Case Summary (G.R. No. 72119)
Key Dates
Decision rendered May 29, 1987.
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 7 (right of access to official records and documents, including government research data) and Article II, Section 28 (policy of full public disclosure subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law).
Invocation of the Fundamental Right to Information
Petitioner invokes the constitutional guarantee that “the right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized,” and that access to official records must be afforded subject only to limitations provided by law.
Historical Evolution of the Right
– 1948 (Subido v. Ozaeta): statutory right of inspection under the Land Registration Act.
– 1973 Constitution, Article IV, Section 6: first constitutional recognition of the right to information on matters of public concern.
– 1987 Constitution: retains and expands this right by expressly including “government research data used as basis for policy development.”
Self-Executing Character of the Guarantee
These constitutional provisions are self-executing, meaning no further legislative action is required to make the right enforceable. The State has an immediate duty to afford access, and any statutory limitations must be consistent with the policy of full public disclosure.
Standing of the Petitioner
In actions to enforce public rights by writ of mandamus, any citizen is a proper party. Where the duty to disclose is owed to the public at large, the relator need only show citizenship and that the request involves a public right.
Duty of Government to Disclose Public Records
Government agencies have no discretion to refuse access to information of public concern. Their authority is limited to prescribing reasonable rules on the manner, hours, and conditions of examination to protect records and accommodate other users, but not to deny disclosure outright.
Scope and Limitations of the Right
While broad, the right is subject to “limitations as may be provided by law” (e.g., national security, privacy). Determination of “public concern” is made case by case, focusing on whether the information affects public welfare or accountability.
Public Interest in Civil Service Eligibilities
Civil service appointments must be made according to merit and fitness (1987 Constitution, Art. IX-B, Sec. 2[2]). Public office is a public trust, and citizens have a legitimate interest in verifying that appointees claiming eligibility truly passed the requisite examinations.
Absence of Statutory Exemption
The Civil
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 72119)
Case Title and Citation
- 234 Phil. 521 (En Banc)
- G.R. No. 72119, May 29, 1987
- Petitioner: Valentin L. Legaspi
- Respondent: Civil Service Commission
Background of the Case
- Petitioner Legaspi requested from the Civil Service Commission the civil service eligibilities of two sanitarians in the Cebu City Health Department, Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas.
- The Commission denied his request, refusing to confirm or deny whether those individuals had passed the relevant civil service examinations.
- Legaspi filed a special civil action for Mandamus, invoking his constitutional right to information on matters of public concern and asserting he had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework
- 1973 Constitution, Article IV, Section 6: Recognized the people’s right to information on matters of public concern; guaranteed access to official records, documents, and papers subject to limitations provided by law.
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 7: Expanded the right by including “government research data used as basis for policy development.”
- 1987 Constitution, Article II, Section 28: Declared a State policy of full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest, “subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law.”
- Civil Service Law (Art. IX-B, Sec. 2[2]): Mandates civil service appointments be based on merit and fitness, ascertained by competitive examination whenever practicable.
- Land Registration Act, Section 56 (Act 496, as amended): Provided statutory right to information on registered land transactions (Subido v. Ozaeta).
Prior Jurisprudence on Right to Information
- Tanada v. Tuvera (G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985, 136 SCRA 27): Writ of Mandamus compelled publication of presidential decrees and issuances in the Official Gazette under the 1973 Constitution.
- Subido v. Ozaeta (80 Phil. 383 [1948]): Newspaper editor invoked the Land Registration