil action for mandamus
against the CSC pertaining to the information of civil service
eligibilities of certain persons employed as sanitarians in the Health
Department of Cebu City. The standing of the petitioner was
challenged by the Solicitor General of being devoid of legal right to be
informed of the civil service eligibilities of government employees for
failure of petitioner to provide actual interest to secure the
information sought.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner may invoke his constitutional right
to information in the case at bar.
Held: The court held that 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. The Constitution provides the guarantee of
adopting policy of full public disclosure subject to reasonable
conditions prescribed by law as in regulation in the manner of
examining the public records by the government agency in custody
thereof. But the constitutional guarantee to information on matters of
public concern is not absolute. Under the Constitution, access
toofficial records, papers, etc., are "subject to limitations as may be
provided by law" (Art. III, Sec. 7, second sentence). The law may
therefore exempt certain types of information from public scrutiny,
such as those affecting national security.
The court delves into determining whether the information sought for
by the petitioner is of public interest. All appointments in the Civil
Service Commission are made according to merit and fitness while a
public office is a public trust. Public employees therefore are
accountable to the people even as to their eligibilities to

their positions in the government. The court also noted that the
information on the result of the CSC eligibility examination is
released to the public therefore the request of petitioner is one that is
not unusual or unreasonable. The public, through any citizen, has
the right to verify the civil eligibilities of any person occupying
governmentpositions.
BRILLIANTES VS. CHANG (SORRY, WALA)
CANLAS VS. VASQUEZ (SORRY, WALA DIN)
AQUINO-SARMIENTO VS. MANUEL MORATO
FACTS : In February 1989, petitioner, herself a member of
respondent Movie and Television Review and Classification Board
(MTRCB), wrote its records officer requesting that she be allowed to
examine the board's records pertaining to the voting slips
accomplished by the individual board members after a review of the
movies and television productions. It is on the basis of said slips that
films are either banned, cut or classified accordingly. Petitioner's
request was eventually denied by respondent Morato on the ground
that whenever the members of the board sit in judgment over a film,
their decisions as reflected in the individual voting slips partake the
nature of conscience votes and as such, are purely and completely
private and personal On February 27, 1989, respondent Morato
called an executive meeting of the MTRCB to discuss, among others,
the issue raised by petitioner. In said meeting, seventeen (17)
members of the board voted to declare their individual voting records
as classified documents which rendered the same inaccessible to the
public without clearance from the chairman. Thereafter, respondent
Morato denied petitioner's request to examine the voting slips.
However, it was only much later, i.e., on July 27, 1989, that
respondent Board issued Resolution No. 10-89 which declared as
confidential, private and personal, the decision of the reviewing
committee
and
the
voting
slips
of
the
members.

ISSUE:

Whether

Resolution

No.

10-89

is

valid.

HELD : 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. 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. 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.
DRILON VS ERMITA
FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition proffer that
the President has abused power by issuing E.O. 464 Ensuring
Observance of the Principles of Separation of Powers, Adherence to
the Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public
Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under
the Constitution, and for Other Purposes. Petitioners pray for its
declaration as null and void for being unconstitutional. In the
exercise of its legislative power, the Senate of the Philippines, through
its various Senate Committees, conducts inquiries or investigations in
aid of legislation which call for, inter alia, the attendance of officials
and employees of the executive department, bureaus, and offices
including those employed in Government Owned and Controlled
Corporations, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the
Philippine
National
Police
(PNP).
The Committee of the Senate issued invitations to various officials of
the Executive Department for them to appear as resource speakers in
a public hearing on the railway project, others on the issues of
massive election fraud in the Philippine elections, wire tapping, and
the role of military in the so-called Gloriagate Scandal.
Said officials were not able to attend due to lack of consent from the
President as provided by E.O. 464, Section 3 which requires all the
public officials enumerated in Section 2(b) to secure the consent of

the President prior to appearing before either house of Congress.

