CASE DIGEST : VALMONTE vs BELMONTE a government-controlled corporation created by special

G.R. No. 74930 February 13, 1989 RICARDO VALMONTE, legislation are within the ambit of the people's right to be
OSWALDO CARBONELL, DOY DEL CASTILLO, ROLANDO informed pursuant to the constitutional policy of
BARTOLOME, LEO OBLIGAR, JUN GUTIERREZ, REYNALDO transparency in government dealings. Although citizens are
BAGATSING, JUN "NINOY" ALBA, PERCY LAPID, ROMMEL afforded the right to information and, pursuant thereto, are
CORRO and ROLANDO FADUL, petitioners, vs. FELICIANO entitled to "access to official records," the Constitution does
BELMONTE, JR., respondent. not accord them a right to compel custodians of official
records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in
FACTS : Petitioners in this special civil action for mandamus their desire to acquire information on matters of public
with preliminary injunction invoke their right to information concern.
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 RICARDO VALMONTE v. FELICIANO BELMONTE, GR No.
able to secure clean loans immediately before the February 7 74930, 1989-02-13
election thru the intercession/marginal note of the then First Facts:
Lady Imelda Marcos; and/or (b) to furnish petitioners with
certified true copies of the documents evidencing their As a lawyer, member of the media and plain citizen of our
respective loans; and/or (c) to allow petitioners access to the Republic, I am requesting that I be furnished with the list of
public records for the subject information On June 20, 1986, names of the opposition members of (the) Batasang
apparently not having yet received the reply of the Pambansa who were able to secure a clean loan of P2 million
Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) Deputy each on guarranty (sic) of Mrs. Imelda
General Counsel, petitioner Valmonte wrote respondent
another letter, saying that for failure to receive a reply, "(W)e Marcos.  We understand that OIC Mel Lopez of Manila was
are now considering ourselves free to do whatever action one of those aforesaid MPs.  Likewise, may we be furnished
necessary within the premises to pursue our desired objective with the certified true copies of the documents evidencing
in pursuance of public interest." their loan.

We are premising the above request on the following

 ISSUE : WON Valmonte, et. al. are entitled as citizens and provision of the Freedom Constitution of the present regime:
taxpayers to inquire upon GSIS records on behest loans given
by the former First Lady Imelda Marcos to Batasang The right of the people to information on matters of public
Pambansa members belonging to the UNIDO and PDP-Laban concern shall be recognized.  Access to official records, and to
political parties. documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions
or decisions, shall be afforded the citizen subject to such
 HELD : Respondent has failed to cite any law granting the limitation as... may be provided, by law.  (Art. IV, Sec. 6)
GSIS the privilege of confidentiality as regards the documents
On July 19, 1986, the Daily Express carried a news item
subject of this petition. His position is apparently based
reporting that 137 former members of the defunct interim
merely on considerations of policy. The judiciary does not
and regular Batasang Pambansa, including ten (10) opposition
settle policy issues. The Court can only declare what the law
members, were granted housing loans by the GSIS [Rollo, p.
is, and not what the law should be. Under our system of
41]
government, policy issues are within the domain of the
political branches of the government, and of the people Issues:
themselves as the repository of all State power. The
concerned borrowers themselves may not succeed if they issue of whether or not petitioners are entitled to access to
choose to invoke their right to privacy, considering the public the documents evidencing loans granted by the GSIS.
offices they were holding at the time the loans were alleged
Ruling:
to have been granted. It cannot be denied that because of the
interest they generate and their newsworthiness, public Petitioners are practitioners in media.  As such, they have
figures, most especially those holding responsible positions in both the right to gather and the obligation to check the
government, enjoy a more limited right to privacy as accuracy of information they disseminate.  For them, the
compared to ordinary individuals, their actions being subject freedom of the press and of speech is not only critical, but
to closer public scrutiny The "transactions" used here I vital to the exercise of their... professions.  The right of access
suppose is generic and, therefore, it can cover both steps to information ensures that these freedoms are not rendered
leading to a contract, and already a consummated contract, nugatory by the government's monopolizing pertinent
Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution information.  For an essential element of these freedoms is to
which, though not binding upon the Court, are nevertheless keep open a continuing dialogue or process of
persuasive, and considering further that government-owned communication... between the government and the people.
and controlled corporations, whether performing proprietary
or governmental functions are accountable to the people, the The right to information goes hand-in-hand with the
Court is convinced that transactions entered into by the GSIS, constitutional policies of full public disclosure* and honesty in
the public service.** It is meant to enhance the widening role  Such request was on the premise that Art. IV, Sec. 6 of the
of the... citizenry in governmental decision-making as well as Constitution provides
in checking abuse in government.

