[G.R. No. 165036 : July 05, 2010]

HAZEL MA. C. ANTOLIN, PETITIONER, VS. ABELARDO T. DOMONDON, JOSE A. GANGAN, AND VIOLETA J. JOSEF, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. NO. 175705]

HAZEL MA. C. ANTOLIN PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIETA FORTUNA-IBE, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Examinations have a two-fold purpose. First, they are summative; examinations are intended to assess and record what and how much the students have learned. Second, and perhaps more importantly, they are formative; examinations are intended to be part and parcel of the learning process. In a perfect system, they are tools for learning. In view of the pedagogical aspect of national examinations, the need for all parties to fully ventilate their respective positions, and the view that government transactions can only be improved by public scrutiny, we remand these cases to the trial court for further proceedings.

Factual Antecedents

Petitioner took the accountancy licensure examinations (the Certified Public Accountant [CPA] Board Exams) conducted by the Board of Accountancy (the Board) in October 1997.[1] The examination results were released on October 29, 1997; out of 6,481 examinees, only 1,171 passed. Unfortunately, petitioner did not make it. When the results were released, she received failing grades in four out of the seven subjects.[2] Subject Petitioner's Grade

Theory of Accounts 65 %

Business Law 66 %

Management Services 69 %

Auditing Theory 82 %

Auditing Problems 70 %

Practical Accounting I 68 %

Practical Accounting II 77 %

Convinced that she deserved to pass the examinations, she wrote to respondent Abelardo T. Domondon (Domondon), Acting Chairman of the Board of Accountancy, and requested that her answer sheets be re-corrected.[3] On November 3, 1997, petitioner was shown her answer sheets, but these consisted merely of shaded marks, so she was unable to determine why she failed the exam.[4] Thus, on November 10, 1997, she again wrote to the Board to request for copies of (a) the questionnaire in each of the seven subjects (b) her answer sheets; (c) the answer keys to the questionnaires, and (d) an explanation of the grading system used in each subject (collectively, the Examination Papers).[5]

Acting Chairman Domondon denied petitioner's request on two grounds: first, that 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 permitted access to the petitioner's answer sheet (which she had been shown previously), and that reconsideration of her examination result was only proper under the grounds stated therein:Sec. 36 An examinee shall be allowed to have access or to go over his/her test papers or answer sheets on a date not later than thirty (30) days from the official release of the results of the examination. Within ten (10) days from such date, he/she may file his/her request for reconsideration of ratings. Reconsideration of rating shall be effected only on grounds of mechanical error in the grading of his/her testpapers or answer sheets, or malfeasance.[6]

Second, Acting Chairman Domondon clarified that the Board was precluded from releasing the Examination Papers (other than petitioner's answer sheet) by Section 20, Article IV of PRC Resolution No. 338, series of 1994, which provides:Sec. 20. Illegal, Immoral, Dishonorable, Unprofessional Acts - The hereunder acts shall constitute prejudicial, illegal, grossly immoral, dishonorable, or unprofessional conduct:

A. Providing, getting, receiving, holding, using or reproducing questionsx x x x

3. that have been given in the examination except if the test bank for the subject has on deposit at least two thousand (2,000) questions.[7]

After a further exchange of correspondence,[8] the Board informed petitioner that an investigation was conducted into her exam and there was no mechanical error found in the grading of her test papers.[9]

Proceedings before the Regional Trial Court

Undeterred, on January 12, 1998, petitioner filed a Petition for Mandamus with Damages against the Board of Accountancy and its members[10] before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The case was raffled to Branch 33, and docketed as Civil Case No. 98-86881. The Petition included a prayer for the issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction ordering the Board of Accountancy and its members (the respondents) to furnish petitioner with copies of the Examination Papers. Petitioner also prayed that final judgment be issued ordering respondents to furnish petitioner with all documents and other materials as would enable her to determine whether respondents fairly administered the examinations and correctly graded petitioner's performance therein, and, if warranted, to issue to her a certificate of registration as a CPA.[11]

On February 5, 1998, respondents filed their Opposition to the Application for a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, and argued, inter alia, that petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought, that the respondents did not have the duty to furnish petitioner with copies of the Examination Papers, and that petitioner had other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, namely, recourse to the PRC.[12] Respondents also filed their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim in the main case, which asked that the Petition for Mandamus with Damages be dismissed for lack of merit on the following grounds: (1) petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) the petition stated no cause of action because there was no ministerial duty to release the information demanded; and (3) the constitutional right to information on matters of public concern is subject to limitations provided by law, including Section 20, Article IV, of PRC Resolution No. 338, series of 1994.[13]

On March 3, 1998, petitioner filed an Amended Petition (which was admitted by the RTC), where she included the following allegation in the body of her petition:The allegations in this amended petition are meant only to plead a cause of action for access to the documents requested, not for re-correction which petitioner shall assert in the proper forum depending on, among others, whether she finds sufficient error in the documents to warrant such or any other relief. None of the allegations in this amended petition, including those in the following paragraphs, is made to assert a cause of action for re-correction.[14]

If only to underscore the fact that she was not asking for a re-checking of her exam, the following prayer for relief was deleted from the Amended Petition: "and, if warranted, to issue to her a certificate of registration as a CPA."

On June 23, 1998, respondents filed a Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss Application for Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, on the ground that petitioner had taken and passed the May 1998 CPA Licensure Examination and had taken her oath as a CPA.[15] Petitioner filed her Opposition on July 8, 1998.[16] Subsequently, on October 29, 1998, respondents filed their Answer with Counterclaim to the amended petition. They reiterated their original allegations and further alleged that there was no cause of action because at the time the Amended Petition was admitted, they had ceased to be members of the Board of Accountancy and they were not in possession of the documents sought by the petitioner.[17]

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In an Order dated October 16, 1998, the trial court granted respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's Application for a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction (not the main case), ruling that the matter had become moot since petitioner passed the May CPA Licensure 1998 Examination and had already taken her oath as a CPA.[18]

Undaunted, petitioner sought and obtained leave to file a Second Amended Petition for Mandamus with Damages[19] where she finally impleaded the PRC as respondent and included the following plea in her prayer:WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that:

x x x x

2. Judgment be issued -

(a) commanding respondents to give petitioner all documents and other materials as would enable her to determine whether respondents fairly administered the same examinations and correctly graded petitioner's performance therein and, if warranted, to make the appropriate revisions on the results of her examination. (Emphasis ours)

On June 21, 2002, the trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition had already become moot, since petitioner managed to pass the 1998 CPA Board examinations.[20] Petitioner sought reconsideration[21] which was granted by the trial court in its Omnibus Order[22] dated November 11, 2002. The Omnibus Order provides in part:On the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner, the Court is inclined to reconsider its Order dismissing the petition. The Court agrees with the petitioner that the passing of the petitioner in the subsequent CPA examination did not render the petition moot and academic 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 regard the issue of whether the petitioner has the constitutional right to have access to the questioned documents, the Court would want first the parties to adduce evidence before it can resolve the issue so that it can make a complete determination of the rights of the parties.

