CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION
Section 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.
This constitutional guarantee complements the State’s policy of full public
disclosure in all transactions involving public interest expressed in Section
28 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution; these provisions are aimed at
ensuring transparency in policy-making as well as in the operations of the
government, and at safeguarding the exercise by the people of the freedom
of expression; in a democratic society like ours, the free exchange of
information is necessary, and can be possible only if the people are provided
the proper information on matters that affect them
Guarantees (1) right to information on matters of public concern, and (2)
right of access to official records and documents; political rights available
only to Filipino citizens, and essential to the proper exercise of freedom of
expression on such matters; government has regulatory discretion with
respect to the authority to determine what matters are of public concern and
the authority to determine the manner of access to them, and subject to
limitations as may be provided by law
Scope: in Chavez v. PEA and Amari, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002, the
right to information includes negotiations leading to the consummation of
the transaction but inspection and copying is at petitioner’s expense, and
subject to reasonable regulations to protect the integrity of the public records
and to minimize disruption of government operations; regulatory discretion
to determine the matters of public concern and the manner of access to
information
Recognized restrictions on the right of the people to information: (1)
national security matters; (2) intelligence information; (3) trade and
industrial secrets, as held in Garcia v. Board of Investments, 177 SCRA 374
(see also R.A. No. 8283 on intellectual property); (4) banking transactions,
on the secrecy of bank deposits under R.A. No. 1405; (5) diplomatic
correspondence; (6) executive sessions of Congress; (7) closed door cabinet
meetings; and, (8) Supreme Court deliberations; in Chavez v. PCGG, G.R.
No. 130716, December 9, 1998, allowing the disclosure of any agreement
concerning the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, certain recognized
restrictions to the right to information were cited: (1) to (4), criminal matters
and other confidential information, like that provided under R.A. No. 6713,
or classified law enforcement matters “such as those relating to the
apprehension, the prosecution and the detention of criminals, which the
courts may not inquire into prior to such arrest, detention and prosecution”;
also privileged information rooted in separation of powers
National security matters include State secrets regarding military, diplomatic
and other national security, and information on inter-government exchanges
prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements; where there is
no need to protect State secrets, the privilege to withhold documents and
other information may not be invoked, provided that they are examined “in
strict confidence” and given “scrupulous protection”
See Article VI, Sec. 16(4) on the publication of legislative journals and Sec.
20 on records and books of accounts of Congress being open to the public
Publication of laws reinforces this right (see Tañada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA
446); “public concern” eludes exact definition and embraces a broad
spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know, either because
these directly affect their lives or simply because such matters arouse the
interest of an ordinary citizen (see Legaspi v. CSC, 150 SCRA 530,
pronouncing that the duty to disclose is not dicretionary)
The constitutional right gives citizens “access to official records”, but the
Constitution does not accord them the right to compel custodian of official
records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to
acquire information on matter of public concern (see Valmonte v. Belmonte)
In case of denial of access, the government agency has the burden of
showing that the information requested is not of public concern, or, if it is of
public concern, that the same has been exempted by law form the operation
of the guarantee; the standards that have been developed for the regulation
of speech and press and of assembly and petition and of association are
applicable to the right of access to information (Bernas)
The remedy is MANDAMUS; the people are regarded as the real party in
interest, it being sufficient to show that one is a citizen and as such
interested in the execution of the laws, and therefore, part of the general
“public” which possesses the right; the right to information may be
compelled by a writ of mandamus when (1) the information sought must be
in relation to matters of public concern or public interest and (2) it must not
be exempt by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee.
