VALENTIN L.

LEGASPI, petitioner, pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions,

CORTES, J.: The foregoing provision has been retained and the
right therein provided amplified in Article III, Sec. 7 of
The fundamental right of the people to information on the 1987 Constitution with the addition of the phrase,
matters of public concern is invoked in this special civil "as well as to government research data used as basis
action for mandamus instituted by petitioner Valentin for policy development." The new provision reads:
L. Legaspi against the Civil Service Commission. The
respondent had earlier denied Legaspi's request for The right of the people to information on matters of
information on the civil service eligibilities of certain public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
persons employed as sanitarians in the Health records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to
Department of Cebu City. These government official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
employees, Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas, government research data used as basis. for policy
had allegedly represented themselves as civil service development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to
eligibles who passed the civil service examinations for such stations as may be provided by law.
sanitarians.
These constitutional provisions are self-executing.
Claiming that his right to be informed of the They supply the rules by means of which the right to
eligibilities of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas, information may be enjoyed (Cooley, A Treatise on the
is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that he has no Constitutional Limitations 167 [1927]) by guaranteeing
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy to acquire the right and mandating the duty to afford access to
the information, petitioner prays for the issuance of the sources of information. Hence, the fundamental right
extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel the therein recognized may be asserted by the people upon
respondent Commission to disclose said information. the ratification of the constitution without need for any
ancillary act of the Legislature. (Id. at, p. 165) What
This is not the first tune that the writ of mandamus is may be provided for by the Legislature are reasonable
sought to enforce the fundamental right to conditions and limitations upon the access to be
information. The same remedy was resorted to in the afforded which must, of necessity, be consistent with
case of Tanada et. al. vs. Tuvera et. al., (G.R. No. L-63915, the declared State policy of full public disclosure of all
April 24,1985,136 SCRA 27) wherein the people's right transactions involving public interest (Constitution,
to be informed under the 1973 Constitution (Article IV, Art. 11, Sec. 28). However, it cannot be
Section 6) was invoked in order to compel the overemphasized that whatever limitation may be
publication in the Official Gazette of various prescribed by the Legislature, the right and the duty
presidential decrees, letters of instructions and other under Art. III Sec. 7 have become operative and
presidential issuances. Prior to the recognition of the enforceable by virtue of the adoption of the New
right in said Constitution the statutory right to Charter. Therefore, the right may be properly invoked
information provided for in the Land Registration Act in a mandamus proceeding such as this one.
(Section 56, Act 496, as amended) was claimed by a
newspaper editor in another mandamus proceeding, The Solicitor General interposes procedural objections
this time to demand access to the records of the to Our giving due course to this Petition. He challenges
Register of Deeds for the purpose of gathering data on the petitioner's standing to sue upon the ground that
real estate transactions involving aliens (Subido vs. the latter does not possess any clear legal right to be
Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383 [1948]). informed of the civil service eligibilities of the
government employees concerned. He calls attention
The constitutional right to information on matters of to the alleged failure of the petitioner to show his
public concern first gained recognition in the Bill of actual interest in securing this particular information.
Rights, Article IV, of the 1973 Constitution, which He further argues that there is no ministerial duty on
states: the part of the Commission to furnish the petitioner
with the information he seeks.
Sec. 6. The right of the people to information on
matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access 1. To be given due course, a Petition for mandamus
to official records, and to documents and papers must have been instituted by a party aggrieved by the
alleged inaction of any tribunal, corporation, board or information sought are given the right of inspection is
person which unlawfully excludes said party from the to make an unwarranted distinction. *** (Subido vs.
enjoyment of a legal right. (Ant;-Chinese League of the Ozaeta, supra at p. 387).
Philippines vs. Felix, 77 Phil. 1012 [1947]). The
petitioner in every case must therefore be an The petitioner, being a citizen who, as such is clothed
"aggrieved party" in the sense that he possesses a clear with personality to seek redress for the alleged
legal right to be enforced and a direct interest in the obstruction of the exercise of the public right. We find
duty or act to be performed. no cogent reason to deny his standing to bring the
present suit.
