7/29/2019 Akbayan Vs

1/4

AKBAYAN VS. AQUINO

Facts:

The signing of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership

Agreement (JPEPA) at the sidelines of the Asia-Europe Summit in Helsinki in

September 2006 was hailed by both Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro

Koizumi and Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as a milestone in

the continuing cooperation and collaboration, setting a new chapter ofstrategic partnership for mutual opportunity and growth (for both countries).

JPEPA which has been referred to as a mega treaty is a comprehensive plan

for opening up of markets in goods and services as well as removing barriersand restrictions on investments. It is a deal that encompasses even our

commitments to the WTO.The complexity of JPEPA became all the more evident at the

Senate hearing conducted by the Committee on Trade and Commerce last

November 2006. The committee, chaired by Senator Mar Roxas, heard

differing views and perspectives on JPEPA. On one hand the committee heardGovernments rosy projections on the economic benefits of JPEPA and on the

other hand the views of environmental and trade activists who raised there

very serious concerns about the country being turned into Japans toxic wastebasket. The discussion in the Senate showed that JPEPA is not just an issue

concerning trade and economic relations with Japan but one that touches on

broader national development concerns.

Issues:

1. Do the therein petitioners have standing to bring this action for

mandamus in their capacity as citizens of the Republic, as taxpayers, and asmembers of the Congress

2. Can this Honorable Court exercise primary jurisdiction of thiscase and take cognizance of the instant petition.

3. Are the documents and information being requested in relationto the JPEPA exempted from the general rules on transparency and full publicdisclosure such that the Philippine government is justified in denying access

thereto.

Rulings:

The Supreme Court en banc promulgated last July 16, 2008 its

ruling on the case of Akbayan Citizens Action Party et al vs. Thomas G.

Aquino et al (G.R. No. 170516). The Highest Tribunal dismissed the Petitionfor mandamus and prohibition, which sought to compel respondents

Department of Trade Industry (DTI) Undersecretary Thomas Aquino et al to

furnish petitioners the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic PartnershipAgreement (JPEPA) and the lists of the Philippine and Japanese offers

submitted during the negotiation process and all pertinent attachments and

annexes thereto.In its Decision, the Court noted that the full text of the JPEPA has

been made accessible to the public since 11 September 2006, and thus the

demand to be furnished with copy of the said document has become moot andacademic. Notwithstanding this, however, the Court lengthily discussed the

substatives issues, insofar as they impinge on petitioners' demand for access to

the Philippine and Japanese offers in the course of the negotiations.

The Court held: Applying the principles adopted in PMPF v.

Manglapus, it is clear that while the final text of the JPEPA may not be kept

perpetually confidential since there should be 'ample opportunity fordiscussion before [a treaty] is approved' the offers exchanged by the parties

during the negotiations continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is

published. It is reasonable to conclude that the Japenese representativessubmitted their offers with the understanding that 'historic confidentiality'

would govern the same. Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of the

Philippines to deal not only with Japan but with other foreign governments infuture negotiations.

It also reasoned out that opening for public scrutiny the Philippine

offers in treaty negotiations would discourage future Philippinerepresentatives from frankly expressing their views during negotiations. The

Highest Tribunal recognized that treaty negotiations normally involve aprocess of quid pro quo, where negotiators would willingly grant concessionsin an area of lesser importance in order to obtain more favorable terms in an

area of greater national interest.

In the same Decision, the Court took time to address the dissent ofChief Justice Reynato S. Puno. It said: We are aware that behind the dissent

of the Chief Justice lies a genuine zeal to protect our people's right to

information against any abuse of executive privilege. It is a zeal that We fully

share. The Court, however, in its endeavour to guard against the abuse of

executive privilege, should be careful not to veer towards the opposite

extreme, to the point that it would strike down as invalid even a legitimateexercise thereof.

[A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC : June 13, 2012]

RE: REQUEST FOR COPY OF 2008 STATEMENT OF ASSETS

LIABILITIES AND NETWORTH [SALN] AND PERSONAL DATA

SHEET OR CURRICULUM VITAE OF THE JUSTICES OF THE

SUPREME COURT AND OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE

JUDICIARY.

