VALMONTE v BELMONTE

FACTS:

Ricardo Valmonte wrote Feliciano Belmonte Jr. on 4 June 1986, requesting to be "furnished
with the list of names of the opposition members of Batasang Pambansa who were able to
secure a clean loan of P2 million each on guaranty of Mrs. Imelda Marcos" and also to "be
furnished with the certified true copies of the documents evidencing their loan. Expenses in
connection herewith shall be borne by" Valmonte, et. al. Due to serious legal implications,
President & General Manager Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. referred the letter to the Deputy General
Counsel of the GSIS, Meynardo A. Tiro. Tiro replied that it is his opinion "that a confidential
relationship exists between the GSIS and all those who borrow from it, whoever they may be;
that the GSIS has a duty to its customers to preserve this confidentiality; and that it would not
be proper for the GSIS to breach this confidentiality unless so ordered by the courts." On 20
June 1986, apparently not having yet received the reply of the Government Service and
Insurance System (GSIS) Deputy General Counsel, Valmonte wrote Belmonte another letter,
saying that for failure to receive a reply "(W)e are now considering ourselves free to do
whatever action necessary within the premises to pursue our desired objective in pursuance of
public interest." On 26 June 1986, Ricardo Valmonte, Oswaldo Carbonell, Doy Del Castillo,
Rolando Bartolome, Leo Obligar, Jun Gutierrez, Reynaldo Bagatsing, Jun "Ninoy" Alba, Percy
Lapid, Rommel Corro, and Rolando Fadul filed a special civil action for mandamus with
preliminary injunction invoke their right to information and pray that Belmonte be directed:
(a) to furnish Valmonte, et. al. the list of the names of the Batasang Pambansa members
belonging to the UNIDO and PDP-Laban who were able to secure clean loans immediately
before the February 7 election thru the intercession/marginal note of the then First Lady
Imelda Marcos; and/or (b) to furnish petitioners with certified true copies of the documents
evidencing their respective loans; and/or (c) to allow petitioners access to the public records
for the subject information.

ISSUE: Whether Valmonte, et. al. may access GSIS records pertaining to behest loans secured
by Imelda Marcos in favor of certain members of the opposition in the Batasang Pambansa,
by virtue of their constitutional right to information.

HELD:

The pertinent provision under the 1987 Constitution is Art. 111, Sec. 7 states that "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."
An informed citizenry with access to the diverse currents in political, moral and artistic
thought and data relative to them, and the free exchange of ideas and discussion of issues
thereon, is vital to the democratic government envisioned under our Constitution. The
cornerstone of this republican system of government is delegation of power by the people to
the State. In this system, governmental agencies and institutions operate within the limits of
the authority conferred by the people. Denied access to information on the inner workings of
government, the citizenry can become prey to the whims and caprices of those to whom the
power had been delegated.
The postulate of public office as a public trust, institutionalized in the Constitution (in
Art. XI, Sec. 1) to protect the people from abuse of governmental power, would certainly be
mere empty words if access to such information of public concern is denied, except under
limitations prescribed by implementing legislation adopted pursuant to the Constitution. The
right to information is an essential premise of a meaningful right to speech and expression.
But this is not to say that the right to information is merely an adjunct of and therefore
restricted in application by the exercise of the freedoms of speech and of the press. Far from
it. The right to information 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 in checking abuse in government.
Yet, like all the constitutional guarantees, the right to information is not absolute. As
stated in Legaspi, The people's right to information is limited to "matters of public concern",
and is further "subject to such limitations as may be provided by law." Similarly, the State's
policy of full disclosure is limited to "transactions involving public interest", and is "subject to
reasonable conditions prescribed by law."
Hence, before mandamus may issue, it must be clear that the information sought is of
"public interest" or "public concern", and is not exempted by law from the operation of the
constitutional guarantee. Herein, the information sought by Valmonte, et. al. is the truth of
reports that certain Members of the Batasang Pambansa belonging to the opposition were able
to secure "clean" loans from the GSIS immediately before the 7 February 1986 election
through the intercession of the former First Lady, Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos. In sum, the public
nature of the loanable funds of the GSIS and the public office held by the alleged borrowers
make the information sought clearly a matter of public interest and concern. However, a
second requisite must be met before the right to information may be enforced through
mandamus proceedings, viz., that the information sought must not be among those excluded
by law. On this matter, Belmonte has failed to cite any law granting the GSIS the privilege of
confidentiality as regards the documents subject of the petition. His position is apparently
based merely on considerations of policy. The judiciary does not settle policy issues. The Court
can only declare what the law is, and not what the law should be. Under our system of
government, policy issues are within the domain of the political branches of the government,
and of the people themselves as the repository of all State power. Although it may be true that
when the information requested from the government intrudes into the privacy of a citizen, a
potential conflict between the rights to information and to privacy may arise. Such competing
interests of these rights need not be resolved in the present case. The right to privacy belongs
to the individual in his private capacity, and not to public and governmental agencies like the
GSIS.
Moreover, the right cannot be invoked by juridical entities like the GSIS. Thus, neither
can the GSIS through its General Manager, Belmonte, invoke the right to privacy of its
borrowers. The right is purely personal in nature, and hence may be invoked only by the person
whose privacy is claimed to be violated. It may be observed, however, the concerned
borrowers themselves may not succeed if they choose to invoke their right to privacy,
considering the public offices they were holding at the time the loans were alleged to have
been granted. It cannot be denied that because of the interest they generate and their
newsworthiness, public figures, most especially those holding responsible positions in
government, enjoy a more limited right to privacy as compared to ordinary individuals, their
actions being subject to closer public scrutiny.
In fine, Valmonte, et. al. are entitled to access to the documents evidencing loans
granted by the GSIS, subject to reasonable regulations that the latter may promulgate relating
to the manner and hours of examination, to the end that damage to or loss of the records may
be avoided, that undue interference with the duties of the custodian of the records may be
prevented and that the right of other persons entitled to inspect the records may be insured.