In the case before Us, the respondent takes issue on the
personality of the petitioner to bring this suit. It is 2. For every right of the people recognized as
asserted that, the instant Petition is bereft of any fundamental, there lies a corresponding duty on the
allegation of Legaspi's actual interest in the civil service part of those who govern, to respect and protect that
eligibilities of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas, right. That is the very essence of the Bill of Rights in a
At most there is a vague reference to an unnamed constitutional regime. Only governments operating
client in whose behalf he had allegedly acted when he under fundamental rules defining the limits of their
made inquiries on the subject (Petition, Rollo, p. 3). power so as to shield individual rights against its
arbitrary exercise can properly claim to be
But what is clear upon the face of the Petition is that constitutional (Cooley, supra, at p. 5). Without a
the petitioner has firmly anchored his case upon the government's acceptance of the limitations imposed
right of the people to information on matters of public upon it by the Constitution in order to uphold
concern, which, by its very nature, is a public right. It individual liberties, without an acknowledgment on its
has been held that: part of those duties exacted by the rights pertaining to
the citizens, the Bill of Rights becomes a sophistry, and
* * * when the question is one of public right and the liberty, the ultimate illusion.
object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement
of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real In recognizing the people's right to be informed, both
party in interest and the relator at whose instigation the 1973 Constitution and the New Charter expressly
the proceedings are instituted need not show that he mandate the duty of the State and its agents to afford
has any legal or special interest in the result, it being access to official records, documents, papers and in
sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such addition, government research data used as basis for
interested in the execution of the laws * * * (Tanada et. policy development, subject to such limitations as may
al. vs. Tuvera, et. al., G.R. No. L- 63915, April 24, 1985, be provided by law. The guarantee has been further
136 SCRA 27, 36). enhanced in the New Constitution with the adoption
of a policy of full public disclosure, this time "subject
From the foregoing, it becomes apparent that when a to reasonable conditions prescribed by law," in Article
mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a 11, Section 28 thereof, to wit:
public right, the requirement of personal interest is
satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen, Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the
and therefore, part of the general "public" which State adopts and implements a policy of full public
possesses the right. disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest. (Art. 11, Sec. 28).
The Court had opportunity to define the word "public"
in the Subido case, supra, when it held that even those In the Tanada case, supra, the constitutional guarantee
who have no direct or tangible interest in any real was bolstered by what this Court declared as an
estate transaction are part of the "public" to whom "(a)ll imperative duty of the government officials concerned
records relating to registered lands in the Office of the to publish all important legislative acts and resolutions
Register of Deeds shall be open * * *" (Sec. 56, Act No. of a public nature as well as all executive orders and
496, as amended). In the words of the Court: proclamations of general applicability. We granted
mandamus in said case, and in the process, We found
* * * "Public" is a comprehensive, all-inclusive term. occasion to expound briefly on the nature of said duty:
Properly construed, it embraces every person. To say
that only those who have a present and existing * * * That duty must be enforced if the Constitutional
interest of a pecuniary character in the particular right of the people to be informed on matters of public
concern is to be given substance and reality. The law administrative case was filed against the respondent
itself makes a list of what should be published in the judge for his alleged refusal to allow examination of
Official Gazette. Such listing, to our mind, leaves the criminal docket records in his sala. Upon a finding
respondents with no discretion whatsoever as to what by the Investigating Judge that the respondent had
must be in included or excluded from such allowed the complainant to open and view the subject
publication. (Tanada v. Tuvera, supra, at 39). (Emphasis records, We absolved the respondent. In effect, We
supplied). have also held that the rules and conditions imposed
by him upon the manner of examining the public
The absence of discretion on the part of government records were reasonable.
agencia es in allowing the examination of public
records, specifically, the records in the Office of the In both the Subido and the Baldoza cases, We were
Register of Deeds, is emphasized in Subido vs. Ozaeta, emphatic in Our statement that the authority to
supra: regulate the manner of examining public records does
not carry with it the power to prohibit. A distinction
Except, perhaps when it is clear that the purpose of the has to be made between the discretion to refuse
examination is unlawful, or sheer, idle curiosity, we do outright the disclosure of or access to a particular
not believe it is the duty under the law of registration information and the authority to regulate the manner
officers to concern themselves with the motives, in which the access is to be afforded. The first is a
reasons, and objects of the person seeking access to the limitation upon the availability of access to the
records. It is not their prerogative to see that the information sought, which only the Legislature may
information which the records contain is not flaunted impose (Art. III, Sec. 6, 1987 Constitution). The second
before public gaze, or that scandal is not made of it. If pertains to the government agency charged with the
it be wrong to publish the contents of the records, it is the custody of public records. Its authority to regulate
legislature and not the officials having custody thereof which access is to be exercised solely to the end that damage
is called upon to devise a remedy. *** (Subido v. to, or loss of, public records may be avoided, undue
Ozaeta, supra at 388). (Emphasis supplied). interference with the duties of said agencies may be
prevented, and more importantly, that the exercise of
It is clear from the foregoing pronouncements of this the same constitutional right by other persons shall be
Court that government agencies are without discretion assured (Subido vs. Ozaetal supra).