Yet, like all the constitutional guarantees, the right to The right of the people to information on matters of public
information is not absolute.  As stated in Legaspi, the people's concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
right to information is limited to "matters of public concern", documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions
and is further "subject to such limitations as may be provided or decisions, shall be afforded the citizen subject to such
by law." limitation as may be provided by law.

The information sought by petitioners in this case is the truth

of reports that certain Members of the Betasang Pambansa The Deputy General Counsel of the GSIS replied to such letter,
belonging to the opposition were able to secure "clean" loans however, not having yet received the reply of the Deputy
from the GSIS immediately before the February 7, 1986 General Counsel, petitioner Valmonte wrote respondent
election through the intercession... of the former First Lady, another letter, saying that for failure to receive a reply, “(W)e
Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos. are now considering ourselves free to do whatever action
necessary within the premises to pursue our desired objective
Principles: in pursuance of public interest.”
In this system, governmental agencies and institutions
operate within the limits of the authority conferred by the Valmonte, joined by the other petitioners, filed the instant
people.  Denied access to information on the inner... workings suit.
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 as a public trust, On July 19, 1986, the Daily Express carried a news item
institutionalized in the Constitution (in Art. XI, Sec. 1) to reporting that 137 former members of the defunct interim
protect the people from abuse of... governmental power, and regular Batasang Pambansa, including ten (10) opposition
would certainly be mere empty words if access to such members, were granted housing loans by the GSIS. Separate
information of public concern is denied, except under comments were filed by respondent Belmonte and the
limitations prescribed by implementing legislation adopted Solicitor General. After petitioners filed a consolidated reply,
pursuant to the Constitution. the petition was given due course and the parties were
required to file their memoranda. The parties having
In sum, the pubic nature of the loanable funds of the GSIS and complied, the case was deemed submitted for decision.
the public office held by the alleged borrowers make the
information sought clearly a matter of public interest and
concern. In his comment respondent raises procedural objections to
the issuance of a writ of mandamus, among which is that
______________________________________________ petitioners have failed to exhaust administrative remedies,
hence, petitioners have no cause of action.
RICARDO VALMONTE, et al. vs. FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR..
G.R. No. 74930 February 13, 1989 Right to Information;
Mandamus; GSIS Law; “public concern” and “public interest” ISSUES:

FACTS: 1. Whether or not this case falls under one of the

Petitioners in this special civil action for mandamus with exceptions to the principle of exhaustion of
preliminary injunction invoke their right to information and administrative remedies.
pray that respondent be directed: 2. Whether or not mandamus lies to compel
respondent to perform the acts sought by petitioners
(a) to furnish petitioners the list of the names of the Batasang to be done, in pursuance of their right to information
Pambansa members belonging to the UNIDO and PDP-Laban 3. Whether petitioners are entitled to access to the
who were able to secure clean loans immediately before the documents evidencing loans granted by the GSIS
February 7 election thru the intercession/marginal note of
the then First Lady Imelda Marcos; and/or RULING:

(b) to furnish petitioners with certified true copies of the 1. YES. Among the settled principles in administrative
documents evidencing their respective loans; and/or law is that before a party can be allowed to resort to
the courts, he is expected to have exhausted all means
of administrative redress available under the law.
(c) to allow petitioners access to the public records for the
subject information.
The courts for reasons of law, comity and convenience will 2. YES. Before mandamus may issue, it must be clear that the
not entertain a case unless the available administrative information sought is of “public interest” or “public concern,”
remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate and is not exempted by law from the operation of the
authorities have been given opportunity to act and correct constitutional guarantee [Legazpi v. Civil Service Commission]
the errors committed in the administrative forum. However,
the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is
The Court has always grappled with the meanings of the
subject to settled exceptions, among which is when only a
terms “public interest” and “public concern”. As observed
question of law is involved.
in Legazpi:

The issue raised by petitioners, which requires the

In determining whether or not a particular information is of
interpretation of the scope of the constitutional right to
public concern there is no rigid test which can be applied.
information, is one which can be passed upon by the regular
“Public concern” like “public interest” is a term that eludes
courts more competently than the GSIS or its Board of
exact definition. Both terms embrace a broad spectrum of
Trustees, involving as it does a purely legal question.
subjects which the public may want to know, either because
these directly affect their lives, or simply because such
Thus, the exception of this case from the application of the matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citezen.
general rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is In the final analysis, it is for the courts to determine on a case
warranted. by case basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or
importance, as it relates to or affects the public.
The pertinent provision under the 1987 Constitution is Art.
111, Sec. 7 which states: The information sought by petitioners in this case is the truth
of reports that certain Members of the Batasang Pambansa
belonging to the opposition were able to secure “clean” loans
The right of the people to information on matters of public
from the GSIS immediately before the February 7, 1986
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
election through the intercession of the former First Lady,
documents, and papers pertaining to official acts,
Mrs. Imelda Marcos.
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 The GSIS is a trustee of contributions from the government
law. and its employees and the administrator of various insurance
programs for the benefit of the latter. Undeniably, its funds
assume a public character.
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 In sum, the public nature of the loanable funds of the GSIS
of government, the citizenry can become prey to the whims and the public office held by the alleged borrowers make the
and caprices of those to whom the power had been information sought clearly a matter of public interest and
delegated. concern.

The postulate of public office as a public trust, A second requisite must be met before the right to
institutionalized in the Constitution (in Art. XI, Sec. 1) to information may be enforced through mandamus
protect the people from abuse of governmental power, proceedings, viz., that the information sought must not be
would certainly be were empty words if access to such among those excluded by law.
information of public concern is denied, except under
limitations prescribed by implementing legislation adopted
Neither can the GSIS through its General Manager, the
pursuant to the Constitution.
respondent, invoke the right to privacy of its borrowers. The
right is purely personal in nature, and hence may be invoked
Petitioners are practitioners in media. As such, they have only by the person whose privacy is claimed to be violated.
both the right to gather and the obligation to check the
accuracy of information the disseminate. For them, the
Respondent asserts that the documents evidencing the loan
freedom of the press and of speech is not only critical, but
transactions of the GSIS are private in nature and hence, are
vital to the exercise of their professions. The right of access to
not covered by the Constitutional right to information on
information ensures that these freedoms are not rendered
matters of public concern which guarantees “(a)ccess
nugatory by the government’s monopolizing pertinent
to official  records, and to documents, and papers pertaining
information.
to official  acts, transactions, or decisions” only.
First of all, the “constituent — ministrant” dichotomy The corresponding duty of the respondent to perform the
characterizing government function has long been required act must be clear and specific.
repudiated. In ACCFA v. Confederation of Unions and
Government Corporations and Offices, the Court said that the
 
government, whether carrying out its sovereign attributes or
running some business, discharges the same function of
service to the people. The request of the petitioners fails to meet this standard,
there being no duty on the part of respondent to prepare the
list requested.
Consequently, that the GSIS, in granting the loans, was
exercising a proprietary function would not justify the
exclusion of the transactions from the coverage and scope of The petition was granted and respondent General Manager of
the right to information. the GSIS was ordered to allow petitioners access to
documents and records evidencing loans granted to Members
of the former Batasang Pambansa, as petitioners may specify,
Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution
subject to reasonable regulations as to the time and manner
which, though not binding upon the Court, are nevertheless
of inspection, not incompatible with this decision, as the GSIS
persuasive, and considering further that government-owned
may deem necessary.
and controlled corporations, whether performing proprietary
or governmental functions are accountable to the people, the
Court is convinced that transactions entered into by the GSIS,
a 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.

3. YES. In fine, petitioners are entitled to access to the

documents evidencing loans granted by the GSIS, subject to
reasonable regulations that the latter may promulgate
relating to the manner and hours of examination, to the end
that damage to or loss of the records may be avoided, that
undue interference with the duties of the custodian of the
records may be prevented and that the right of other persons
entitled to inspect the records may be insured.

The petition, as to the second and third alternative acts

sought to be done by petitioners, is meritorious.

However, the same cannot be said with regard to the first act
sought by petitioners, i.e., “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.”

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.