Article III Section 7 Flashcards
Article III Section 7
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized.
Access 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.
FACTS: Petitioner Ricardo Valmonte wrote a letter to Hon. Feliciano
Belmonte, GSIS General Manager, requesting that he be furnished with the
list of names of the opposition members of (the) Batasang Pambansa who
were able to secure a clean loan. Belmonte replied through the Deputy
General Counsel of the GSIS whose opinion is that is that a confidential
relationship exists between the GSIS and all those who borrow from it; and
that it would not be proper for the GSIS to breach this confidentiality unless
so ordered by the courts.
ISSUE: Whether or not they are entitled to the documents sought, by virtue
of their constitutional right to information
: The information sought by petitioners is the truth of reports that certain Members of the Batasang Pambansa belonging to the opposition were able to secure “clean” loans from the GSIS. The GSIS is a trustee of contributions from the government and its employees and the administrator of various insurance programs for the benefit of the latter. Undeniably, its funds assume a public character. It is therefore the legitimate concern of the public to ensure that these funds are managed properly with the end in view of maximizing the benefits that accrue to the insured government employees 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 Court is convinced that transactions entered into by the GSIS, a
government-controlled corporation created by special legislation are within
the ambit of the people’s right to be informed pursuant to the constitutional
policy of transparency in government dealings. However, although citizens
are afforded the right to information and, pursuant thereto, are entitled to
“access to official records,” the Constitution does not accord them a right to compel custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to acquire information on matters of public concern.
What are the provisions of the Constitutions which promotes the
principle of transparency:
- Sec 2, Art II Constitution
SECTION 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the
State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest. - Sec 20, Art VI Constitution
SECTION 20. The records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be
preserved and be open to the public in accordance with law, and such
books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish
annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for
each Member. - Sec 21, Art XII Constitution
SECTION 21. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance with law
and the regulation of the monetary authority. Information on foreign
loans obtained or guaranteed by the Government shall be made available
to the public. - Rule on SALN
All SALNs if public officials shall be made available to the public.
In September of 1997 there were news reports referring to the discovery of
billions of dollars of Marcos assets deposited in Switzerland and the alleged
execution of a compromise between the PCGG and the Marcos heirs on how
to split the assets. Petitioner, invoking the people’s right to information on
matters of public concern, seeks to compel PCGG to make public all
negotiations and agreements it is having with the Marcos heirs.
Does the right to information include access to the terms of government
negotiations prior to their conclusion?
Held: The right to information applies to “matters of public concern” [Art.
III, Sec. 7] while the policy of full disclosure [Art. II, Sec. 28] extends to
transactions involving public interest. The recovery of ill-gotten wealth,
considering that they supposedly originated from the government itself and
belong to the people, is a matter of public concern and imbued with public
interest. Thus, the subject is within the right to information invoked by
petitioner. Similarly, the intent of the framers of the Constitution is to include
steps leading to a contract as well as consummated contracts. It is therefore
incumbent upon PCGG to disclose sufficient public information on the
proposed settlement it has decided to take up with holders of ill-gotten
wealth. Such information though must pertain to definite propositions of the
government, not inter-agency recommendations during the state when
common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the
“exploratory” stage.
In 1973, the government entered into a contract with the Construction and
Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) to reclaim certainforeshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay. In 1981, pursuant to a
memorandum issued by President Marcos, CDCP and the Public Estates
Authority (PEA) executed a memorandum agreement whereby CDCP ceded
to PEA all lands reclaimed by the former. In 1988, President Aquino issued
Special Patent No. 3517 transferring to PEA the 1.9 million square meters of
reclaimed lands. In 1995, PEA entered into a joint venture agreement with
AMARI, a private corporation, to develop the Freedom Island and reclaim
another 250 hectares of submerged areas. While renegotiation was going
on, Chavez filed a petition for mandamus to compel PEA to disclose the terms
of its negotiation of the agreement with AMARI.
Can petitioner validly invoke his right to information on matters of public
concern?
