"x x x.
Charter provisions. In its “Declaration of Principles and State Policies,” the Constitution provides: “Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.”
More clearly, the Charter, in its Bill of Rights, states: “The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized.
Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to limitations as may be provided by law.”
While the earlier provision is a general state policy that cannot be implemented without an enabling law, the latter provision—being a part of the Bill of Rights—is self-executory and needs no enabling law to be enforced by courts.
In fact, even prior to the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court recognized the people’s right to public information. Said the Court in Baldoza vs Dimaano (May 1, 1976): “There can be no realistic perception by the public of the nation’s problems, nor a meaningful democratic decision-making, if they are denied information of general interest.”
Later, in Chavez vs PCGG (July 15, 2003), the Court directed the government to inform the public of the negotiations on the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses. However, it recognized certain restrictions on the right, among them national security matters, intelligence information, trade secrets, banking transactions (although under the Anti-Money Laundering Laws, these are no longer sacred), criminal matters and other confidential information.
More recently, in Senate vs Ermita (April 20, 2006), the Court again used the right to public information to strike down a presidential order barring members of the Cabinet from testifying in legislative investigations, holding that citizens must have “access to information which they can use for formulating their own opinion on matters pending before Congress.”
x x x."
Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/68367/freedom-of-information-3#ixzz2on8oAfdL
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
