The people’s right to information is not absolute, but is rather confined to matters of public concern.
Supreme Court made this ruling as it denied the petition filed by Association of Petrochemical Manufacturers of the Philippines led by its executive director Mario Jose E. Sereno, seeking to reverse a ruling of the Pasig City Regional Trial Court, Branch 268, that will compel the Committee on Tariff and Related Matters to release to them certain data and documents.
“The constitutional guarantee to information does not open every door to any and all information, but is rather confined to matters of public concern. It is subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The State’s policy of full public disclosure is restricted to transactions involving public interest, and is tempered by reasonable conditions prescribed by law,” the SC stressed.
In a 13-page decision penned by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, the tribunal upheld the decision of the Pasig City RTC dismissing the APMP’s petition for mandamus to compel CTRM to provide him a copy of the minutes of its May 23, 2005 meeting as well as to provide copies of all official records, documents, papers, and govennment research data used as basis for the issuance of Executive Order No. 486. EO 486, signed by then President Arroyo on January 12, 2006, lifts the suspension of the tariff reduction on petrochemical resins and other plastic products under the ASEAN Free Trade Area–Common Effective Preferential Tariff (AFTA-CEPT) Scheme.
The SC held that two requisites must concur before the right to information may be compelled by writ of mandamus: first, the information sought must be in relation to matters of public concern or public interest; and second, it must not be exempt by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee.
In the second requisite, the tribunal, citing Chavez v. Public Estate Authority, has already declared that the constitutional guarantee of the people’s right to information does not cover national security matters and intelligence information, trade secrets and banking transactions and criminal matters.
Equally excluded from coverage of the constitutional guarantee are diplomatic correspondence, closed-door Cabinet meeting and executive session of either house of Congress, as well as the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court, the high court pointed out.
The SC said the burden of showing that the information sought to be obtained is exempted from the coverage of the constitutional guarantee has been well discharged by respondent CTRM, et al., who had claim exemption on the ground that the May 23, 2005 meeting was classified as a closed-door Cabinet meeting by virtue of the committee’s composition and the nature of its mandate dealing with matters of foreign affairs, trade and policy-making.
The Court took note that the petrochemical industry centers on the manufacture of plastic and other related materials, and provides essential input requirements for the agricultural and industrial sectors of the country.
Thus, the position of the petrochemical industry as an essential contributor to the overall growth of our country’s economy easily makes the information sought a matter of public concern or interest, the SC said.
“In case of conflict, there is a need to strike a balance between the right of the people and the interest of the Government to be protected. Here, the need to ensure the protection of the privilege of non-disclosure is necessary to allow the free exchange of ideas among Government officials as well as to guarantee the well-considered recommendation free from interference of the inquisitive public,” the Court ruled.
On May 23, 2005, CTRM, an office under the National Economic Development Authority, held a meeting in which it resolved to recommend to then President Gloria Arroyo the lifting of the suspension of the tariff reduction schedule on petrochemicals and certain plastic products, thereby reducing the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) rates on products covered by EO No. 161 from 7% or 10% to 5% starting July 2005.
In June of the same year, the APMP requested CTRM for a copy of the minutes of its May 23, 2005 meeting, which was denied, as well as two subsequent similar letter-requests. This prompted APMP to file the petition for mandamus with the RTC and to also write the Office of the President, which, however, did not respond to APMP’s letter. Arroyo eventually signed into law EO 486.