ISSUE: Is Section 3 of E.O. 464, which requires all the public
officials, enumerated in Section 2(b) to secure the consent of the
President prior to appearing before either house of Congress, valid an
constitutional?
HELD: No. The enumeration in Section 2 (b) of E.O. 464 is broad and
is covered by the executive privilege. The doctrine of executive
privilege is premised on the fact that certain information must, as a
matter of necessity, be kept confidential in pursuit of the public
interest. The privilege being, by definition, an exemption from the
obligation to disclose information, in this case to Congress, the
necessity must be of such high degree as to outweigh the public
interest in enforcing that obligation in a particular case. Congress
undoubtedly has a right to information from the executive branch
whenever it is sought in aid of legislation. If the executive branch
withholds such information on the ground that it is privileged, it
must so assert it and state the reason therefor and why it must be
respected. The infirm provisions of E.O. 464, however, allow the
executive branch to evade congressional requests for information
without need of clearly asserting a right to do so and/or proffering its
reasons therefor. By the mere expedient of invoking said provisions,
the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is
frustrated.
TANADA VS. TUVERA
FACTS: Invoking the peoples right to be informed on matters of
public concerns as well as the principle that laws to be valid and
enforceable

they

must

be

published

in

theOfficial Gazette

or

otherwise effectively promulgated, Lorenzo Taada et al seek a writ of

mandamus to compel Juan Tuvera (then executive secretary to
President Ferdinand) Marcos to publish and/or to cause the
publication in the Official Gazette of various Presidential Decrees
(PDs), Letters of Instructions(LOIs), Proclamations(PPs), Executive
Orders(EOs), and Administrative Orders(AOs) issued by the then
president.

ISSUE: Whether or not the various PDs et al must be published

the public is deducible from the excerpts of the news report

before they shall take effect.

appearing in the April 13, 2007 issue of the Manila Bulletin, is that
there is nothing in R.A. 7941 that requires the Comelec to disclose

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the fact that a PD or LOI

the names of nominees, and that party list elections must not be

states its date of effectivity does not preclude their publication in

personality oriented according to Chairman Abalos.

the Official Gazette as they constitute important legislative acts,

particularly in the present case where the president may on his own
issue laws. The clear objective of this provision is to give the public
general adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate
their actions and conduct. Without such notice and publication,
there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignorantia
legis non excusat. Publication is indispensable.
BANTAY REPUBLIKA VS. COMELEC

In the first petition (G.R. No. 177271), BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR assail
the Comelec resolutions accrediting private respondents Biyaheng
Pinoy et al., to participate in the forthcoming party-list elections
without simultaneously determining whether or not their respective
nominees possess the requisite qualifications defined in R.A. No.
7941, or the "Party-List System Act" and belong to the marginalized
and underrepresented sector each seeks to.
In the second petition (G.R. No. 177314), petitioners Loreta Ann P.

FACTS: Before the Court are two consolidated petitions for certiorari

Rosales, Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay Katarungan Foundation

and mandamus to nullify and set aside certain issuances of the

impugn Comelec Resolution dated April 3, 2007.

Commission on Elections (Comelec) respecting party-list groups

which have manifested their intention to participate in the party-list

While both petitions commonly seek to compel the Comelec to

elections on May 14, 2007.

disclose or publish the names of the nominees of the various party-

A number of organized groups filed the necessary manifestations and

additional prayers that the 33 private respondents named therein be

subsequently were accredited by the Comelec to participate in the

"declare[d] as unqualified to participate in the party-list elections and

2007 elections. Bantay Republic Act (BA-RA 7941) and the Urban

that the Comelec be enjoined from allowing respondent groups from

Poor for Legal Reforms (UP-LR) filed with the Comelec an Urgent

participating in the elections.

list groups named in the petitions, BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR have the

Petition to Disqualify, seeking to disqualify the nominees of certain

party-list organizations. Docketed in the Comelec as SPA Case No 07026, this urgent petition has yet to be resolved. Meanwhile petitioner
Rosales, in G.R. No. 177314, addressed two letters to the Director of
the Comelec's Law Department requesting a list of that groups'
nominees. Evidently unbeknownst then to Ms. Rosales, et al., was the

ISSUE: 1. Can the Court cancel the accreditation accorded by the

Comelec to the respondent party-list groups named in their petition
on the ground that these groups and their respective nominees do

issuance of Comelec en banc Resolution 07-0724 under date April 3,

not appear to be qualified? 2. Whether respondent Comelec, by

2007 virtually declaring the nominees' names confidential and in net

refusing to reveal the names of the nominees of the various

effect denying petitioner Rosales' basic disclosure request. Comelec's

party-list groups, has violated the right to information and free

reason for keeping the names of the party list nominees away from

access to documents as guaranteed by the Constitution; and 3.