FACTSIn a letter,[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 theJustices 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 ofthis Court for the purpose of updating their database of information on

government officials.

In her Letter,[2] dated August 13, 2009, Karol M. Ilagan, a

researcher- writer also of the PCIJ, likewise sought for copies of the SALNand PDS of the Justices of the Court of Appeals (CA), for the same above-

stated purpose.

The two requests were ordered consolidated by the Court onAugust 18, 2009.[3] On the same day, the Court resolved to create a specia

committee (Committee) to review the policy on requests for SALN and PDS

and other similar documents, and to recommend appropriate action on suchrequests.[4]

On November 23, 2009, the Committee, chaired by then Associate

Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario submitted its Memorandum[5] datedNovember 18, 2009 and its Resolution[6] dated November 16, 2009

recommending the creation of Committee on Public Disclosure that would, inessence, take over the functions of the Office of the Court Administrator

(OCA) with respect to requests for copies of, or access to, SALN, and otherpersonal documents of members of the Judiciary.

HELD

Like all constitutional guarantees, however, the right to

information, with its companion right of access to official records, is no

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 furthersubject to such limitat ions as may be provided by law.Jurisprudence[54] has provided the following limitations to tha

right: (1) national security matters and intelligence information; (2) trad

secrets and banking transactions; (3) criminal matters; and (4) otheconfidential 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, closeddoor Cabinet meetings and executive sessions of either house of Congress

and the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court.

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

to regulation.

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 inR.A. No. 6713, its implementing rules and regulations, and in the guideline

set forth in the decretal portion.

The Court notes the valid concerns of the other magistrateregarding 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 themotives, reasons and objects of the persons seeking access to the records. Th

moral or material injury which their misuse might inflict on others is the

requestors responsibility and lookout. Any publication is made subject to theconsequences of the law.[56] While public officers in the custody or contro

of public records have the discretion to regulate the manner in which recordsmay be inspected, examined or copied by interested persons, such discretiondoes not carry with it the authority to prohibit access, inspection, examination

or copying of the records.[57] After all, public office is a public trust. Public

officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, servethem with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with

patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.[58]

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to GRANT the requests

7/29/2019 Akbayan Vs

2/4

CAMILO L. SABIO vs. GORDON, G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006,

504 SCRA 704

The Facts:

On February 20, 2006, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago

introduced Philippine Senate Resolution No. 455 (Senate Res. No. 455),[1][4]

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.The pertinent portions of the Resolution read:

WHEREAS, in the last quarter of 2005, the representation andentertainment expense of the PHC skyrocketed to P4.3 million, as compared

to the previous year's mere P106 thousand;

WHEREAS, some board members established wholly owned PHC

subsidiary called Telecommunications Center, Inc. (TCI), where PHC fundsare allegedly siphoned; in 18 months, over P73 million had been allegedly

advanced to TCI without any accountability report given to PHC and

PHILCOMSAT;WHEREAS, the Philippine Star, in its 12 February 2002 issue

reported that the executive committee of Philcomsat has precipitately released

P265 million and granted P125 million loan to a relative of an executivecommittee member; to date there have been no payments given, subjecting the

company to an estimated interest income loss of P11.25 million in 2004

WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to protect the interest of theRepublic of the Philippines in the PHC, PHILCOMSAT, and POTC from any

anomalous transaction, and to conserve or salvage any remaining value of thegovernment's equity position in these corporations from any abuses of power

done by their respective board of directors;WHEREFORE, be it resolved that the proper Senate Committee

shall conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation, on the anomalous losses incurred

by the Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC),

Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), and

Philcomsat Holdings Corporations (PHC) due to the alleged improprieties in

the operations by their respective board of directors.

Adopted.(Sgd) MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO

On May 8, 2006, Chief of Staff Rio C. Inocencio, under theauthority of Senator Richard J. Gordon, wrote Chairman Camilo L. Sabio of

the PCGG, one of the herein petitioners, inviting him to be one of the resource

persons in the public meeting jointly conducted by the Committee onGovernment Corporations and Public Enterprises and Committee on Public

Services. The purpose of the public meeting was to deliberate on Senate Res.

