Case Summary (G.R. No. 157542)
Petitioners
Ricardo Valmonte, Oswaldo Carbonell, Doy Del Castillo, Rolando Bartolome, Leo Obligar, Jun Gutierrez, Reynaldo Bagatsing, Jun “Ninoy” Alba, Percy Lapid, Rommel Corro, and Rolando Fadul, all asserting their constitutional right to information on matters of public concern.
Respondent
Feliciano Belmonte Jr., President and General Manager of the GSIS, represented by his Deputy General Counsel, who refused to disclose borrower lists and loan documents, citing confidentiality.
Key Dates
– June 4, 1986: Petitioners’ initial letter requesting borrower names and loan documents.
– June 17, 1986: GSIS Deputy General Counsel’s refusal letter.
– June 26, 1986: Filing of the petition for mandamus and preliminary injunction.
– February 7, 1986: National elections preceding the contested loan grants.
Applicable Law
The petition invokes the right to information under the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 7) and the policy of full public disclosure (Art. II, Sec. 28). Governing statutes include P.D. 1146 (Revised GSIS Act of 1977) establishing the GSIS fund’s public character.
Procedural Background
After the GSIS refusal, petitioners filed a special civil action for mandamus. Both parties submitted comments and memoranda; respondent raised procedural objections, principally the failure to exhaust administrative remedies before the GSIS Board of Trustees.
Ruling on Exhaustion of Remedies
The Court held that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required where only questions of law are involved. Because petitioners’ claim invoked a constitutional right to information, courts are more competent than administrative bodies to resolve the issue.
Right to Information
Under the 1987 Constitution citizens have “access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions,” subject only to limitations prescribed by law. Prior decisions (Tanada v. Tuvera; Legaspi v. CSC) established this fundamental liberty.
Public Interest
Information concerning the use of GSIS funds—which are public contributions guaranteed by the State—and loans extended to legislators who oversaw GSIS appropriations, clearly constitutes a matter of public concern. Public accountability requires transparency in the management of such funds.
Confidentiality and Privacy
No statute grants the GSIS a general privilege to withhold loan records. The right to privacy is personal and cannot be invoked by the GSIS or by corporate entities. Even public officials enjoy a diminished expectation of privacy regarding official transaction
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 157542)
Facts
- Petitioners, media practitioners and private citizens, sought from respondent GSIS General Manager Feliciano Belmonte, Jr.:
- A list of opposition members of the Batasang Pambansa (UNIDO and PDP-Laban) who allegedly secured “clean” P2 million loans before the February 7, 1986 election through Imelda Marcos’s intercession.
- Certified true copies of the loan documents.
- Unrestricted access to the relevant GSIS public records.
- On June 4, 1986, petitioner Valmonte sent a letter invoking Art. IV, Sec. 6 of the Freedom Constitution.
- The GSIS Deputy General Counsel replied on June 17, 1986, citing a confidential relationship and refusing disclosure absent court order.
- Petitioners filed their petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction on June 26, 1986.
Procedural History
- Respondent and the Solicitor General filed separate comments; petitioners filed a consolidated reply.
- Respondent raised procedural objections, notably failure to exhaust administrative remedies before the GSIS Board of Trustees.
- Petitioners argued that their request involved a pure question of law—interpretation of the constitutional right to information—thus falling under an exception to the exhaustion requirement.
- The case was submitted on memoranda and taken up by the Court en banc.
Issues
- Whether petitioners must exhaust administrative remedies before GSIS bodies or may directly invoke mandamus for a constitutional right.
- Whether mandamus lies to