The Court would also want the Professional Regulation Commission to give its side of the case the moment it is impleaded as a respondent in the Second Amended Petition for Mandamus filed by the petitioner which this Court is inclined to grant.

As to the Motion for Conservatory Measures filed by the petitioner, the Court denies the same. It is clear that the PRC has in custody the documents being requested by the petitioner. It has also an adequate facility to preserve and safeguard the documents. To be sure that the questioned documents are preserved and safeguarded, the Court will order the PRC to preserve and safeguard the documents and make them available anytime the Court or petitioner needs them.

WHEREFORE, the Order of this Court dated June 20, 2002 is reconsidered and set aside. The Professional Regulation Commission is ordered to preserve and safeguard the following documents:a) Questionnaire in each of the seven subjects comprising the Accountancy Examination of October, 1997;b) Petitioner's Answer Sheets; andc) Answer keys to the questionnaires.

SO ORDERED.[23]

Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied.[24]

Proceedings before the Court of Appeals

The RTC Decisions led to the filing of three separate petitions for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA):(a) CA-GR SP No. 76498, a petition filed by respondents Domondon, Gangan, and Josef on April 11, 2003;

(b) CA-GR SP No. 76546, a petition filed by respondent Ibe on April 30, 2003; and

(c) CA-GR SP No. 76545, a petition filed by the Board of Accountancy and PRC.

It is the first two proceedings that are pending before us. In both cases, the CA set aside the RTC Decisions and ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. 98-8681.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its December 11, 2006 Decision[25] in CA-GR SP No. 76546, the CA ruled that the petition has become moot in view of petitioner's eventual passing of the 1998 CPA Board Exam. In CA-GR SP No. 76498, the CA found, in a Decision dated February 16, 2004,[26] that (i) Section 20, Article IV of PRC Resolution No. 338 constituted a valid limitation on petitioner's right to information and access to government documents; (ii) the Examination Documents were not of public concern, because petitioner merely sought review of her failing marks; (iii) it was not the ministerial or mandatory function of the respondents to review and reassess the answers to examination questions of a failing examinee; (iv) the case has become moot, since petitioner already passed the May 1998 CPA Board Examinations and took her oath as a CPA; and (v) petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, because, having failed to secure the desired outcome from the respondents, she did not elevate the matter to the PRC before seeking judicial intervention.[27]

CA-GR SP No. 76498 and CA-GR SP No. 76546 were brought before us by the petitioner and docketed as G.R. Nos. 165036 and 175705, respectively. The cases were then consolidated, in view of the similarity of the factual antecedents and issues, and to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions by different divisions of this Court.[28]Issues

Before us, petitioner argues that she has a right to obtain copies of the examination papers so she can determine for herself why and how she failed and to ensure that the Board properly performed its duties. She argues that the Constitution[29] as well as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees[30] support her right to demand access to the Examination Papers. Furthermore, she claims that there was no need to exhaust administrative remedies, since no recourse to the PRC was available, and only a pure question of law is involved in this case. Finally, she claims that her demand for access to documents was not rendered moot by her passing of the 1998 CPA Board Exams.Our Ruling

Propriety of Writ of Mandamus

At the very outset let us be clear of our ruling. Any claim for re-correction or revision of her 1997 examination cannot be compelled by mandamus. This much was made evident by our ruling in Agustin-Ramos v. Sandoval,[31] where we stated:After deliberating on the petition in relation to the other pleadings filed in the proceedings at bar, the Court resolved to DENY said petition for lack of merit. The petition at bar prays for the setting aside of the Order of respondent Judge dismissing petitioners' mandamus action to compel the other respondents (Medical Board of Examiners and the Professional Regulation Commission) "to reconsider, recorrect and/or rectify the board ratings of the petitioners from their present failing grades to higher or passing marks." The function of reviewing and re-assessing the petitioners' answers to the examination questions, in the light of the facts and arguments presented by them x x x is a discretionary function of the Medical Board, not a ministerial and mandatory one, hence, not within the scope of the writ of mandamus. The obvious remedy of the petitioners from the adverse judgment by the Medical Board of Examiners was an appeal to the Professional Regulation Commission itself, and thence to the Court of Appeals; and since they did not apply for relief to the Commission prior to their institution of the special civil action of mandamus in the Regional Trial Court, the omission was fatal to the action under the familiar doctrine requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies. Apart from the obvious undesirability of a procedure which would allow Courts to substitute their judgment for that of Government boards in the determination of successful examinees in any administered examination - an area in which courts have no expertise - and the circumstance that the law declares the Court of Appeals to be the appropriate review Court, the Regional Trial Court was quite correct in refusing to take cognizance of an action seeking reversal of the quasi-judicial action taken by the Medical Board of Examiners.[32] (Emphasis ours)

For a writ of mandamus to issue, the applicant must have a well-defined, clear, and certain legal right to the thing demanded. The corresponding duty of the respondent to perform the required act must be equally clear.[33] No such clarity exists here; neither does petitioner's right to demand a revision of her examination results. And despite petitioner's assertions that she has not made any demand for re-correction, the most cursory perusal of her Second Amended Petition and her prayer that the respondents "make the appropriate revisions on the results of her examination" belies this claim.