No. 455.[2][6]On May 9, 2006, Chairman Sabio and other commissioners of the

PCGG declined the invitation because of prior commitment.[3][7] At the same

time, they invoked Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1

On September 12, 2006, at around 10:45 a.m., Major General

Balajadia arrested Chairman Sabio in his office at IRC Building, No. 82

EDSA, Mandaluyong City and brought him to the Senate premises where hewas detained.

Hence, Chairman Sabio filed with the Supreme Court a petition for

habeas corpus against the Senate Committee on Government Corporations andPublic Enterprises and Committee on Public Services, their Chairmen,

Senators Richard Gordon and Joker P. Arroyo and Members.

I S S U E S and HELDPerched on one arm of the scale of justice is Article VI, Section 21

of the 1987 Constitution granting respondent Senate Committees the power of

legislative inquiry. It reads:The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective

committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with itsduly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in oraffected by such inquiries shall be respected.

On the other arm of the scale is Section 4(b) of E.O. No.1 limiting

such power of legislative inquiry by exempting all PCGG members or stafffrom testifying in any judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding, thus:

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.

To determine whether there exists a clear and unequivocal

repugnancy between the two quoted provisions that warrants a declaration thatSection 4(b) has been repealed by the 1987 Constitution, a brief consideration

of the Congress' power of inquiry is imperative.

The Congress' power of inquiry has been recognized in foreignjurisdictions long before it reached our shores through McGrain v.

Daugherty,15 cited in Arnault v. Nazareno.16 In those earlier days, American

courts considered the power of inquiry as inherent in the power to legislate

The 1864 case of Briggs v. MacKellar17 explains the breath and basis of thepower, thus:

Where no constitutional limitation or restriction exists, it is

competent for either of the two bodies composing the legislature to do, in their

separate capacity, whatever may be essential to enable them to legislate..It i

well-established principle of this parliamentary law, that either house may

institute any investigation having reference to its own organization, theconduct or qualification of its members, its proceedings, rights, or privileges

or any matter affecting the public interest upon which it may be important that

it should have exact information, and in respect to which it would becompetent for it to legislate. The right to pass laws, necessarily implies the

right to obtain information upon any matter which may become the subject oa law. It is essential to the full and intelligent exercise of the legislative

function..In American legislatures the investigation of public matters before

committees, preliminary to legislation, or with the view of advising the house

appointing the committee is, as a parliamentary usage, well established as it iin England, and the right of either house to compel witnesses to appear and

testify before its committee, and to punish for disobedience has been

frequently enforced..The right of inquiry, I think, extends to other matters, inrespect to which it may be necessary, or may be deemed advisable to apply for

legislative aid.

Remarkably, in Arnault, this Court adhered to a similar theoryCiting McGrain, it recognized that the power of inquiry is "an essential and

appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function," thus:

Although there is no provision in the "Constitution expresslyinvesting either House of Congress with power to make investigations and

exact testimony to the end that it may exercise its legislative functionadvisedly and effectively, such power is so far incidental to the legislative

function as to be implied. In other words, the power of inquiry - with processto enforce it - is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislativefunction. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the

absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is

intended to affect or change; and where the legislation body does not itsel

possess the requisite information - which is not infrequently true - recours

must be had to others who possess it."

Dispelling any doubt as to the Philippine Congress' power oinquiry, provisions on such power made their maiden appearance in Article

VIII, Section 12 of the 1973 Constitution.18 Then came the 1987 Constitution

incorporating the present Article VI, Section 12. What was therefore impliciunder the 1935 Constitution, as influenced by American jurisprudence

became explicit under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.

Notably, the 1987 Constitution recognizes the power oinvestigation, not just of Congress, but also of "any of its committee." This i

significant because it constitutes a direct conferral of investigatory powe

upon the committees and it means that the mechanisms which the Houses cantake in order to effectively perform its investigative function are also available

to the committees.

It can be said that the Congress' power of inquiry has gained more

solid existence and expansive construal. The Court's high regard to such

power is rendered more evident in Senate v. Ermita,21 where it categorically

ruled that "the power of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of theexecutive 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-extensivwith the power to legislate."

