Case Summary (G.R. No. 92541)
Key Dates
• February 1989 – Petitioner’s initial request to examine individual voting slips.
• June 22, 1989 – Chairman announces unilateral deletions on a film previously approved.
• July 27, 1989 – MTRCB issues Resolution No. 10-89 classifying all voting slips as confidential.
• November 13, 1991 – Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 7 (right of access to official records).
• Presidential Decree No. 1986 (creating and vesting classification powers in the MTRCB).
• Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
Factual Background
In February 1989, petitioner requested to examine the MTRCB’s records of individual voting slips used to determine whether films should be banned, cut, or classified. The records officer required clearance from Chairman Morato. Morato denied access on the ground that the slips were private “votes of conscience.”
Administrative Actions and Resolutions
At an executive meeting on February 27, 1989, seventeen board members voted to classify their voting slips as confidential. On July 27, 1989, the Board formalized that position by adopting Resolution No. 10-89, declaring both committee decisions and individual votes “confidential, private and personal.” Earlier (June 22, 1989), Chairman Morato asserted unilateral power to modify film classifications under MTRCB Resolution No. 88-1-25.
Petition, Grounds, and Reliefs Sought
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing that:
A. Resolution No. 10-89 violated Article III, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution and was a grave abuse of discretion.
B. Resolution No. 88-1-25 unlawfully delegated discretionary power to the Chairman to downgrade or upgrade films.
C. Respondents acted in bad faith and in excess of their jurisdiction by ignoring the Justice Secretary’s opinion that PD 1986 did not empower unilateral reclassification.
Reliefs sought: nullification of both resolutions.
Respondents’ Arguments
Respondents contended that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that the individual voting slips were private property of board members, accessible only with their consent. They also asserted that PD 1986 empowered the Chairman to revise committee decisions.
Procedural Issue: Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The Court rejected the plea of non-exhaustion, noting that the question raised was one of pure law and administrative remedies were either non-existent or the doctrine inapplicable. Petitioner had, in any event, pursued internal and executive channels without success.
Constitutional Right to Access Official Records
Article III, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees citizens the right to information and access to official records, subject only to reasonable limitations provided by law. This right is self-executing and requires no further implementing legislation. Limitations must be narrowly construed and consistent with the State policy of full public disclosure (Art. II, Sec. 28).
Public Character of Board Decisions and Voting Slips
The Court held that actions taken by board members in their official capacity cannot be private. The MTRCB is a public agency created by PD 1986 to serve public interest; its records and decisions— including individual voting slips—are publi
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 92541)
Facts
- Petitioner, a member of the MTRCB, sought to inspect the Board’s voting slips on films and television productions in February 1989.
- The MTRCB records officer conditioned access on prior clearance from Chairman Manuel L. Morato.
- Morato denied the request, characterizing individual voting slips as conscience votes that are private and personal property of each Board member.
- On February 27, 1989, seventeen Board members voted in an executive meeting to classify individual voting slips as confidential.
- On July 27, 1989, the Board issued Resolution No. 10-89 formally declaring decisions and voting slips “confidential, private and personal.”
- Separately, on June 22, 1989, Morato unilaterally ordered cuts in the film “Mahirap ang Magmahal,” despite an earlier R-18 without cuts classification.
- Morato justified his action by MTRCB Resolution No. 88-1-25 (June 22, 1988), allegedly empowering him to downgrade controversial films.
- Petitioner protested to the Executive Secretary and to the Secretary of Justice, who opined that PD 1986 did not empower the Chairman to reverse committee decisions and declined to rule on the constitutionality of Res. 10-89.
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court, seeking nullification of:
• MTRCB Resolution No. 88-1-25 (granting unilateral downgrade power to the Chairman)
• MTRCB Resolution No. 10-89 (declaring Board decisions and voting slips confidential) - Respondents moved to dismiss for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
- The Supreme Court denied the procedural objection and took up the merits.
Issues
- Does Article III, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution guarantee petitioner’s right to examine MTRCB voting slips and decisions?
- May individual voting slips of Board members be deemed “private and personal” and excluded from public access?
- Does PD 1986 or MTRCB Resolution No. 88-1-25 vest the Chairman with authority to unilaterally downgrade or alter committee decisions?
- Were the issuance and enforcement of Resolutions 10-89 and 88-1-25 valid exercises of administrative discretion?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The Board’s records are public documents, and any citizen has an unconditional right to inspect them, subject only to reasonable r