Legaspi vs CSC • However, the right of information is not

• The right of information may be invoked on absolute. In fact, the power of the
matters of public concern. legislation to conduct inquiry in aid of
• Although government agencies may regulate legislation may be restricted through
the manner of inspection of records, it does executive privilege
not carry with it the power to prohibit. • Executive privilege is when the Chief
• Absent of a prohibiting law, CSC cannot Executive exempts himself/herself from
refuse Legaspi’s request for the records of disclosing information to the public.
Sibonghanoy and Agas if the latter are civil • At the same time, executive privilege is also
service eligible. not absolute. There must be a specific claim
• Sibonghanoy and Agas’ positions as of privilege, in which the courts may
sanitarians for the Health Department are determine in a case-to-case basis the
public office that requires civil service balance of privilege with the public interest.
eligibilities. Public office being a public trust, • In this case, the issuance of EO 464, which
it is a matter of public concern. Thus, issue prevents executive officials from disclosing
of such records cannot be refused. information in all cases, cannot be
absolutely invoked.
Valmonte vs Belmonte, Jr. • In this case, as much as the President has
• The right of information may be invoked on executive privilege, it must still proffer
matters of public concern. reasons as to the withholding of the
• Furthermore, the State’s policy of full public information.
disclosure of its transactions extends to
GOCCs, such as GSIS. Hilado vs Reyes
• Absent of prohibiting law, GSIS cannot • The State guarantees the right to
refuse Valmonete’s request for the records information on matters of public concern.
of members of the Batasang Pambansa who Included thereto is the right to access
acquired loans from the GSIS itself through official records.
the guaranty of Imelda Marcos. • This includes judicial records. Judicial
• Since the funds of the GSIS upon which it records available for access are not limited
grants loans to its borrowers is of public to orders or final decisions of the courts. It is
funds, such is a matter of public concern. also comprising of collection of all papers,
Thus, issue of such records cannot be exhibits, and pleadings filed by the parties
refused. in a proceeding.
• However, access to judicial records relating
Chavez vs PCGG to a pending case and not necessarily public
• The right of information may be invoked on is limited to interested persons only.
matters of public concern. • Interested persons are those who have
• Absent of prohibiting law, PCGG cannot legitimate reason for accessing records of a
refuse Chavez’ request for information case.
regarding the compromise settlement
between the State and the Marcoses. Bantay Republic vs COMELEC
• The Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth are assets • The right of information may be invoked on
by the Marcoses acquired through the matters of public concern.
improper use of public position and funds. • Absent of a prohibiting law, COMELEC
Clearly, any transactions relating thereto are cannot refuse Bantay Republic’s request for
matters of public concern. Thus, issue of the records of the nominees of every
such records cannot be refused. partylist groups.
• Furthermore, transactions subject of full • If in Legaspi, it has been held that positions
public disclosure are not only those that of sanitarians are of public concern, the
have been perfected, but also include those more reason the identity of candidates for a
that are still subject of negotiations. lofty elective office be a matter of higher
public concern.
Senate vs Ermita
• The right of information may be invoked on
matters of public concern.
Akbayan vs Aquino IDEALS vs PSALMS
• The right of information may be invoked on • Transactions subject of full public disclosure
matters of public concern. re not only those that have been perfected,
• However, the right of information is not but also include those that are still subject
absolute. In fact, the power of the of negotiations.
legislation to conduct inquiry in aid of • Absent of prohibiting law, PSALMS cannot
legislation may be restricted through refuse IDEAL’S request for information
executive privilege regarding the winning bidder of the Angat
• However, the right of information is not Power Plant Sale.
absolute. In fact, the power of the
legislation to conduct inquiry in aid of Sereno vs Committee on Trade
legislation may be restricted through • The right of information must pass two
executive privilege tests before it can be invoked:
• Nevertheless, if there is showing of sufficient ▪ Information sought it of public concern;
public interest, it may overcome the claim of and
privilege. This public interest is further ▪ It must not be exempt by law
classified into two kinds: • In this case, matters of tariffs of
▪ In favor of keeping the subject petrochemicals are indeed of public concern.
confidential; and However, the information, which pertains to
▪ In favor of disclosure. the minutes of the meeting by NEDA
• In this case, the Executive have validly regarding petrochemical tariffs, are under
invoked privilege because it was the JPEPA executive privilege.
was in pursuit of diplomatic negotiations, a • The meeting was classified as dealing with
reason which is covered by executive matters of foreign affairs, trade, and
privilege. policymaking, a reason covered by
• The burden shifted to the Legislative, to executive privilege.
prove there is a need to disclose such
negotiations; however, it failed. Biraogo vs Ombudsman
• The right of information may be invoked on
Neri vs Senate matters of public concern.
• Same sa Akbayan vs Senate. • Custodians of record, however, may
regulate the manner of inspection of
Center for People Empowerment vs COMELEC records.
• Source codes – which determine how a • Should the custodian of records find the
machine operates – of a PCOS machine used purpose of request for access of such
in the automated elections, may be subject records be from improper motive, the same
of disclosure. may deny such request.

Re: Request of Copy