Held: Information on on-going evaluation or review of bids or proposals
being undertaken by the bidding or review committee is not immediately
accessible under the right to information. While the evaluation or review is
still on-going, there are no “official acts, transactions or decisions” on the
bids or proposals. However, once the committee makes its official
recommendation, there arises a “definite proposition” on the part of the
government. From this point, the public’s right to information attaches and
any citizen can access all the non-proprietary information leading to such
definite proposition. Requiring a consummated contract will keep the public
in the dark and negate the principle of transparency in matters of public
concern. The information that petitioner can access includes evaluation
reports, recommendations, legal and expert opinions, minutes of meetings,
terms of reference and other documents attached to such reports or minutes
relating to the joint venture agreement.
FACTS: Chavez filed a case. This was a case filed against the heirs of President Marcos in order to recover the ill-gotten wealth which are believed to be in their possession or that they are hiding. This resulted to a lot of frustration because after many years, very little has been recovered from them.
So at one time, the PCGG proposed to the Marcos family regarding how the ill-gotten wealth will be divided. Chavez went to court asking what is the stand of the PCGG? What is their proposal to the Marcos family? The PCGG said that we are not obliged to reveal that information because we have not yet reached a decision yet. Those are just proposals and counterproposals.
ISSUE
Are matters prior to the consummation of the contract included to the public’s right to information? [YES]
Public Disclosure of Terms of Any Agreement, Perfected or Not In seeking the public disclosure of negotiations and agreements pertaining to a compromise settlement with the Marcoses as regards their alleged ill-gotten wealth, petitioner invokes the following provisions of the Constitution:
Sec. 7 [Article III]. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and todocuments, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Sec. 28 [Article II]. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.
Respondents’ opposite view is that the above constitutional provisions refer to completed and operative official acts, not to those still being considered. As regards the assailed Agreements entered into by the PCGG with the Marcoses, there is yet no right of action that has accrued, because said Agreements have not been approved by the President, and the Marcos heirs have failed to fulfill their express undertaking therein. Thus, the Agreements have not become effective. Respondents add that they are not aware of any ongoing negotiation for another compromise with the Marcoses regarding their alleged ill-gotten assets.
The “information” and the “transactions” referred to in the subject provisions of the Constitution have as yet no defined scope and extent. There are no specific laws prescribing the exact limitations within which the right may be exercised or the correlative state duty may be obliged. However, the following are some of the recognized restrictions:
i. National security matters and intelligence information,
ii. Trade secrets and banking transactions,
iii. Criminal matters, and
iv. Other confidential information.
In September of 1997 there were news reports referring to the discovery of billions of dollars of Marcos assets deposited in Switzerland and the alleged execution of a compromise between the PCGG and the Marcos heirs on how to split the assets. Petitioner, invoking the people’s right to information on matters of public concern, seeks to compel PCGG to make public all negotiations and agreements it is having with the Marcos heirs.
Does the right to information include access to the terms of government negotiations prior to their conclusion?
Held: The right to information applies to “matters of public concern” [Art. III, Sec. 7] while the policy of full disclosure [Art. II, Sec. 28] extends to transactions involving public interest. The recovery of ill-gotten wealth, considering that they supposedly originated from the government itself and belong to the people, is a matter of public concern and imbued with public interest. Thus, the subject is within the right to information invoked by petitioner. Similarly, the intent of the framers of the Constitution is to include steps leading to a contract as well as consummated contracts. It is therefore incumbent upon PCGG to disclose sufficient public information on the proposed settlement it has decided to take up with holders of ill-gotten wealth. Such information though must pertain to definite propositions of the government, not inter-agency recommendations during the state when common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the “exploratory” stage.
ISSUE: Whether there is sufficient public interest to overcome the claim of privilege
RULING: It being established that diplomatic negotiations enjoy a presumptive privilege against disclosure, even against the demands of members of Congress for information, the Court shall now determine whether petitioners have shown the existence of a public interest sufficient to overcome the privilege in this instance.