Like the claimants in Agustin, the remedy of petitioner from the refusal of the Board to release the Examination Papers should have been through an appeal to the PRC. Undoubtedly, petitioner had an adequate remedy from the Board's refusal to provide her with copies of the Examination Papers. Under Section 5(a) of Presidential Decree No. 223,[34] the PRC has the power to promulgate rules and regulations to implement policies for the regulation of the accounting profession.[35] In fact, it is one such regulation (PRC Resolution No. 338) that is at issue in this case. In addition, under Section 5(c), the PRC has the power toreview, coordinate, integrate and approve the policies, resolutions, rules and regulations, orders or decisions promulgated by the various Boards with respect to the profession or occupation under their jurisdictions including the results of their licensure examinations but their decisions on administrative cases shall be final and executory unless appealed to the Commission within thirty (30) days from the date of promulgation thereof.

Petitioner posits that no remedy was available because the PRC's power to "review" and "approve" in Section 5(c) only refers to appeals in decisions concerning administrative investigations[36] and not to instances where documents are being requested. Not only is this position myopic and self-serving, it is bereft of either statutory or jurisprudential basis. The PRC's quasi-legislative and enforcement powers, encompassing its authority to review and approve "policies, resolutions, rules and regulations, orders, or decisions" cover more than administrative investigations conducted pursuant to its quasi-judicial powers.[37] More significantly, since the PRC itself issued the resolution questioned by the petitioner here, it was in the best position to resolve questions addressed to its area of expertise. Indeed, petitioner could have saved herself a great deal of time and effort had she given the PRC the opportunity to rectify any purported errors committed by the Board.

One of the reasons for exhaustion of administrative remedies is our well-entrenched doctrine on separation of powers, which enjoins upon the Judiciary a becoming policy of non-interference with matters falling primarily (albeit not exclusively) within the competence of other departments.[38] Courts, for reasons of law, comity and convenience, should not entertain suits unless the available administrative remedies have first been resorted to and the proper authorities have been given an appropriate opportunity to act and correct their alleged errors, if any, committed in the administrative forum. [39]

However, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is subject to exceptions, among which is when only a question of law is involved.[40] This is because issues of law - such as whether petitioner has a constitutional right to demand access to the Examination Papers - cannot be resolved with finality by the administrative officer.[41]

Issues of Mootness

We now turn to the question of whether the petition has become moot in view of petitioner's having passed the 1998 CPA examination. An issue becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value.[42]

In this jurisdiction, any citizen may challenge any attempt to obstruct the exercise of his or her right to information and may seek its enforcement by mandamus.[43] And since every citizen possesses the inherent right to be informed by the mere fact of citizenship,[44] we find that petitioner's belated passing of the CPA Board Exams does not automatically mean that her interest in the Examination Papers has become mere superfluity. Undoubtedly, the constitutional question presented, in view of the likelihood that the issues in this case will be repeated, warrants review.[45]

The crux of this case is whether petitioner may compel access to the Examination Documents through mandamus. As always, our inquiry must begin with the Constitution. Section 7, Article III provides: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 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.

Together with the guarantee of the right to information, Section 28, Article II promotes full disclosure and transparency in government, viz: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.

Like all the constitutional guarantees, the right to information is not absolute. The people's right to information is limited to "matters of public concern," and is further "subject to such limitations as may be provided by law." Similarly, the State's policy of full disclosure is limited to "transactions involving public interest," and is "subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law". The Court has always grappled with the meanings of the terms "public interest" and "public concern." As observed in Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission:[46]In determining whether x x x a particular information is of public concern there is no rigid test which can be applied. "Public concern" like "public interest" is a term that eludes exact definition. Both terms embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen. In the final analysis, it is for the courts to determine on a case by case basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it relates to or affects the public.

We have also recognized the need to preserve a measure of confidentiality on some matters, such as national security, trade secrets and banking transactions, criminal matters, and other confidential matters.[47]

We are prepared to concede that 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 not merely quantitative means of assessment, but also means to further improve the teaching and learning of the art and science of accounting.

On the other hand, we do realize 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. However, the PRC is not a party to these proceedings. They have not been given an opportunity to explain the reasons behind their regulations or articulate the justification for keeping the Examination Documents confidential. In view of the far-reaching implications of this case, which may impact on every board examination administered by the PRC, and in order that all relevant issues may be ventilated, we deem it best to remand these cases to the RTC for further proceedings.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petitions are GRANTED. The December 11, 2006 and February 16, 2004 Decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 76546 and CA-GR SP No. 76498, respectively, are hereby SET ASIDE. The November 11, 2002 and January 30, 2003 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33, in Civil Case No. 98-86881 are AFFIRMED. The case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Province of Cotabato vs GRP>FACTS: The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) brought about by the Government of the republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) as an aspect of Tripoli Agreement of Peace in 2001 is scheduled to be signed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.This agreement was petitioned by the Province of North Cotabato for Mandamus and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. The agreement mentions Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) to which it grants the authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro; authority and jurisdiction over all natural resources within internal waters. The agreement is composed of two local statutes: the organic act for autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao and the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA).ISSUE: Whether or not the GRP violated the Constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and initiated the MOA-AD and Whether or not the MOA-AD brought by the GRP and MILF is constitutionalHELD:GRP violated the Constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and initiated the MOA-AD and it are unconstitutional because it is contrary to law and the provisions of the constitution thereof.REASONING: The GRP is required by this law to carry out public consultations on both national and local levels to build consensus for peace agenda and process and the mobilization and facilitation of peoples participation in the peace process.Article III (Bill of Rights)Sec. 7. The right of people 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 IISec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law , that state adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.LGC (1991), require all national agencies and officers to conduct periodic consultations. No project or program be implemented unless such consultations are complied with and approval mus be obtained.Article VII (Executive Department)Sec. 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.Article X. (Local Government)Sec. 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the province, cities, municipalities and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions on Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera as hereinafter provided.Sec. 15. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures and other relevant characteristics within the framework of this constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.Section 16. The President shall exercise general supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.Sec. 18. The creation of autonomous region shall be effective when approved by a majority of the votes cast by the constituents units in a plebiscite called for the purpose, provided that only provinces, cities and geographic areas voting favourably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous region.Sec. 20. Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national laws, the organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over:1. Administrative organization;2. Creation of sources of revenues;3. Ancestral domain and natural resources;4. Personal, family, and property relations;5. Regional urban and rural planning development;6. Economic, social, and tourism development;7. Educational policies;8. Preservation and development of the cultural heritage; and9. Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the region.The President has sole authority in the treaty-making.ARTICLE XVII (AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS)Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:1. The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or2. A constitutional convention.Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.MOA-AD states that all provisions thereof which cannot be reconciled with the present constitution and laws shall come into force upon signing of a comprehensive compact and upon effecting the necessary changes to the legal framework. The presidents authority is limited to proposing constitutional amendments. She cannot guarantee to any third party that the required amendments will eventually be put in place nor even be submitted to a plebiscite. MOA-AD itself presents the need to amend therein.Akbayan vs Aquino July 16 2008

FACTS:Petition for mandamus and prohibition was filed by the petitioners, as congresspersons, citizens and taxpayers, requesting respondents to submit to them the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA).