in refusing disclosure of, or access to, information of
public concern. This is not to lose sight of the Thus, while the manner of examining public records
reasonable regulations which may be imposed by said may be subject to reasonable regulation by the
agencies in custody of public records on the manner in government agency in custody thereof, the duty to
which the right to information may be exercised by the disclose the information of public concern, and to
public. In the Subido case, We recognized the authority afford access to public records cannot be discretionary
of the Register of Deeds to regulate the manner in on the part of said agencies. Certainly, its performance
which persons desiring to do so, may inspect, examine cannot be made contingent upon the discretion of such
or copy records relating to registered lands. However, agencies. Otherwise, the enjoyment of the
the regulations which the Register of Deeds may constitutional right may be rendered nugatory by any
promulgate are confined to: whimsical exercise of agency discretion. The
constitutional duty, not being discretionary, its
* * * prescribing the manner and hours of examination performance may be compelled by a writ of
to the end that damage to or loss of, the records may mandamus in a proper case.
be avoided, that undue interference with the duties of
the custodian of the books and documents and other But what is a proper case for Mandamus to issue? In
employees may be prevented, that the right of other the case before Us, the public right to be enforced and
persons entitled to make inspection may be insured * * the concomitant duty of the State are unequivocably
* (Subido vs. Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383, 387) set forth in the Constitution. The decisive question on
the propriety of the issuance of the writ of mandamus
Applying the Subido ruling by analogy, We recognized in this case is, whether the information sought by the
a similar authority in a municipal judge, to regulate the petitioner is within the ambit of the constitutional
manner of inspection by the public of criminal docket guarantee.
records in the case of Baldoza vs. Dimaano (Adm. Matter
No. 1120-MJ, May 5, 1976, 71 SCRA 14). Said
3. The incorporation in the Constitution of a guarantee that eludes exact definition. Both terms embrace a
of access to information of public concern is a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want
recognition of the essentiality of the free flow of ideas to know, either because these directly affect their lives,
and information in a democracy (Baldoza v. Dimaano, or simply because such matters naturally arouse the
Adm. Matter No. 1120-MJ, May 5, 1976, 17 SCRA 14). interest of an ordinary citizen. In the final analysis, it is
In the same way that free discussion enables members for the courts to determine in a case by case basis
of society to cope with the exigencies of their time whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance,
(Thornhill vs. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88,102 [1939]), access as it relates to or affects the public.
to information of general interest aids the people in
democratic decision-making (87 Harvard Law Review The public concern invoked in the case of Tanada v.
1505 [1974]) by giving them a better perspective of the Tuvera, supra, was the need for adequate notice to the
vital issues confronting the nation. public of the various laws which are to regulate the
actions and conduct of citizens. In Subido vs. Ozaeta,
But the constitutional guarantee to information on supra, the public concern deemed covered by the
matters of public concern is not absolute. It does not statutory right was the knowledge of those real estate
open every door to any and all information. Under the transactions which some believed to have been
Constitution, access to official records, papers, etc., are registered in violation of the Constitution.
"subject to limitations as may be provided by law" (Art.
III, Sec. 7, second sentence). The law may therefore The information sought by the petitioner in this case is
exempt certain types of information from public the truth of the claim of certain government employees
scrutiny, such as those affecting national security that they are civil service eligibles for the positions to
(Journal No. 90, September 23, 1986, p. 10; and Journal which they were appointed. The Constitution
No. 91, September 24, 1986, p. 32, 1986 Constitutional expressly declares as a State policy that:
Commission). It follows that, in every case, the
availability of access to a particular public record must Appointments in the civil service shall be made only
be circumscribed by the nature of the information according to merit and fitness to be determined, as far
sought, i.e., (a) being of public concern or one that as practicable, and except as to positions which are
involves public interest, and, (b) not being exempted policy determining, primarily confidential or highly
by law from the operation of the constitutional technical, by competitive examination. (Art. IX, B, Sec.
guarantee. The threshold question is, therefore, 2.[2]).
whether or not the information sought is of public
interest or public concern. Public office being a public trust, [Const. Art. XI, Sec.