Considering these jurisprudential instructions, we find Section 4(b

directly repugnant with Article VI, Section 21. Section 4(b) exempts thePCGG members and staff from the Congress' power of inquiry. This cannot be

countenanced. Nowhere in the Constitution is any provision granting such

exemption. The Congress' power of inquiry, being broad, encompasseseverything that concerns the administration of existing laws as well as

proposed or possibly needed statutes.22 It even extends "to governmenagencies created by Congress and officers whose positions are within the

power of Congress to regulate or even abolish."23 PCGG belongs to this

class.

Certainly, a mere provision of law cannot pose a limitation to thebroad power of Congress, in the absence of any constitutional basis.

Furthermore, Section 4(b) is also inconsistent with Article XI

Section 1 of the Constitution stating that: "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, ac

with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives."The provision presupposes that since an incumbent of a public

office is invested with certain powers and charged with certain duties

pertinent to sovereignty, the powers so delegated to the officer are held in trusfor the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all

citizens who may need the intervention of the officers. Such trust extends to

7/29/2019 Akbayan Vs

3/4

all matters within the range of duties pertaining to the office. In other words,

public officers are but the servants of the people, and not their rulers.24chanroblesvirtuallawlibary

Section 4(b), being in the nature of an immunity, is inconsistent

with the principle of public accountability. It places the PCGG members and

staff beyond the reach of courts, Congress and other administrative bodies.

Instead of encouraging public accountability, the same provision only

institutionalizes irresponsibility and non-accountability. In PresidentialCommission on Good Government v. Pea,25 Justice Florentino P. Feliciano

characterized as "obiter" the portion of the majority opinion barring, on the

basis of Sections 4(a) and (b) of E.O. No. 1, a civil case for damages filedagainst the PCGG and its Commissioners. He eloquently opined:

The above underscored portions are, it is respectfully submitted,clearly obiter. It is important to make clear that the Court is not here

interpreting, much less upholding as valid and constitutional, the literal terms

of Section 4 (a), (b) of Executive Order No.1. If Section 4 (a) were given its

literal import as immunizing the PCGG or any member thereof from civilliability "for anything done or omitted in the discharge of the task

contemplated by this Order," the constitutionality of Section 4 (a) would, in

my submission, be open to most serious doubt. For so viewed, Section 4 (a)would institutionalize the irresponsibility and non-accountability of members

and staff of the PCGG, a notion that is clearly repugnant to both the 1973 and

1987 Constitution and a privileged status not claimed by any other official ofthe Republic under the 1987 Constitution. x x x.

x x x x x x

It would seem constitutionally offensive to suppose that a memberor staff member of the PCGG could not be required to testify before the

Sandiganbayan or that such members were exempted from complying withorders of this Court.

Chavez v. Sandiganbayan26 reiterates the same view. Indeed,Section 4(b) has been frowned upon by this Court even before the filing of the

present petitions.

Corollarily, Section 4(b) also runs counter to the following

constitutional provisions ensuring the people's access to information:

Article II, Section 28

Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State

adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactionsinvolving public interest.

Article III, Section 7

The right of the people to information on matters of public concernshall 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 thecitizen, 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, aswell 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. In Valmonte v.

Belmonte, Jr.27 the Court explained that an informed citizenry is essential to

the existence and proper functioning of any democracy, thus:An essential element of these freedoms is to keep open a

continuing dialogue or process of communication between the government

and the people. It is in the interest of the State that the channels for freepolitical discussion be maintained to the end that the government may

perceive and be responsive to the people's will. Yet, this open dialogue can be

effective only to the extent that the citizenry is informed and thus able toformulate its will intelligently. Only when the participants in the discussion

are aware of the issues and have access to information relating thereto can

such bear fruit.Consequently, the conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation is not

only intended to benefit Congress but also the citizenry. The people areequally concerned with this proceeding and have the right to participatetherein in order to protect their interests. The extent of their participation will

largely depend on the information gathered and made known to them. In other

words, the right to information really goes hand-in-hand with theconstitutional 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 the

government.28 The cases of Taada v. Tuvera29 and Legaspi v. Civil Service

Commission30 have recognized a citizen's interest and personality to enforce

a public duty and to bring an action to compel public officials and employeesto perform that duty.