Petitioner emphasize that the refusal of the government to disclose the said agreement violates there right to information on matters of public concern and of public interest. That the non-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 negotiation are covered by the doctrine of executive privilege.

Issue:Whether or not the petition has been entirely rendered moot and academic because of the subsequent event that occurred?

Whether the information sought by the petitioners are of public concern and are still covered by the doctrine of executive privilege?

Held:On the first issue, the Supreme Court ruled that t]he principal relief petitioners are praying for is the disclosure of the contents of the JPEPA prior to its finalization between the two States parties, public disclosure of the text of the JPEPA after its signing by the President, during the pendency of the present petition, has been largely rendered moot and academic. The text of the JPEPA having then been made accessible to the public, the petition has become moot and academic to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of the full text thereof.The petition is not entirely moot, however, because petitioners seek to obtain, not merely the text of the JPEPA, but also the Philippine and Japanese offers in the course of the negotiations.

Moving on to the second issue, The Supreme Court Ruled that Diplomatic negotiations, therefore, are recognized as privileged in this jurisdiction, the JPEPA negotiations constituting no exception. It bears emphasis, however, that such privilege is only presumptive. For as Senate v. Ermita holds, recognizing a type of information as privileged does not mean that it will be considered privileged in all instances. Only after a consideration of the context in which the claim is made may it be determined if there is a public interest that calls for the disclosure of the desired information, strong enough to overcome its traditionally privileged status.The court adopted also the doctrine in PMPF v. Manglapus, Wherein petitioners were seeking information from the Presidents representatives on the state of the then on-going negotiations of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement. The Court denied the petition, stressing that secrecy of negotiations with foreign countries is not violative of the constitutional provisions of freedom of speech or of the press nor of the freedom of access to information.R E S O L U T I O N

MENDOZA, J.:

In a letter,[footnoteRef:1] dated July 30, 2009, Rowena C. Paraan, Research Director of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), sought copies of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) of the Justices of this Court for the year 2008. She also requested for copies of the Personal Data Sheet (PDS) or the Curriculum Vitae (CV) of the Justices of this Court for the purpose of updating their database of information on government officials. [1: ]

In her Letter,[footnoteRef:2] dated August 13, 2009, Karol M. Ilagan, a researcher-writer also of the PCIJ, likewise sought for copies of the SALN and PDS of the Justices of the Court of Appeals (CA), for the same above-stated purpose. [2: ]

The two requests were ordered consolidated by the Court on August 18, 2009.[footnoteRef:3] On the same day, the Court resolved to create a special committee (Committee) to review the policy on requests for SALN and PDS and other similar documents, and to recommend appropriate action on such requests.[footnoteRef:4] [3: ] [4: ]

On November 23, 2009, the Committee, chaired by then Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario submitted its Memorandum[footnoteRef:5] dated November 18, 2009 and its Resolution[footnoteRef:6] dated November 16, 2009, recommending the creation of Committee on Public Disclosure that would, in essence, take over the functions of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) with respect to requests for copies of, or access to, SALN, and other personal documents of members of the Judiciary. [5: ] [6: ]

Meanwhile, several requests for copies of the SALN and other personal documents of the Justices of this Court, the CA and the Sandiganbayan (SB) were filed. In particular, these requests include the:

(1) SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM,[footnoteRef:7] dated September 10, 2009, issued by Atty. E. H. Amat, Acting Director, General Investigation Bureau-B of the Office of the Ombudsman, directing the Office of Administrative Services, Supreme Court to submit two (2) copies of the SALN of Associate Justice Roland B. Jurado of the Sandiganbayan for the years 1997-2008, his latest PDS, his Oath of Office, appointment papers, and service records. [7: ]

(2) LETTER,[footnoteRef:8] dated April 21, 2010, of the Philippine Public Transparency Reporting Project, asking permission to be able to access and copy the SALN of officials and employees of the lower courts. [8: ]

(3) LETTER,[footnoteRef:9] filed on August 24, 2011, by Marvin Lim, seeking copies of the SALN of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose C. Mendoza, and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno. [9: ]

(4) LETTER,[footnoteRef:10] dated August 26, 2011, of Rawnna Crisostomo, Reporter, GMA News and Public Affairs also requesting for copies of the SALN of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose C. Mendoza, and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, for purposes of producing a story on transparency and governance, and updating their database. [10: ]

(5) LETTER,[footnoteRef:11] dated October 11, 2011, of Bala S. Tamayo, requesting for a copy of the 2010 SALN of any Justice of the Supreme Court as well as a copy of the Judiciary Development Fund, for purposes of her securing a huge percentage in final examination in Constitutional Law I at the San Beda College Alabang School of Law and for her study on the state of the Philippine Judiciary, particularly the manner, nature and disposition of the resources under the JDF and how these have evolved through the years. [11: ]

(6) LETTERS, all dated December 19, 2011, of Harvey S. Keh, Lead Convenor of Kaya Natin! Movement for Good Governance and Ethical Leadership, addressed to Chief Justice Renato C. Corona,[footnoteRef:12] Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.,[footnoteRef:13] Teresita Leonardo-De Castro,[footnoteRef:14] Arturo D. Brion,[footnoteRef:15] Diosdado M. Peralta,[footnoteRef:16] Mariano C. Del Castillo,[footnoteRef:17] Jose Portugal Perez,[footnoteRef:18] and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno,[footnoteRef:19] requesting for copies of their SALN and seeking permission to post the same on their website for the general public. [12: ] [13: ] [14: ] [15: ] [16: ] [17: ] [18: ] [19: ]

(7) LETTER,[footnoteRef:20] dated December 21, 2011, of Glenda M. Gloria, Executive Director, Newsbreak, seeking copies of the SALN of the Supreme Court Justices covering various years, for the purpose of the stories they intend to put on their website regarding the Supreme Court and the Judiciary. [20: ]