Whether respondent Comelec is mandated by the Constitution to

end, would be a vote for its nominees, who, in appropriate cases,

disclose to the public the names of said nominees.

would eventually sit in the House of Representatives. The Court

frowns upon any interpretation of the law or rules that would hinder

HELD: The 1st petition is partly DENIED insofar as it seeks to nullify

in any way the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an election.

the accreditation of the respondents named therein. However, insofar

as it seeks to compel the Comelec to disclose or publish the names of

3. COMELEC has a constitutional duty to disclose and release the

the nominees of party-list groups, sectors or organizations accredited

names of the nominees of the party-list groups named in the herein

to participate in the May 14, 2007 elections, the 2 petitions are

petitions. The right to information is a public right where the real

GRANTED. Accordingly, the Comelec is hereby ORDERED to

parties in interest are the public, or the citizens to be precise, but like

immediately disclose and release the names of the nominees of the

all constitutional guarantees, however, the right to information and

party-list groups,

its companion right of access to official records are not absolute. The
people's right to know is limited to "matters of public concern" and is

2. Section 7, Article III of the Constitution, viz:

further subject to such limitation as may be provided by law. But no

national security or like concerns is involved in the disclosure of the

Sec.7. The right of the people to information on matters of

names of the nominees of the party-list groups in question.

public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and

Doubtless, the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in

to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or

refusing the legitimate demands of the petitioners for a list of the

decisions, as well to government research data used as basis for

nominees of the party-list groups subject of their respective petitions.

policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such

Mandamus, therefore, lies.

limitations as may be provided by law. Section 28, Article II of the

Constitution reading: Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full

BALDOZA, vs. HON. JUDGE RODOLFO B. DIMAANO

public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

FACTS: In a verified letter-complaint dated September 9, 1975, the

COMELEC's basis of its refusal to disclose the names of the nominees

Municipal Secretary of Taal, Batangas, charges Municipal Judge

of subject party-list groups, Section 7 of R.A. 7941,which last sentence

Rodolfo B. Dimaano, of the same municipality, with abuse of

reads: "[T]he names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on

the certified list" is certainly not a justifying card for the Comelec to
deny the requested disclosure.
There is absolutely nothing in R.A. No. 7941 that prohibits the
Comelec from disclosing or even publishing through mediums other
than the "Certified List" of the names. It has been repeatedly said in
various contexts that the people have the right to elect their
representatives on the basis of an informed judgment. While the vote
cast in a party-list elections is a vote for a party, such vote, in the

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.
Respondent answered that there has never been an intention
to refuse access to official court records but that the same is always
subject to reasonable regulation as to who, when, where and how
they may be inspected. He further asserted that a court has the
power to prevent an improper use or inspection of its records and
furnishing copies may be refuse when the motivation is not serious

and legitimate interest, out of whim or fancy or mere curiosity or

to gratify private site or promote public scandal.
The case was thereupon referred to Judge Francisco Mat.
Riodique for investigation and report. At the preliminary hearing on
October 16, 1975, Taal Mayor Corazon A. Caniza filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint but the motion was denied by the Investigating
Judge. After formal investigation, he recommended the exoneration of
respondent.
ISSUE: Whether the rules and conditions imposed by Judge Dimaano
on the inspection of the docket books infringe upon the right of
individuals to information.
HELD: No. As found by the Investigating Judge, the respondent
allowed the complainant to open and view the docket books of
respondent certain conditions and under his control and supervision.
It has not been shown that the rules and conditions imposed by the
respondent were unreasonable. The access to public records
predicated on the right of the people to acquire information on
matters of public concern.
The incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a
recognition of the fundamental role of free exchange of information in
a democracy. Information is needed to enable the members of society
to cope with the exigencies of the times. As has been aptly observed:
"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.
LANTACO VS. LLAMAS (FULL TEXT)
This is a verified letter-complaint dated August 7, 1975 addressed to
the President of the Philippines (by lst Indorsement, dated August 25,
1975, this case was referred by the Office of the President to this

