QuestionsQuestions (MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 15)
The updating is anchored on Section 4 of Executive Order (EO) No. 02 (s. 2016), and further implemented through Memorandum Circular No. 49 (s. 2018) which created the IA-FOI-EPC, with DOJ and OSG as co-chairs.
The exceptions are expressly stated to be without prejudice to existing laws, jurisprudence, rules, and regulations that may authorize disclosure of excepted information upon satisfaction of certain conditions (e.g., consent of the concerned party or court order).
Heads of offices must ensure meaningful exercise of the public’s right to access to information on public concerns, meaning exceptions should not be used mechanically and must be evaluated in light of the FOI purpose.
The footnote states this exception may only be invoked by the President and his close advisors. The scope is defined by jurisprudence including Senate v. Ermita, Neri v. Senate, Akbayan v. Aquino, and Chavez v. PCGG.
Examples include advisory opinions, recommendations, resolutions, minutes of meetings and deliberations forming part of decision-making; intra/inter-agency recommendations during formulation or exploratory stages; information pertaining to decision-making; and drafts of decisions, orders, rulings, policy decisions, memoranda, etc.
Only to the extent that disclosure would interfere with enforcement proceedings, deprive a person of fair trial/impartial adjudication, disclose identity of confidential sources (in relevant investigations), unjustifiably disclose investigative techniques and procedures, or when life/safety is in imminent danger.
It is the privilege of the government not to disclose the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with enforcement of law.
It recognizes that personal/sensitive personal information may be withheld to protect privacy, but it may be disclosed if the request is shown to be a matter of public concern/interest, does not meddle with private life/family relations, and is not prohibited by law—consistent with transparency, legitimate purpose, and proportionality.
Disclosure is allowed if it relates to the position/functions, including: (1) the fact of employment; (2) title, business address, and office telephone; (3) classification, salary range, and responsibilities; and (4) the name on documents prepared in the course of employment.
Examples include: records of child and family cases; children in conflict with the law from initial contact until final disposition; names of victims of child abuse/exploitation/discrimination; and records involving violence against women and their children (including identifying information of victims or immediate family).
They are proprietary information deemed confidential when received/submitted by reason of official capacity in performance of functions or inquiries/investigations in administrative/regulatory/quasi-judicial powers; thus disclosure may be restricted to protect confidentiality recognized by law.
It may apply when premature disclosure is likely to lead to significant financial speculation or endanger stability of financial institutions (for currency/securities/commodities regulators), or likely/significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed official action—unless the agency already disclosed content/nature or is required by law to disclose prior to final action.
Examples include mediation and arbitration proceedings (ADR Act); investor-state mediation; conciliation proceedings under the Labor Code; CIAC arbitration; and some pre-issuance proceedings in cease-and-desist matters. One limitation is that confidentiality may be lifted after issuance of certain actions (e.g., cited for pre-need cease and desist orders).
The MC lists, among others: RA No. 1405 (Secrecy of Bank Deposits); RA No. 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposit Act); RA No. 8791 (General Banking Law); RA No. 9160 as amended (Anti-Money Laundering Act); RA No. 9510 (Credit Information System Act); and RA No. 245 as amended by PD No. 1878.
The MC lists that information pertaining to comments and disclosures on pending cases in judicial proceedings may be withheld.
It recognizes attorney-client privilege as an exception to the right to information, citing Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as the legal/ethical basis in the footnote.