(8) LETTERS, all dated January 3, 2012, of Phillipe Manalang of Unlimited Productions, Inc., addressed to Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.,[footnoteRef:21] Teresita Leonardo-De Castro,[footnoteRef:22] Mariano C. Del Castillo[footnoteRef:23] and Jose Portugal Perez,[footnoteRef:24] and Atty. Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal, Clerk of Court, Supreme Court[footnoteRef:25] requesting for copies of the SALN of the Supreme Court Justices for the years 2010 and 2011. [21: ] [22: ] [23: ] [24: ] [25: ]

(9) LETTER,[footnoteRef:26] dated December 19, 2011, of Malou Mangahas, Executive Director, PCIJ, requesting for copies of the SALN, PDS or CVs of the Justices of the Supreme Court from the year they were appointed to the present. [26: ]

(10) SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM ET DUCES TECUM,[footnoteRef:27] issued on January 17, 2012, by the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, in connection with Impeachment Case No. 002-2011 against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, requiring the Clerk of Court, among others, to bring with her the SALN of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona for the years 2002 to 2011. [27: ]

(11) LETTER,[footnoteRef:28] dated January 16, 2012, of Nilo Ka Nilo H. Baculo, Sr., requesting copies of the SALN of the Supreme Court Justices for the years 2008 to 2011, for his use as a media practitioner. [28: ]

(12) LETTER,[footnoteRef:29] dated January 25, 2012, of Roxanne Escaro-Alegre of GMA News, requesting for copies of the SALN of the Supreme Court Justices for the networks story on the political dynamics and process of decision-making in the Supreme Court. [29: ]

(13) LETTER,[footnoteRef:30] dated January 27, 2012, of David Jude Sta. Ana, Head, News Operations, News 5, requesting for copies of the 2010-2011 SALN of the Supreme Court Justices for use as reference materials for stories that will be aired in the newscasts of their television network. [30: ]

(14) LETTER,[footnoteRef:31] dated January 31, 2012, of Michael G. Aguinaldo, Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs, Malacaang, addressed to Atty. Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal, Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, seeking her comments and recommendation on House Bill No. 5694,[footnoteRef:32] to aid in their determination of whether the measure should be certified as urgent. [31: ] [32: ]

(15) Undated LETTER[footnoteRef:33] of Benise P. Balaoing, Intern of Rappler.com, a news website, seeking copies of the 2010 SALN of the Justices of the Court and the CA for the purpose of completing its database in preparation for its coverage of the 2013 elections. [33: ]

(16) LETTER,[footnoteRef:34] dated April 27, 2012, of Maria A. Ressa, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Officer and Executive Editor of Rappler, Inc., requesting for copies of the current SALN of all the Justices of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan also for the purpose of completing its database in preparation for its coverage of the 2013 elections. [34: ]

(17) LETTER,[footnoteRef:35] dated May 2, 2012, of Mary Ann A. Seir, Junior Researcher, News Research Section, GMA News and Public Affairs, requesting for copies of the SALN of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court for the calendar year 2011 for the networks use in their public affairs programs. [35: ]

(18) LETTER,[footnoteRef:36] dated May 4, 2012, of Edward Gabud, Sr., Desk Editor of Solar Network, Inc., requesting for copies of the 2011 SALN of all the Justices of the Supreme Court. [36: ]

(19) LETTER,[footnoteRef:37] dated May 30, 2012, of Gerry Lirio, Senior News Editor, TV5 requesting for copies of the SALN of the Justices of the Court for the last three (3) years for the purpose of a special report it would produce as a result of the impeachment and subsequent conviction of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. [37: ]

(20) LETTER,[footnoteRef:38] dated May 31, 2012, of Atty. Joselito P. Fangon, Assistant Ombudsman, Field Investigation Office, Office of the Ombudsman, requesting for 1] certified copies of the SALN of former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona for the years 2002-2011, as well as 2] a certificate of his yearly compensation, allowances, and bonuses, also for the years 2002-2011. [38: ]

(21) LETTER,[footnoteRef:39] dated June 8, 2012, of Thea Marie S. Pias, requesting a copy of the SALN of any present Supreme Court Justice, for the purpose of completing her grade in Legal Philosophy at the San Beda College of Law. [39: ]

Pursuant to Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution,[footnoteRef:40] the Court, upon recommendation of the OCA, issued its Resolution[footnoteRef:41] dated October 13, 2009, denying the subpoena duces tecum for the SALNs and personal documents of Justice Roland B. Jurado of the SB. The resolution also directed the Ombudsman to forward to the Court any complaint and/or derogatory report against Justice Roland B. Jurado, in consonance with the doctrine laid down in Caiobes v. Ombudsman.[footnoteRef:42] Upon compliance by the Ombudsman, the Court, in its Resolution[footnoteRef:43] dated February 2, 2010, docketed this matter as a regular administrative complaint.[footnoteRef:44] [40: ] [41: ] [42: ] [43: ] [44: ]

Also, considering the development in Impeachment Case No. 002-2011 against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, the Court, on January 24, 2012, resolved to consider moot the Subpoena Ad Testificandum Et Duces Tecum issued by the Senate impeachment court.[footnoteRef:45] [45: ]

In resolving the remaining pending incidents, the Court, on January 17, 2012 required the CA, the SB, the CTA, the Philippine Judges Association, the Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines, the Philippine Trial Judges League, and the Philippine Women Judges Association (PWJA), to file their respective comments.

In essence, it is the consensus of the Justices of the above-mentioned courts and the various judges associations that while the Constitution holds dear the right of the people to have access to matters of concern, the Constitution also holds sacred the independence of the Judiciary. Thus, although no direct opposition to the disclosure of SALN and other personal documents is being expressed, it is the uniform position of the said magistrates and the various judges associations that the disclosure must be made in accord with the guidelines set by the Court and under such circumstances that would not undermine the independence of the Judiciary.