1] it is the legitimate concern of citizens to ensure that
a. This question is first addressed to the government government positions requiring civil service eligibility
agency having custody of the desired information. are occupied only by persons who are eligibles. Public
However, as already discussed, this does not give the officers are at all times accountable to the people even
agency concerned any discretion to grant or deny as to their eligibilities for their respective positions.
access. In case of denial of access, the government
agency has the burden of showing that the information b. But then, it is not enough that the information
requested is not of public concern, or, if it is of public sought is of public interest. For mandamus to lie in a
concern, that the same has been exempted by law from given case, the information must not be among the
the operation of the guarantee. To hold otherwise will species exempted by law from the operation of the
serve to dilute the constitutional right. As aptly constitutional guarantee.
observed, ". . . the government is in an advantageous
position to marshall and interpret arguments against In the instant, case while refusing to confirm or deny
release . . ." (87 Harvard Law Review 1511 [1974]). To the claims of eligibility, the respondent has failed to
safeguard the constitutional right, every denial of cite any provision in the Civil Service Law which
access by the government agency concerned is subject would limit the petitioner's right to know who are, and
to review by the courts, and in the proper case, access who are not, civil service eligibles. We take judicial
may be compelled by a writ of Mandamus. notice of the fact that the names of those who pass the
civil service examinations, as in bar examinations and
In determining whether or not a particular information licensure examinations for various professions, are
is of public concern there is no rigid test which can be released to the public. Hence, there is nothing secret
applied. "Public concern" like "public interest" is a term about one's civil service eligibility, if actually
possessed. Petitioner's request is, therefore, neither from the operation of the constitutional guarantee. The
unusual nor unreasonable. And when, as in this case, threshold question is, therefore, whether or not the
the government employees concerned claim to be civil information sought is of public interest or public
service eligibles, the public, through any citizen, has a concern. This question is first addressed to the
right to verify their professed eligibilities from the government agency having custody of the desired
Civil Service Commission. information. However, as already discussed, this does
not give the agency concerned any discretion to grant
The civil service eligibility of a sanitarian being of
or deny access. In case of denial of access, the
public concern, and in the absence of express
government agency has the burden of showing that the
limitations under the law upon access to the register of
civil service eligibles for said position, the duty of the information requested is not of public concern, or, if it
respondent Commission to confirm or deny the civil is of public concern, that the same has been exempted
service eligibility of any person occupying the position by law from the operation of the guarantee. To hold
becomes imperative. Mandamus, therefore lies. otherwise will serve to dilute the constitutional right.
As aptly observed, ". . . the government is in an
WHEREFORE, the Civil Service Commission is advantageous position to marshall and interpret
ordered to open its register of eligibles for the position arguments against release . . ." (87 Harvard Law
of sanitarian, and to confirm or deny, the civil service Review 1511 [1974]). To safeguard the constitutional
eligibility of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas, right, every denial of access by the government agency
for said position in the Health Department of Cebu concerned is subject to review by the courts, and in the
City, as requested by the petitioner Valentin L. proper case, access may be compelled by a writ of
Legaspi.
Mandamus Public office being a public trust it is the
legitimate concern of citizens to ensure that
FACTS : The fundamental right of the people to
government positions requiring civil service eligibility
information on matters of public concern is invoked in
are occupied only by persons who are eligibles. Public
this special civil action for mandamus instituted by
officers are at all times accountable to the people even
petitioner Valentin L. Legaspi against the Civil Service
as to their eligibilities for their respective positions. In
Commission. The respondent had earlier denied
the instant, case while refusing to confirm or deny the
Legaspi's request for information on the civil service
claims of eligibility, the respondent has failed to cite
eligibilities of certain persons employed as sanitarians
any provision in the Civil Service Law which would
in the Health Department of Cebu City. These
limit the petitioner's right to know who are, and who
government employees, Julian Sibonghanoy and
are not, civil service eligibles. We take judicial notice of
Mariano Agas, had allegedly represented themselves
the fact that the names of those who pass the civil
as civil service eligibles who passed the civil service
service examinations, as in bar examinations and
examinations for sanitarians.
licensure examinations for various professions, are
released to the public. Hence, there is nothing secret
ISSUE : WON the petitioner has legal to access
about one's civil service eligibility, if actually
government records to validate the civil service
possessed. Petitioner's request is, therefore, neither
eligibilities of the Health Department employees
unusual nor unreasonable. And when, as in this case,
the government employees concerned claim to be civil
HELD : The constitutional guarantee to information
service eligibles, the public, through any citizen, has a
on matters of public concern is not absolute. It does not
right to verify their professed eligibilities from the
open every door to any and all information. Under the
Civil Service Commission. The civil service eligibility
Constitution, access to official records, papers, etc., are
of a sanitarian being of public concern, and in the
"subject to limitations as may be provided by law" The
absence of express limitations under the law upon
law may therefore exempt certain types of information
access to the register of civil service eligibles for said
from public scrutiny, such as those affecting national
position, the duty of the respondent Commission to
security It follows that, in every case, the availability of
confirm or deny the civil service eligibility of any
access to a particular public record must be
person occupying the position becomes imperative.
circumscribed by the nature of the information sought,
Mandamus, therefore lies
i.e., (a) being of public concern or one that involves
public interest, and, (b) not being exempted by law