Court, pursuant to Section 7, Article X of the Constitution), by

jeepney drivers Martin Lantaco, Sr., Esteban del Barrio, Rosalito
Alamag and Borromeo Vitaliano, all residents of Pasay City, against
City Judge Francisco R. Llamas of the Pasay City Court for
"Backsliding and Grave Abuse of Discretion."
On January 8, 1975, an investigating special counsel of the City
Fiscal's Office of Pasay City, filed Criminal Cases Nos. 95647, 95648,
95649 and 95650, all for estafa against Ricardo Paredes, an officer of
the PASCAMASCON, an association of jeepney operators, for "nonremittance of SSS contribution premiums." These cases were
assigned to respondent. After the prosecution had rested its case, the
defense moved to dismiss all the criminal cases on the ground that
the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient to convict
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution opposed the
motion. According to the complainants, the respondent set the
promulgation of his decision on July 22, 1975, postponed to July 30,
1975 and again to July 31, 1975, when at about 9:45 in the morning,
upon respondent's instruction, his clerk of court read the dispositive
portion thereof acquitting the accused of all four estafa cases on the
ground of reasonable doubt.
According to the herein complainants:
After the reading of (the) Decision a recess was made
by Judge Llamas and we requested Judge Llamas to
furnish us a copy of said Decision. Judge Llamas told
us that there are no more copy and we told Judge
Llamas if there is no more copy we would like to xerox
the original and Judge Llamas told us that xerox copy
are not permitted and Judge Llamas instructed one of
the employees in his office a- steno-typist to type
another copy for us and that the typist told us to come
back on Monday, August 4, which we did, but, the
steno-typist failed to furnish us the copy as agreed by

us and told us again to come back next day, August 5.

which was validly promulgated in the presence of the

The next morning we went back of the office of Judge

accused, the prosecuting fiscal and Mr. Severino

Llamas, same we failed to get copy of the Decision.

Ginete and all the complaining parties. The records of

the decision show that the accused assisted by counsel

On August 6, 1975 at 11:00 A.M. one of the

signed the same on said date and copies thereafter

complainants, Esteban del Barrio and Ceferino F.

furnished counsel for the accused and the prosecuting

Ginete, the President or our labor union went to Judge

fiscal.

Llamas to secure copy of said decision to (sic) the same

person the steno-typist. The steno-typist went inside

Respondent also averred:

the room of Judge Llamas and a few minutes the typist

went back to us and informed us that he could not

It is respectfully submitted that on the details of the

type the Decision because the folder is at the house of

proceedings and the evidence presented, no better

Judge Llamas and when Mr. Ginete inquire why the

answer could be made by the undersigned except by

said folder of the complainants are at the house of

submitting a copy of said decision promulgated July

Judge Llamas, the typist reply the Judge making

31, 1975 and marked as Annex "A" of this comment. In

"CORRECTION." Mr. Ginete wonder why a correction is

the same breath, the matter of the advisability as

being made when the decision has already been

suggested that this finding by this Court be reviewed by

rendered anti why the delay in furnishing us copy,

the Military may best be answered by a thorough

WHY?

reading of the decision.

This Court required the respondent to comment on the complaint by

2nd Indorsement dated September 16, 1975. This Court also sent by
registered mails a follow-up letter dated October 23, 1975 and a
tracer letter dated November 25, 1975. The Bureau of Posts in a
certification dated November 26, 1975 certified that these follow-up
letters were delivered to and received by the office of the respondent.
Finally, on March 8, 1976 this Court received respondent's comment
dated December 3, 1975. His brief comment:
The four related criminal accusations against Mr.
Ricardo Paredes, were validly and properly decided by
this Court. The motion to dismiss after the
prosecution's case was rested, was resolved and said
resolution of acquittal is the very decision in this case

After a careful examination of the records before this Court, We

found that respondent committed grave abuse of authority in
refusing to give the complainants a copy of his decision in
Criminal Cases Nos. 95647-95650. The complainants were
understandably interested in securing a copy of the decision as they
were the complaining witnesses in these four criminal cases. The
request was made during office hours. It was relayed personally to
the respondent. The decision in question was already promulgated.
Copies were already furnished the counsel for the prosecution and
the defense. It was already part of the public record which the citizen
has a right to scrutinize. And if there was "no more copy," the
complainants were amenable to have a xerox copy of the original on
file, copies of which, as part of court records, are allowed to be given
to interested parties upon request, duly certified as a true copy of the
original on file. What aggravates the situation, as seen from the
sequence of events narrated by the complainants which were never
denied or rebutted by the respondent, is that respondent, without