After a review of the matters at hand, it is apparent that the matter raised for consideration of the Court is not a novel one. As early as 1989, the Court had the opportunity to rule on the matter of SALN disclosure in Re: Request of Jose M. Alejandrino,[footnoteRef:46] where the Court denied the request of Atty. Alejandrino for the SALNs of the Justices of the Court due to a plainly discernible improper motive. Aggrieved by an adverse decision of the Court, he accused the Justices of patent partiality and alluded that they enjoyed an early Christmas as a result of the decision promulgated by the Court. Atty. Alejandrino even singled out the Justices who took part in the decision and conspicuously excluded the others who, for one reason or another, abstained from voting therein. While the Court expressed its willingness to have the Clerk of Court furnish copies of the SALN of any of its members, it however, noted that requests for SALNs must be made under circumstances that must not endanger, diminish or destroy the independence, and objectivity of the members of the Judiciary in the performance of their judicial functions, or expose them to revenge for adverse decisions, kidnapping, extortion, blackmail or other untoward incidents. Thus, in order to give meaning to the constitutional right of the people to have access to information on matters of public concern, the Court laid down the guidelines to be observed for requests made. Thus: [46: ]

1. All requests for copies of statements of assets and liabilities of any Justice or Judge shall be filed with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court or with the Court Administrator, as the case may be (Section 8 [A][2], R.A. 6713), and shall state the purpose of the request.

2. The independence of the Judiciary is constitutionally as important as the right to information which is subject to the limitations provided by law. Under specific circumstances, the need for fair and just adjudication of litigations may require a court to be wary of deceptive requests for information which shall otherwise be freely available. Where the request is directly or indirectly traced to a litigant, lawyer, or interested party in a case pending before the court, or where the court is reasonably certain that a disputed matter will come before it under circumstances from which it may, also reasonably, be assumed that the request is not made in good faith and for a legitimate purpose, but to fish for information and, with the implicit threat of its disclosure, to influence a decision or to warn the court of the unpleasant consequences of an adverse judgment, the request may be denied.

3. Where a decision has just been rendered by a court against the person making the request and the request for information appears to be a fishing expedition intended to harass or get back at the Judge, the request may be denied.

4. In the few areas where there is extortion by rebel elements or where the nature of their work exposes Judges to assaults against their personal safety, the request shall not only be denied but should be immediately reported to the military.

5. The reason for the denial shall be given in all cases.

In the 1992 case of Re: Request for Certified True Copies of the Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Networth,[footnoteRef:47] the request was denied because the Court found that the purpose of the request was to fish for information against certain members of the Judiciary. In the same case, the Court resolved to authorize the Court Administrator to act on all requests for copies of SALN, as well as other papers on file with the 201 Personnel Records of lower court judges and personnel, provided that there was a court subpoena duly signed by the Presiding Judge in a pending criminal case against a judge or personnel of the Judiciary. The Court added that for requests made by the Office of the Ombudsman, the same must be personally signed by the Ombudsman himself. Essentially, the Court resolved that, in all instances, requests must conform to the guidelines set in the Alejandrino case and that the documents or papers requested for must be relevant and material to the case being tried by the court or under investigation by the Ombudsman. [47: ]

In 1993, the Court, in Request for Certified True Copies of the Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth of former Judge Luis D. Dictado,[footnoteRef:48] ruled that the OCA may extend its granted authority to retired members of the Judiciary. [48: ]

With respect to investigations conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman in a criminal case against a judge, the Court, in Maceda v. Vasquez,[footnoteRef:49] upheld its constitutional duty to exercise supervision over all inferior courts and ruled that an investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman without prior referral of the criminal case to the Court was an encroachment of a constitutional duty that ran afoul to the doctrine of separation of powers. This pronouncement was further amplified in the abovementioned case of Caiobes. Thus: [49: ]

x x x Under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel. Prescinding from this premise, the Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves an administrative matter. The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme Court for determination as to whether an administrative aspect is involved therein. This rule should hold true regardless of whether an administrative case based on the act subject of the complaint before the Ombudsman is already pending with the Court. For, aside from the fact that the Ombudsman would not know of this matter unless he is informed of it, he should give due respect for and recognition of the administrative authority of the Court, because in determining whether an administrative matter is involved, the Court passes upon not only administrative liabilities but also administrative concerns, as is clearly conveyed in the case of Maceda v. Vasquez (221 SCRA 464[1993]).

The Ombudsman cannot dictate to, and bind the Court, to its findings that the case before it does or does not have administrative implications. To do so is to deprive the Court of the exercise of its administrative prerogatives and to arrogate unto itself a power not constitutionally sanctioned. This is a dangerous policy which impinges, as it does, on judicial independence.

Maceda is emphatic that by virtue of its constitutional power of administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges and court personnels compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.

Corollary to the above pronouncements, Section 7, Article III of the Constitution is relevant in the issue of public disclosure of SALN and other documents of public officials, viz:

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.

Emphasizing the import and meaning of the foregoing constitutional provision, the Court, in the landmark case of Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr.,[footnoteRef:50] elucidated on the import of the right to information in this wise: [50: ]

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 is a public trust, institutionalized in the Constitution to protect the people from abuse of governmental power, would certainly be mere empty words if access to such information of public concern is denied x x x.

x x x The right to information goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional policies of full public disclosure and honesty in the public service. It is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental decision-making as well as in checking abuse in government. (Emphases supplied)

In Baldoza v. Dimaano,[footnoteRef:51] the importance of the said right was pragmatically explicated: [51: ]

The incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental role of free exchange of information in a democracy. There can be no realistic perception by the public of the nations problems, nor a meaningful democratic decision-making if they are denied access to information of general interest. Information is needed to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of the times. 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, while public concern like public interest eludes exact definition and has been said to embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know, either because such matters directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen,[footnoteRef:52] the Constitution itself, under Section 17, Article XI, has classified the information disclosed in the SALN as a matter of public concern and interest. In other words, a duty to disclose sprang from the right to know. Both of constitutional origin, the former is a command while the latter is a permission. Hence, the duty on the part of members of the government to disclose their SALNs to the public in the manner provided by law: [52: ]

Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law. [Emphasis supplied]

This Constitutional duty is echoed and particularized in a statutory creation of Congress: Republic Act No. 6713, also known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees":[footnoteRef:53] [53: ]

Section 8. Statements and Disclosure. - Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households. (A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. - All public officials and employees, except those who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall file under oath their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households. The two documents shall contain information on the following: (a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value; (b) personal property and acquisition cost; (c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like; (d) liabilities, and; (e) all business interests and financial connections.The documents must be filed: (a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office; (b) on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and (c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service.