Baldoza v. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14 affirmed the right of a municipal mayor
to examine judicial records while Legaspi v. CSC, 150 SCRA 530 upheld
the right of the petitioner to secure from the respondent information
regarding the civil service eligibility of persons employed in the city health
department of Cebu, and the duty to disclose the information and to afford
access cannot be discretionary (the provision is self-executing); in Aquino-
Sarmiento v. Morato, 203 SCRA 515, the Court mandated the disclosure of
the voting slips of the decision of the members of the MTRCB made in the
exercise of official functions; in Gonzales vs. Narvasa, G.R. No. 140835,
August 14, 2000, the Executive Secretary, upon petition by a citizen, may be
ordered to give the names of executive officials holding multiple positions in
the government and copies of their appointment, as well as the list of
recipients of luxury vehicles turned over to Malacañang, being matters of
public concern; under R.A. No. 6713, public officials and employees are
obliged to respond to letters sent by the public within 15 working days from
receipt and to ensure the accessibility of all public documents for inspection
by the public within reasonable working hours, subject to the reasonable
claims of confidentiality; bank accounts of suspects in anti-graft cases may
be examined pursuant to the Ombudsman Act (R.A. No. 6770), provided
that there must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction
and the inspection is limited to the subject matter of the pending case
(Marquez vs. Desierto)
Read Executive Order No. 02, s. 2016 on the people’s freedom of
information
CASES:
Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato, 203 SCRA 515
Baldoza v. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14
Chavez v. PEA and Amari, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002
Garcia v. Board of Investments, 177 SCRA 374
Legaspi v. CSC, 150 SCRA 530
Chavez v. PCGG, G.R. No. 130716, December 9, 1998
Gonzales vs. Narvasa, G.R. No. 140835, August 14, 2000
Hilado, et. al. v. Judge Reyes, G.R. No. 163155, July 21, 2006
RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATIONS
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary
to law shall not be abridged.
The right to form (organize) associations shall not be impaired without due
process of law and is thus an aspect of the right of liberty; it is also an aspect
of the freedom of contract; in addition, insofar as the associations may have
for their object the advancement of beliefs and ideas, the freedom of
association is an aspect of the freedom of speech and expression, subject to
the same limitations;
The right also covers the right not to join an association (see Reyes vs.
Trajano), or if one is already a member, to disaffiliate from the association.
Freedom of association is the fundamental human right of individuals to
form a body corporate, based on the premise that it is the right of free adults
to mutually choose their associates for purposes they see fit; the right to
strike is not included in the right to form unions and it may be denied by law
for valid reasons.
Government employees have the right to form unions as guaranteed by
Article III, Section 8, Article IX-B, Section 2(5) and Article XIII, Section 3
(see TUP v. NHC); they also have the right to strike, unless there is a
statutory ban on them
The right is not absolute: the Anti-Subversion Act does not violate right to
form associations because the purpose of the statute was to outlaw only
those organizations aimed at the violent overthrow of the government, and
that the government has a right to protect itself against subversion is a
proposition too plain to require elaboration (People v. Ferrer); the right to
association was not violated when political parties were prohibited from
participating in the barangay election in order to insure the non-partisanship
of candidates, and political neutrality is needed to discharge the duties of
barangay officials (Occena v. COMELEC); R.A. No. 3350 allowing workers
to disassociate from or not to join a labor union despite a closed shop
agreement is valid, if they are members of any religious sect which prohibits
affiliation of their members in any such organization (Victoriano v. Elizalde
Rope Workers Union); Art 245 of the Labor Code which makes managerial
employees ineligible to join, assist or form a labor union, does not violate
this right (UPCSU v. Laguesma); a closed-shop agreement is legal being a
valid form of union security, and such provision in a CBA is not a restriction
of the right of freedom of association (Villar v. Inciong); compulsory
membership of a lawyer in the IBP does not violate the constitutional
guarantee (In Re: Edillon)
CASES:
Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations, 137 SCRA 42
Occeña v. Comelec, 127 SCRA 404
In re: Edillon, 84 SCRA 554
People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382
United Pepsi Cola Supervisory Union v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 122226,
March 25, 1998
Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Secretary of Education, G.R.
No. 95445, August 6, 1991
