105. Valmonte vs. Belmonte. Jr.

G.R. No. 74930| Cortes, J. | 13 February 1989

DOCTRINE:
 Art. III, Sec. 7 which states: 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.
 As stated in Legaspi, 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.”

FACTS:
 Petitioners in this special civil action for mandamus with preliminary injunction invoke their right to information
and pray that respondent be directed:
(a)To furnish petitioners the list of the names of the Batasang Pambansa members belonging to the UNIDO and

PDP-Laban who were able to secure clean loans immediately before the February 7 election thru the
intercession/marginal note of the then First Lady Imelda Marcos; and/or
(b)To furnish petitioners with certified true copies of the documents evidencing their respective loans; and/or

(c)To allow petitioners access to the public records for the subject information.

 Respondent General Manager of GSIS Belmonte, replied to the letter sent by petitioner Valmonte,
expressing the confidential relationship of GSIS and its client, that the GSIS has its duty to preserve and not
breach the confidentiality unless there be an order by the courts.
 Nevertheless, petitioner Deputy General Counsel Valmonte proceeded with some necessary action to further
their objective in pursuance of “public interest”
 In response, respondent raised procedural objections to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, among which is
that petitioners have failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
 Respondent claimed that actions of the GSIS General Manager are reviewable by the Board of
Trustees of the GSIS. Petitioners, however, did not seek relief from the GSIS Board of Trustees. It is
therefore asserted that since administrative remedies were not exhausted, then petitioners have no
cause of action.
 Petitioners claimed that they have raised a purely legal issue. Hence, it is argued that this case falls under
one of the exceptions to the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to access to such documents, by virtue of their constitutional right
to information. -YES.
2. Whether or not the information sought are of public concern or public interest.- YES.
3. Whether or not there is a law granting GSIS a privilege of confidentiality and that latter is entitled to the
protection of right to privacy. -NO.
4. Whether or not the petitioners have the right to be furnished the list of the names of the Batasang Pambansa
members belonging to the UNIDO and PDP-Laban who were able to secure clean loans immediately before
the February 7 election thru the intercession/marginal note of the then First Lady Imelda Marcos.”- NO.

HELD:
1. Petitioners are practitioners in media. As such, they have both the right to gather and the obligation to check
the accuracy of information they disseminate. For them, the freedom of the press and of speech is not only
critical, but vital to the exercise of their professions. The right of access to information ensures that these
freedoms are not rendered nugatory by the government’s monopolizing pertinent information.  It is in the
interest of the State that the channels for free political discussion be maintained to the end that the
government may perceive and be responsive to the people’s will. Yet, this open dialogue can be effective only
to the extent that the citizenry is informed and thus able to formulate its will intelligently.

2. 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.
Considering the nature of its funds, the GSIS is expected to manage its resources with utmost prudence and
 in strict compliance with the pertinent laws or rules and regulations. Consequently, as respondent himself
admits, the GSIS “is not supposed to grant ‘clean loans’.” [Comment, p. 8.] 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.

3.  Respondent has failed to cite any law granting the GSIS the privilege of confidentiality as regards the
documents subject of this petition. His position is apparently based merely on considerations of policy. The
Court can only declare what the law is, and not what the law should be.

When the information requested from the government intrudes into the privacy of a citizen, a potential conflict
between the rights to information and to privacy may arise. From the statement of the Court in Morfe is
that the right to privacy belongs to the individual in his private capacity, and not to public and
governmental agencies like the GSIS.

The concerned borrowers themselves may not succeed if they choose to invoke their right to privacy,
considering the public offices they were holding at the time the loans were alleged to have been granted. It
cannot be denied that because of the interest they generate and their newsworthiness, public figures,
most especially those holding responsible positions in government, enjoy a more limited right to
privacy as compared to ordinary individuals, their actions being subject to closer public scrutiny 

4. 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.

It must be stressed that it is essential for a writ of mandamus to issue that the applicant has a well-defined,
clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded and that it is the imperative duty of defendant to perform
the act required. The request of the petitioners fails to meet this standard, there being no duty on the part of
respondent to prepare the list requested.

Finally, on 17 July 1988, military and police checkpoints in Metro Manila were temporarily lifted and a review and
refinement of the rules in the conduct of the police and military manning the checkpoints was ordered by the National
Capital Regional Command Chief and the Metropolitan Police Director. 10
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

Finally, on 17 July 1988, military and police checkpoints in Metro Manila were temporarily lifted and a review and
refinement of the rules in the conduct of the police and military manning the checkpoints was ordered by the National
Capital Regional Command Chief and the Metropolitan Police Director. 10
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby granted and respondent General Manager 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.
SO ORDERED.