All public officials and employees required under this section to file the aforestated documents shall also execute, within thirty (30) days from the date of their assumption of office, the necessary authority in favor of the Ombudsman to obtain from all appropriate government agencies, including the Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents as may show their assets, liabilities, net worth, and also their business interests and financial connections in previous years, including, if possible, the year when they first assumed any office in the Government. Husband and wife who are both public officials or employees may file the required statements jointly or separately. The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections shall be filed by: (1) Constitutional and national elective officials, with the national office of the Ombudsman; (2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator; and all national executive officials with the Office of the President. (3) Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; (4) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the Office of the President, and those below said ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; and (5) All other public officials and employees, defined in Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, with the Civil Service Commission.(B) Identification and disclosure of relatives. - It shall be the duty of every public official or employee to identify and disclose, to the best of his knowledge and information, his relatives in the Government in the form, manner and frequency prescribed by the Civil Service Commission. (Emphasis supplied)

Like all constitutional guarantees, however, the right to information, with its companion right of access to official records, is not absolute. While providing guaranty for that right, the Constitution also provides that the peoples right to know is limited to matters of public concern and is further subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

Jurisprudence[footnoteRef:54] has provided the following limitations to that right: (1) national security matters and intelligence 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 officers and employees by reason of their office and not made available to the public as well as diplomatic correspondence, closed door Cabinet meetings and executive sessions of either house of Congress, and the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court. [54: ]

This could only mean that while no prohibition could stand against access to official records, such as the SALN, the same is undoubtedly subject to regulation.

In this regard, Section 8 (c) and (d) of R.A. No. 6713 provides for the limitation and prohibition on the regulated access to SALNs of government officials and employees, viz:

(C) Accessibility of documents. - (1) Any and all statements filed under this Act, shall be made available for inspection at reasonable hours. (2) Such statements shall be made available for copying or reproduction after ten (10) working days from the time they are filed as required by law. (3) Any person requesting a copy of a statement shall be required to pay a reasonable fee to cover the cost of reproduction and mailing of such statement, as well as the cost of certification. (4) Any statement filed under this Act shall be available to the public for a period of ten (10) years after receipt of the statement. After such period, the statement may be destroyed unless needed in an ongoing investigation. (D) Prohibited acts. - It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain or use any statement filed under this Act for: (a) any purpose contrary to morals or public policy; or(b) any commercial purpose other than by news and communications media for dissemination to the general public.Moreover, the following provisions in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 6713 provide:

Rule IV

Transparency of Transactions and Access to Information

x x x x

Section 3. Every department, office or agency shall provide official information, records or documents to any requesting public, except if:

(a) such information, record or document must be kept secret in the interest of national defense or security or the conduct of foreign affairs;

(b) such disclosure would put the life and safety of an individual in imminent danger;

(c) the information, record or document sought falls within the concepts of established privilege or recognized exceptions as may be provided by law or settled policy or jurisprudence;

(d) such information, record or document compromises drafts or decisions, orders, rulings, policy, decisions, memoranda, etc;

(e) it would disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(f) it would disclose investigatory records complied for law enforcement purposes, or information which if written would be contained in such records or information would (i) interfere with enforcement proceedings, (ii) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (iii) 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 (iv) unjustifiably disclose investigative techniques and procedures; or

(g) it would disclose information the premature disclosure of which would (i) in the case of a department, office or agency which agency regulates currencies, securities, commodities, of financial institutions, be likely to lead to significant financial speculation in currencies, securities, or commodities or significantly endanger the stability of any financial institution, or (ii) in the case of any department, office or agency be likely or significantly to frustrate implementation of a proposed official action, except that subparagraph (f) (ii) shall not apply in any instance where the department, office or agency has already disclosed to the public the content or nature of its proposed action, or where the department, office or agency is required by law to make such disclosure on its own initiative prior to taking final official action on such proposal.

x x x x

Rule VI

Duties of Public Officials and Employees

Section 6. All public documents must be made accessible to, and readily available for inspection by, the public during working hours, except those provided in Section 3, Rule IV.

The power to regulate the access by the public to these documents stems from the inherent power of the Court, as custodian of these personal documents, to control its very office 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; and that the right of other persons entitled to make inspection may be insured.[footnoteRef:55] [55: ]

In this connection, Section 11 of the same law provides for the penalties in case there should be a misuse of the SALN and the information contained therein, viz:Section 11. Penalties. - (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office. (b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him. (c) Private individuals who participate in conspiracy as co-principals, accomplices or accessories, with public officials or employees, in violation of this Act, shall be subject to the same penal liabilities as the public officials or employees and shall be tried jointly with them. (d) The official or employee concerned may bring an action against any person who obtains or uses a report for any purpose prohibited by Section 8 (d) of this Act. The Court in which such action is brought may assess against such person a penalty in any amount not to exceed twenty-five thousand pesos (25,000.00). If another sanction hereunder or under any other law is heavier, the latter shall apply.

Considering the foregoing legal precepts vis--vis the various requests made, the Court finds no cogent reason to deny the public access to the SALN, PDS and CV of the Justices of the Court and other magistrates of the Judiciary subject, of course, to the limitations and prohibitions provided in R.A. No. 6713, its implementing rules and regulations, and in the guidelines set forth in the decretal portion.

The Court notes the valid concerns of the other magistrates regarding the possible illicit motives of some individuals in their requests for access to such personal information and their publication. However, custodians of public documents must not concern themselves with the motives, reasons and objects of the persons seeking access to the records. The moral or material injury which their misuse might inflict on others is the requestors responsibility and lookout. Any publication is made subject to the consequences of the law.[footnoteRef:56] While public officers in the custody or control of public records have the discretion to regulate the manner in which records may be inspected, examined or copied by interested persons, such discretion does not carry with it the authority to prohibit access, inspection, examination, or copying of the records.[footnoteRef:57] After all, public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.[footnoteRef:58] [56: ] [57: ] [58: ]