To clarify, there are at least two kinds of public interest that must be taken into account. One is the presumed public interest in favor of keeping the subject information confidential, which is the reason for the privilege in the first place, and the other is the public interest in favor of disclosure, the existence of which must be shown by the party asking for information.
The criteria to be employed in determining whether there is a sufficient public interest in favor of disclosure may be gathered from cases such as U.S. v. Nixon,48Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon,49 and In re Sealed Case.
U.S. v. Nixon, which involved a claim of the presidential communications privilege against the subpoena duces tecum of a district court in a criminal case, emphasized the need to balance such claim of privilege against the constitutional duty of courts to ensure a fair administration of criminal justice.
Petitioners sought to intervene in a case. Their motion was denied, and they raised it before a higher court. While it was pending, they sought to obtain copies of the records of the case.
Are all judicial records matters of public concern to which the public can demand access?
No. Decisions and opinions of a court are of course matters of public concern or interest for these are the authorized expositions and interpretations of the laws, binding upon all citizens, of which every citizen is charged with knowledge. Justice thus requires that all should have free access to the opinions of judges and justices, and it would be against sound public policy to prevent, suppress or keep the earliest knowledge of these from the public. Unlike court orders and decisions, however, pleadings and other documents filed by parties to a case need not be matters of public concern or interest. For they are filed for the purpose of establishing the basis upon which the court may issue an order or a judgment affecting their rights and interests. In thus determining which part or all of the records of a case may be accessed to, the purpose for which the parties filed them is to be considered.
Does the duty of the government laid down in Chavez v. PCGG to disclose definite propositions of the government leading to the perfection of a contract apply to diplomatic negotiations? Can the proposals and counter-proposals be disclosed to the public even after the treaty has been consummated?
Held: No. The constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final contract. The information, however, must constitute definite propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged information, military and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public order. BUT: The text of a ratified treaty can never be hidden from the public.
Does the right to information apply to bids submitted for evaluation?
So the SC said that bids actually are not covered. These are not yet official acts or transactions. So you can only see the bid when the Government has decided that we will accept. Example, this will be the contractor that we will be recommending. At that stage, there is already an official act. But bids only studied by the bidding committee. You are not yet entitled to obtain copies.
Can the Solicitor General refuse to give documents to the Supreme Court pertaining to the drug war, like names of those killed, policemen who participated in the operation, etc?
Contrary to the claim of the Solicitor General, the requested information and documents do not obviously involve state secrets affecting national security. The information and documents relate to routine police operations involving violations of laws against the sale or use of illegal drugs. There is no showing that the country’s territorial integrity, national sovereignty, independence, or foreign relations [take note, these enumerations are covered by executive privilege] will be compromised or prejudiced by the release of these information and documents to this Court or even to the public. These information and documents do not involve rebellion, invasion, terrorism, espionage, infringement of our sovereignty or sovereign rights by foreign powers, or any military, diplomatic or state secret involving national security. It is simply ridiculous to claim that these information and documents on police operations against drug pushers and users involve national security matters so sensitive that even this Court cannot peruse these information and documents in deciding constitutional issues affecting the fundamental right to life and liberty of thousands of ordinary citizens.
Can anybody file a case for mandamus even if you are not personally affected by this information?
The answer of the SC is that the right to information is public right. Being a public right, any citizen can have standing.
What are the exceptions in the right to information?
- Cabinet sessions
- Court deliberations
- Diplomatic and military and national security matters [covered by Executive Privilege]
- Trade secrets [E.g. Formula for Coke or Pepsi]
- Others specifically provided for by law - confidentiality (Secrecy of Bank Deposit Law)
The President announced that he had entered into an agreement with China to allow Chinese fishermen to fish in Recto Bank. Can we demand that the terms be made public?
Judge: Is that a matter of public concern? Take note it is part of our EEZ. But, until now, we do not know the terms.
The Akbayan case tells us that if there is a treaty, the text of the agreement can never be perpetually kept secret from the public.
