Ma. Carmen G. Aquino-Sarmiento vs Manuel L. Morato (G.

r
No. 92541, Novemeber 12,1991)

FACTS: At issue in this petition is the citizen's right of access to
official records as guaranteed by the constitution.In February
1989, petitioner, herself a member of respondent Movie and
Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB), wrote
its records officer requesting that she be allowed to examine the
board's records pertaining to the voting slips accomplished by
the individual board members after a review of the movies and
television productions. It is on the basis of said slips that films are
either banned, cut or classified accordingly.Acting on the
said request, the records officer informed petitioner that she
has to secure prior clearance fromrespondent Manuel Morato, as
chairman of MTRCB, to gain access to the records sought to be
examined.Petitioner's request was eventually denied by
respondent Morato on the ground that whenever the members
of the board sit in judgment over a film, their decisions
as reflected in the individual voting slips partake the nature of
conscience votes and as such, are purely and completely private
and personal. It is the submission of respondents that the
individual voting slips is the exclusive property of the member
concerned and anybody who wants access thereto must first
secure his (the member's) consent, otherwise, a request
therefor may be legally denied.
ISSUE : Wether or not

HELD : Petition is granted. there is no doubt that its very
existence is public is character; it is an office created to serve
public interest. It being the case,respondents can lay no valid
claim to privacy. The right to privacy belongs to the individual
acting in his private capacity and not to a governmental agency or
officers tasked with, and acting in, the discharge of public
duties (See Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr.,
supra.
) There can be no invasion of privacy in the case at bar since
what is sought to be divulged is a product of action undertaken in
the course of performing official functions.MTRCB,pertaining to
the decisions of the review committee as well as the individual
voting slips of its members, as violative of petitioner's
constitutional right of access to public records. More specifically,
Sec. 7, Art. III of the Constitution provides 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.individual voting slip is their
individual vote of conscience on the motion picture or television
program and as such, makes the individual voting slip purely
private and personal; an exclusive property of
the member concerned.The term private has been defined as
"belonging to or concerning, an individual person, company, or
interest";whereas, public means "pertaining to, or belonging to,
or affecting a nation, state, or community at large"












VALMONTE VS BELMONTE Jr. (170 SCRA 256, Februaddry
13, 1989)

Facts:Ricardo Valmonte wrote Feliciano Belmonte Jr. on 4 June
1986, requesting to be "furnished with the list of names of
theopposition members of (the) BatasangPambansa who were
able to secure a clean loan of P2 million each on guaranty (sic)of
Mrs.Imelda Marcos" and also to "be furnished with the certified
true copies of the documents evidencing their loan. Expenses
inconnection herewith shall be borne by" Valmonte, et. al. Due
to serious legal implications, President & General Manager
FelicianoBelmonte, 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
GSIShas a duty to its customers to preserve this confidentiality;
and that it would not be proper for the GSIS to breach
thisconfidentiality unless so ordered by the courts." On 20 June
1986, apparently not having yet received the reply of
the GovernmentService and Insurance System (GSIS) Deputy
General Counsel, Valmonte wrote Belmonte another letter, saying
that for failure toreceive a reply "(W)e are now considering
ourselves free to do whatever action necessary within the
premises to pursue our
desiredobjective in pursuance of public interest." On 26 June 198
6, Ricardo Valmonte,Oswaldo Carbonell, Doy Del Castillo, Roland
o Bartolome, LeoObligar, 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 theirright to information and pray that Belmonte
be directed: (a) to furnish Valmonte, et. al. the list of the names of
the BatasangPambansa membersbelonging to the UNIDO
and PDP Laban who were able to secure clean loans immediately
before the February7 election thru the intercession/marginal note
of the then First Lady Imelda Marcos; and/or (b) to furnish
petitioners with certifiedtrue copies of the documents evidencing
their respective loans; and/or (c) to allow petitioners access to the
public records for thesubject information

Issue : Whether Valmonte are entitled as citizens and taxpayers to
inquire upon GSIS records on behest loans given by the
formerFirst Lady Imelda Marcos to Batasang Pambansa members
belonging to the UNIDO and PDP-Laban political parties.

Held : The GSIS is a trustee of contributions from the government
and its employees and the administrator of various insurance
programsfor the benefit of the latter. Undeniably, its funds assume
a public character. More particularly, Secs. 5(b) and 46of PD
1146, asamended (the Revised Government Service Insurance
Act of 1977),provide for annual appropriations to pay the
contributions,premiums, interest and other amounts payable to
GSIS by the government, as employer, as well as the obligations
which theRepublic of the Philippines assumes or guarantees to
pay. Considering the nature of its funds, the GSIS is expected to
manage itsresources with utmost prudence and in strict
compliance with the pertinent laws or rules and regulations. Thus,
one of the reasons
that prompted the revision of the old GSIS law(CA 186, as amend
ed) was the necessity "to preserve at all times the actuarialsolven
cy of the funds administered by the Systems [Second Whereas
Clause, PD1146.] Consequently, as Feliciano Belmontehimself
admits, the GSIS "is not supposed to grant 'clean loans.'" It is
therefore the legitimate concern of the public to ensure thatthese
funds are managed properly with the end in view of maximizing
the benefits that accrue to the insured governmentemployees.
Moreover, the supposed borrowers were Members of the defunct
Batasang Pambansa who themselves appropriatedfunds for the
GSIS and were therefore expected to be the first to see to it that
the GSIS performed its tasks with the greatest degreeof fidelity
and that all its transactions were above board. In sum, the public
nature of the loanable funds of the GSIS and the publicoffice held
by the alleged borrowers make the information sought clearly a
matter of public interest and concern. Still, Belmontemaintains
that a confidential relationship exists between the GSIS and its
borrowers. It is argued that a policy of confidentialityrestricts the
indiscriminate dissemination of information. Yet, Belmonte has
failed to cite any law granting the GSIS the privilegeof
confidentiality as regards the documents subject of the present
petition. His position is apparently based merely onconsiderations
of policy. The judiciary does not settle policy issues. The Court
can only declare what the law is, and not what thelaw 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