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to GRANT the requests contained in the (1) Letter, dated July 30, 2009, of Rowena C. Paraan; (2) Letter, dated August 13, 2009, of Karol M. Ilagan; (3) Letter, dated April 21, 2010, of the Philippine Public Transparency Reporting Project; (4) Letter, filed on August 24, 2011, by Marvin Lim; (5) Letter, dated August 26, 2011, of Rawnna Crisostomo; (6) Letter, dated October 11, 2011, of Bala S. Tamayo; (7) Letters, all dated December 19, 2011, of Harvey S. Keh; (8) Letter, dated December 21, 2011, of Glenda M. Gloria; (9) Letters, all dated January 3, 2012, of Phillipe Manalang; (10) Letter, dated December 19, 2011, of Malou Mangahas; (11) Letter, dated January 16, 2012, of Nilo Ka Nilo H. Baculo; (12) Letter, dated January 25, 2012, of Roxanne Escaro-Alegre; (13) Letter, dated January 27, 2012, of David Jude Sta. Ana; (14) Letter, dated January 31, 2012, of Michael G. Aguinaldo; (15) undated Letter of Benise P. Balaoing; (16) Letter, dated April 27, 2012, of Maria A. Ressa; (17) Letter, dated May 2, 2012, of Mary Ann A. Seir; (18) Letter, dated May 4, 2012, of Edward Gabud, Sr., Desk Editor of Solar Network, Inc.; (19) Letter, dated May 30, 2012, of Gerry Lirio, Senior News Editor, TV5; (20) Letter, dated May 31, 2002, of Atty. Joselito P. Fangon of the Office of the Ombudsman; and (21) Letter, dated June 7, 2012, of Thea Marie S. Pias, insofar as copies of the 2011 SALN, PDS, and CV of the Justices of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax Appeals; Judges of lower courts; and other members of the Judiciary, are concerned, subject to the limitations and prohibitions provided in R.A. No. 6713, its implementing rules and regulations, and the following guidelines:

1. All requests shall be filed with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals; for the lower courts, with the Office of the Court Administrator; and for attached agencies, with their respective heads of offices. 1. Requests shall cover only copies of the latest SALN, PDS and CV of the members, officials and employees of the Judiciary, and may cover only previous records if so specifically requested and considered as justified, as determined by the officials mentioned in par. 1 above, under the terms of these guidelines and the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 6713.

1. In the case of requests for copies of SALN of the Justices of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals, the authority to disclose shall be made by the Court En Banc.

1. Every request shall explain the requesting partys specific purpose and their individual interests sought to be served; shall state the commitment that the request shall only be for the stated purpose; and shall be submitted in a duly accomplished request form secured from the SC website. The use of the information secured shall only be for the stated purpose.

1. In the case of requesting individuals other than members of the media, their interests should go beyond pure or mere curiosity.

1. In the case of the members of the media, the request shall additionally be supported by proof under oath of their media affiliation and by a similar certification of the accreditation of their respective organizations as legitimate media practitioners.

1. The requesting party, whether as individuals or as members of the media, must have no derogatory record of having misused any requested information previously furnished to them.The requesting parties shall complete their requests in accordance with these guidelines. The custodians of these documents[footnoteRef:59] (the respective Clerks of Court of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax Appeals for the Justices; and the Court Administrator for the Judges of various trial courts) shall preliminarily determine if the requests are not covered by the limitations and prohibitions provided in R.A. No. 6713 and its implementing rules and regulations, and in accordance with the aforecited guidelines. Thereafter, the Clerk of Court shall refer the matter pertaining to Justices to the Court En Banc for final determination. [59: ]

SO ORDERED.

SABIO vs GORDONOn February 20, 2006, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago introduced Senate Res. No. 455 directing an inquiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (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 7The 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 transparency in policy-making and in the operations of the 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.

Ricardo Valmonte, Oswaldo Carbonell, Doy del Castillo, Rolado Bartolome, Leo Obligar, Jun Gutierrez, ReynaldoBagatsing, Jun Ninoy Alba, Percy Lapid, Rommel Corro and Rolando Fadulpetitioners,Vs.Feliciano Belmonte JR.,respondent.FACTS:Petitioner Valmonte wrote a letter to the respondent Feliciano Belmonte, then GSIS General Manager, requesting to befurnished with the list of names of the defunct interim and regular Batasang Pambansa including the ten (10) oppositionmembers who were able to secure a clean loan of P 2 million each on guaranty of Mrs. Imelda Marcos. And if such is notpossible, an access to those said documents. Apart from Valmontes letter, he is stressing the premise of the request onthe present provision of the Freedom constitution at that time which is Art. IV, Sec. 6, that emphasizes the right of thepeople to information on matters of public concern. Mr. Belmonte, aware that such request contains serious legalimplications seek the help of Mr. Meynardo A. Tiro, a deputy General Counsel. In Mr. Tiros reply letter, a confidentialrelationship exists between the GSIS and all those who borrow from it, whoever they may be; that the GSIS has a duty toits customers to preserve this confidentiality; and that it would not be proper for the GSIS to breach this confidentialityunless so ordered by the courts.On June 26, 1986, apparently not having yet received the reply of the GSIS Deputy General Counsel, Petitioner Valmontewrote another letter saying that for failure to receive a reply, they are now considering themselves free to do whateveraction necessary within the premises to pursue their desired objective in pursuance of public interest.Separate comments were filed by respondent Belmonte and the Solicitor General. After petitioners filed a consolidatedreply, the petition was given due course and the parties were required to file their memoranda. The parties havingcomplied, the case was deemed submitted for decision.In his comment, respondent raise procedural objection to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, among which is thatpetitioners have failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Respondent claims that actions of the GSIS General Managerare reviewable by the Board of Trustees of the GSIS petitioners. However, did not seek relief from the GSIS Board ofTrustees, It is therefore asserted that since administrative remedies were not exhausted, then petitioners have no causeof action.ISSUE:Whether or not that Mr. Valmonte, together with his co-petitioners, are entitled to the documents sought, by virtue oftheir constitutional right to information.RULING:The cornerstone of this republican system of government is delegation of power by the people to the state.Governmental agencies and institutions operate within the limits of the authority conferred by the people. Yet, like allconstitutional guarantees, the right to information is not absolute. Peoples right to information is limited to matters ofpublic concern and is further subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.The GSIS is a trustee of contributions from the government and its employees and the administrator of various insuranceprograms for the benefit of the latter. Undeniably, its funds assume a public character. More particularly, Secs. 5(b) and46 of P.D 1146, as amended (the Revised Government Service Insurance act of 1977 provide for annual appropriations

Legaspi v CSC 150 SCRA 530 (1987) 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 to official 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 government positions.