SC on the right to information

In the matter of the petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus of Camilo L. Sabio, Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government or PCGG (G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006), the Philippine Supreme Court again had occasion to explain at length the significance of the constitutional provision on the right to information. See the relevant text below:

Corollarily, Section 4(b) also runs counter to the following constitutional provisions ensuring the people’s access to information:

Article II, Section 28

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.

Article III, Section 7

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 such limitations as may be provided by law.

These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in the operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to enable them to exercise effectively their constitutional rights. Armed with the right information, citizens can participate in public discussions leading to the formulation of government policies and their effective implementation. In Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr.[27] the Court explained that an informed citizenry is essential to the existence and proper functioning of any democracy, thus:

An essential element of these freedoms is to keep open a continuing dialogue or process of communication between the government and the people. It is in the interest of the State that the channels for free political discussion be maintained to the end that the government may perceive and be responsive to the people’s will. Yet, this open dialogue can be effective only to the extent that the citizenry is informed and thus able to formulate its will intelligently. Only when the participants in the discussion are aware of the issues and have access to information relating thereto can such bear fruit.

x x x

In other words, the right to information really goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional policies of full public disclosure and honesty in the public service. It is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental decision-making as well as in checking abuse in the government.[28] The cases of Tañada v. Tuvera[29] and Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission[30] have recognized a citizen’s interest and personality to enforce a public duty and to bring an action to compel public officials and employees to perform that duty.

x x x

To the extent that investigations in aid of legislation are generally conducted in public, however, any executive issuance tending to unduly limit disclosures of information in such investigations necessarily deprives the people of information which, being presumed to be in aid of legislation, is presumed to be a matter of public concern. The citizens are thereby denied access to information which they can use in formulating their own opinions on the matter before Congress – opinions which they can then communicate to their representatives and other government officials through the various legal means allowed by their freedom of expression.