just cause, denied complainants access to public records and gave

the complainants the run-around, which is oppressive as it is
arbitrary. In Baldoza vs. Honorable Judge Rodolfo B.
Dimaano (A.M. No. 112-MJ, May 5, 1976), WE emphasized the
importance of access to public records. predicated as it is on the
right of the people to acquire information on matters of public
concern in which the public has a legitimate interest. While the
public officers in custody or control of public records have the
discretion to regulate the manner in which such records may be
inspected, examined or copied by interested persons, such
discretion does not carry with it the authority to prohibit such
access, inspection, examination or copying.
Continuing, said this Court:
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 (Article IV, Section 6, New Constitution).
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 nation's 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. As has been
aptly

observed:

information

Maintaining

depends

on

the

protection

flow
for

of

such

both

its

acquisition and its dissemination since, if either

process is interrupted, the flow inevitably ceases. (87
Harvard Law Review 1505) [Baldoza vs. Hon. Judge
Rodolfo B. Dimaano, A.M. No. 112-MJ, May 5, 1976].

SUBIDO VS OZAETA
FACTS: Petitioner was the editor of the Manila Post who sought the
inspection of real estates sold to aliens and registered with the
Register of Deeds (RD) who was given the authority thru DOJ
Circular to examine all the records in the respondents custody
relative to the said transactions.
ISSUE: What is the extent of the discretion of the Register of Deeds
(RD) to regulate the accessibility of records relating to registered
lands in its office.
HELD: What the law expects and requires from the RD is the exercise
of an unbiased and impartial judgment by which all persons resorting
to the office, under the legal authority and conducting themselves
with the motives, reasons and objects of the person seeking access to
the records. Except when it is clear that the purpose of the inspection
is unlawful, it is not the duty of the registration officers 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.
(IN ADDITION) - This case, decided before the right to information
was included in the Bill of Rights of the Philippine Constitution,
involved a request by the editor of the Manila Post, a morning daily,
for the Register of Deeds of Manila to furnish him a list of real estates
sold to aliens and registered with said Register of Deeds, but which
request was denied. In resolving the petition for mandamus, the
Court based its ruling on its interpretation of a statutory regulation
which provides 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" The Court said that the power to
make regulations does not carry with it the power to prohibit. The
regulations which the Register of Deeds is empowered to promulgate
are confined to prescribing 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 books and
documents and other employees may be prevented, that the right of
other persons entitled to make inspection may be insured, and the
like.

GONZALES VS NARVASA
FACTS:O n D e c e m b e r 9 , 1 9 9 9 , a p e t i t i o n f o r p r o h i b i t i o n
a n d m a n d a m u s w a s fi l e d a s s a i l i n g t h e constitutionality
of the creation of the Preparator y Commission on Constituti
onal Reform(PCCR) and of the positions of presidential consultants, advisers
and assistants. In his capacity as citizen and as taxpayer, he seeks to
enjoin the Commission on Audit from passing in audit
expenditures for the PCCR and the presidential consultants,
advisersanda s s i s t a n t s . P e t i t i o n e r a l s o p r a y s t h a t t h e E
x e c u t i v e S e c r e t a r y b e c o m p e l l e d t h r o u g h a mandamus
to furnish the petitioner with information requesting the names of
executive officials holding multiple positions in government, copies of their
appointments and a list of the recipients of luxury vehicles seized by the Bureau
of Customs and turned over to Malacaang.
ISSUE: Whether petitioner possesses the requisites of filing a suit as a citizen and
as taxpayer
HELD: The Court ruled that the petitioner did not have standing to
bring suit as citizen. Petitioner didnot in fact show what particularized
interest they have to bring the suit. As civic leaders, they stillfall short of the
requirements to maintain action. Their interest in assailing
the EO does notpresent to be of a direct and personal
character. Furthermore, they do not sustain or are in
immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its
enforcement.A s t a x p a y e r s , p e t i t i o n e r s c a n n o t a t t a c k t h e E
O . T h e r e i s n o a p p r o p r i a t i o n g r a n t e d f r o m Congress but
only an authorization by the president. There being exercise by
Congress of its taxing and spending power, petitioner cannot be
allowed to question the PCCRs creation. Thepetitioner has failed to show
that he is a real party in interest. With regards to the petitioners request

of disclosure to public information, the Court upheld thatcitizens

may invoke before the courts the right to information. When a
mandamus proceedinginvolves the assertion of a public right, the
requirement of personal interest is satisfied by themere fact that the
petitioner is a citizen.
The Supreme
Court dismissed the
petition with the exception that respondent ExecutiveSecretary
is ordered to furnish petitioner with the information requested.