Section 4(b) limits or obstructs the power of Congress to secure

from PCGG members and staff information and other data in aid of its powerto legislate. Again, this must not be countenanced. In Senate v. Ermita,31 this

Court stressed:

To the extent that investigations in aid of legislation are generally

conducted in public, however, any executive issuance tending to unduly limidisclosures of information in such investigations necessarily deprives the

people of information which, being presumed to be in aid of legislation, i

presumed to be a matter of public concern. The citizens are thereby denied

access to information which they can use in formulating their own opinions on

the matter before Congress - opinions which they can then communicate to

their representatives and other government officials through the various legalmeans allowed by their freedom of expression.

A statute may be declared unconstitutional because it is not within

the legislative power to enact; or it creates or establishes methods or formsthat infringe constitutional principles; or its purpose or effect violates the

Constitution or its basic principles.32 As shown in the above discussionSection 4(b) is inconsistent with Article VI, Section 21 (Congress' power o

inquiry), Article XI, Section 1 (principle of public accountability), Article II

Section 28 (policy of full disclosure) and Article III, Section 7 (right to public

information).

Sec. 19. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

A witness can invoke his right against self-incrimination only

when a question tends to elicit an answer that will incriminate him ispropounded to him. However, he may offer to answer any question in an

executive session.

No person can refuse to testify or be placed under oath oaffirmation or answer questions before an incriminatory question is asked. Hi

invocation of such right does not by itself excuse him from his duty to give

testimony.In such a case, the Committee, by a majority vote of the members

present there being a quorum, shall determine whether the right has beenproperly invoked. If the Committee decides otherwise, it shall resume it

investigation and the question or questions previously refused to be answeredshall be repeated to the witness. If the latter continues to refuse to answer thequestion, the Committee may punish him for contempt for contumacious

conduct.

The same directors and officers contend that the Senate is barred

from inquiring into the same issues being litigated before the Court of Appeal

and the Sandiganbayan. Suffice it to state that the Senate Rules of Procedure

Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation provide that the filing or pendencyof any prosecution of criminal or administrative action should not stop or

abate any inquiry to carry out a legislative purpose.

Let it be stressed at this point that so long as the constitutionarights of witnesses, like Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners, will be

respected by respondent Senate Committees, it their duty to cooperate with

them in their efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative actionThe unremitting obligation of every citizen is to respond to subpoenae, to

respect the dignity of the Congress and its Committees, and to testify fully

with respect to matters within the realm of proper investigation.In fine, PCGG Chairman Camilo Sabio and Commissioners Ricardo Abcede

Narciso Nario, Nicasio Conti, and Tereso Javier; and Manuel Andal and Julio

Jalandoni, PCGG's nominees to Philcomsat Holdings Corporation, as well as

its directors and officers, must comply with the Subpoenae Ad Testificandum

issued by respondent Senate Committees directing them to appear and testify

in public hearings relative to Senate Resolution No. 455.WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 174340 for habeas corpus is

DISMISSED, for being moot. The petitions in G.R Nos. 174318 and 174177

are likewise DISMISSED.Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 is declared REPEALED by the 1987

Constitution. Respondent Senate Committees' power of inquiry relative to

Senate Resolution 455 is upheld. PCGG Chairman Camilo L. Sabio andCommissioners Ricardo Abcede, Narciso Nario, Nicasio Conti and Tereso

Javier; and Manuel Andal and Julio Jalandoni, PCGG's nominees to

Philcomsat Holdings Corporation, as well as its directors and officerspetitioners in G.R. No. 174177, are ordered to comply with the Subpoenae Ad

Testificandum issued by respondent Senate Committees directing them toappear and testify in public hearings relative to Senate Resolution No. 455.

RICARDO VALMONTE, OSWALDO CARBONELL, DOY DEL

CASTILLO, ROLANDO BARTOLOME, LEO OBLIGAR, JUN

GUTIERREZ, REYNALDO BAGATSING, JUN "NINOY" ALBA

PERCY LAPID, ROMMEL CORRO and ROLANDO FADUL

petitioners, vs. FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR., respondent.Facts:

Petitioners in this special civil action for mandamus with

preliminary injunction invoke their right to information and pray tharespondent 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 electionthru the intercession/marginal note of the then First Lady Imelda Marcos

and/or (b) to furnish petitioners with certified true copies of the documents

7/29/2019 Akbayan Vs

4/4

evidencing their respective loans; and/or (c) to allow petitioners access to the

public records for the subject information. We are premising the above requeston the following provision of the Freedom Constitution of the present regime.

