Facts:

The case involves Ma. Carmen G. Aquino-Sarmiento as the petitioner against Manuel L. Morato, in his capacity as Chairman of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB), and the MTRCB itself as respondents. The events leading to the petition began in February 1989 when Aquino-Sarmiento, a member of the MTRCB, requested access to the board's records concerning the voting slips filled out by individual board members after reviewing films and television productions. These voting slips are crucial as they determine whether films are banned, edited, or classified. The records officer of the MTRCB informed her that she needed prior clearance from Morato to access these records. Morato subsequently denied her request, arguing that the voting slips represented private and personal conscience votes of the board members, thus making them exclusive property of the individual members.

In response, Aquino-Sarmiento contended that the records were public and that...

Facts:

Petitioner's Request and the Nature of the Records

• In February 1989, petitioner Ma. Carmen G. Aquino-Sarmiento, a member of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB), wrote to the board’s records officer requesting access to the records.
• The records in question pertained to the voting slips completed by individual board members after reviewing motion pictures and television programs, which determine whether films are banned, cut, or classified.
• The records officer informed petitioner that she needed to secure prior clearance from Chairman Manuel L. Morato in order to examine the records.

Denial of Petitioner's Request and Subsequent Developments

• Respondent Morato denied petitioner's request, arguing that the individual voting slips represented “conscience votes” that were purely private and personal in nature.
• During an executive meeting on February 27, 1989, seventeen board members voted to deem their individual voting records classified, making them inaccessible without the chairman's clearance.
• On July 27, 1989, the Board issued Resolution No. 10-89 which formally declared as confidential and private both the decision of the reviewing committee and the individual voting slips.
• A separate incident on June 22, 1989 involved respondent Morato allegedly unilaterally ordering deletions on the film "Mahirap ang Magmahal" despite the film’s earlier approval with an “R-18 without cuts” classification.
• Morato justified his unilateral action by invoking MTRCB Resolution No. 88-1-25, which he claimed granted him power to downgrade controversial films.
• Petitioner objected, contending that under PD 1986 (which created the MTRCB), Morato had no authority to reverse the decision of a reviewing committee.
• The issue was further raised when the matter was brought before the Executive Secretary and subsequently referred to the Justice Secretary, whose opinion stated that PD 1986 does not vest such unilateral power in the chairman.
• Despite this opinion, respondent Morato insisted on enforcing both resolutions (No. 10-89 and 88-1-25), prompting petitioner to file the present petition.

Petition's Grounds and Allegations

• Petitioner argued that:
• The refusal to grant access to the board’s records, particularly the voting slips, violated the citizen’s constitutional right to access public records as guaranteed by Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
• The resolutions in question amounted to grave abuse of discretion, lack of jurisdiction, and an unlawful delegation of discretionary powers.
• Petitioner sought the nullification of:
• MTRCB Resolution No. 88-1-25, which allegedly allows the chairman to unilaterally downgrade a film.
• MTRCB Resolution No. 10-89, which declared the reviewing committee’s decision and individual voting slips as confidential, private, and personal.

Respondents’ Procedural and Substantive Arguments

• Respondents contended that the petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
• They argued that the doctrine of exhaustion applies, since petitioner had not fully availed herself of all available administrative channels.
• Additionally, respondents maintained that the individual voting slips are exclusively the property of the board members, as they represent their private votes of conscience.
• Respondents also maintained that PD 1986 and MTRCB resolutions provided the chairman with authority to unilaterally alter committee decisions concerning film classification.

Issue:

Whether the records requested by the petitioner, specifically the individual voting slips and the decisions of the review committee, are public records accessible under the constitutional guarantee of access to information.

• Does the constitutional provision in Section 7, Article III, which ensures the right to information on matters of public concern, apply to these records?
• Can the character of “conscience votes” be legitimately invoked to label these records as private and exempt from public access?

Whether respondent Morato, through MTRCB Resolution No. 88-1-25, unlawfully assumed the power to unilaterally revise or reverse the decisions rendered by a designated reviewing committee.

• Is the delegation of discretionary power by the board to the chairman valid under PD 1986?
• Does the unilateral action of reversing or modifying committee decisions contravene the established procedural scheme of the MTRCB?

Whether the procedural objection raised by respondents regarding the non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is tenable in a case that primarily involves a question of law.

• Can the doctrine of exhaustion be strictly applied given that the issue involves the constitutional right to access public records?
• Are there exceptions in which a litigant may bypass administrative remedies when the substantive issue is judicial in nature?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)