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.The controversy arose when petitioner Valmonte wrote respondent

Belmonte. To the aforesaid letter, the Deputy General Counsel of the GSIS,

MEYNARDO A. TIRO replied: My opinion in this regard is that aconfidential relationship exists between the GSIS and all those who borrow

from it, whoever they may be; that the GSIS has a duty to its customers topreserve this confidentiality; and that it would not be proper for the GSIS to

breach this confidentiality unless so ordered by the courts.

On July 19, 1986, the Daily Express carried a news item reporting that 137

former members of the defunct interim and regular Batasang Pambansa,including ten (10) opposition members, were granted housing loans by the

GSIS.

Contention:Respondent contends that in view of the right to privacy which is

equally protected by the Constitution and by existing laws, the documents

evidencing loan transactions of the GSIS must be deemed outside the ambit ofthe right to information.

Ruling:

Like all the constitutional guarantees, the right to information isnot absolute. As stated in Legaspi, the people's right to information is limited

to "matters of public concern," and is further "subject to such limitations asmay be provided by law." Similarly, the State's policy of full disclosure is

limited to "transactions involving public interest," and is "subject toreasonable conditions prescribed by law." The supposed borrowers wereMembers of the defunct Batasang Pambansa who themselves appropriated

funds for the GSIS and were therefore expected to be the first to see to it that

the GSIS performed its tasks with the greatest degree of fidelity and that an its

transactions were above board. In sum, the public nature of the loanable funds

of the GSIS and the public office held by the alleged borrowers make the

information sought clearly a matter of public interest and concern. The right toprivacy belongs to the individual in his private capacity, and not to public and

governmental agencies like the GSIS. Moreover, the right cannot be invoked

by juridical entities like the GSIS. As held in the case of Vassar College v.Loose Wills Biscuit Co., a corporation has no right of privacy in its name

since the entire basis of the right to privacy is an injury to the feelings and

sensibilities of the party and a corporation would have no such ground forrelief. Neither can the GSIS through its General Manager, the respondent,

invoke the right to privacy of its borrowers. The right is purely personal in

nature, and hence may be invoked only by the person whose privacy isclaimed to be violated. 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

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby granted and respondent GeneralManager of the Government Service Insurance System is ORDERED to allow

petitioners access to documents and records evidencing loans granted to

Members of the former Batasang Pambansa, as petitioners may specify,subject to reasonable regulations as to the time and manner of inspection, not

incompatible with this decision, as the GSIS may deem necessary.

VALENTIN L. LEGASPI, petitioner, vs.CIVIL SERVICE

COMMISSION, respondent.

Facts:The fundamental right of the people to information on matters of

public concern is invoked in this special civil action for mandamus institutedby petitioner Valentin L. Legaspi against the Civil Service Commission. Therespondent had earlier denied Legaspi's request for information on the civil

service eligibilities of certain persons employed as sanitarians in the Health

Department of Cebu City. These government employees, Julian Sibonghanoyand Mariano Agas, had allegedly represented themselves as civil service

eligibles who passed the civil service examinations for sanitarians.

Ruling:

In the instant, case while refusing to confirm or deny the claims of eligibility,

the respondent has failed to cite any provision in the Civil Service Law which

would limit the petitioner's right to know who are, and who are not, civilservice eligibles. We take judicial notice of the fact that the names of those

who pass the civil service examinations, as in bar examinations and licensure

examinations for various professions, are released to the public. Hence, thereis nothing secret about one's civil service eligibility, if actually possessed.

Petitioner's request is, therefore, neither unusual nor unreasonable. And when,

as in this case, the government employees concerned claim to be civil service

eligibles, the public, through any citizen, has a right to verify their professedeligibilities from the Civil Service Commission.

WHEREFORE, the Civil Service Commission is ordered to open its register

of eligibles for the position of sanitarian, and to confirm or deny, the civi

service eligibility of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas, for said position

in the Health Department of Cebu City, as requested by the petitioner Valentin

L. Legaspi.