TOPIC: RIGHT TO INFORMATION

VALENTIN LEGASPI V. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

29 May 1987

Mandamus

Facts:
 CSC denied Legaspi’s request for information on the civil service eligibilities of
certain persons employed as sanitarians in the Health Department of Cebu City.
 Government employees, Julian Sibonhanoy and Mariano Agas had allegedly
represented themselves as civil service examinations for sanitarians.
 Claiming that his right to be informed of such eligibilities is guaranteed by the
Constitution and that he has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to
acquire information, petitioner prays of the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to
compel the CSC to disclose the information.

Issue: WON a writ of mandamus should be issued to compel the CSC to disclose the
information
Held: YES.

Ruling:
 The fundamental right to information on matters of public concern recognized in
the Bill of Rights, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution and amplified in Article IV,
Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution can be invoked in a Mandamus proceeding.
These provisions are self-executing. They may be recognized and asserted by
the people without need for any ancillary act of the Legislature.
 Re: Personality to file - When a Mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of
a public right, the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact
that the petitioner is a citizen. What is clear upon the face of the Petition is that
the petitioner has firmly anchored his case upon the right of the people to
information on matters of public concern, which, by its very nature, is a public
right. (Public office being a public trust, [Const., Art. XI, Sec. 1] it is the legitimate
concern of citizens to ensure that government positions requiring civil service
eligibility are occupied only by persons who are eligibles.)
 Re: CSC’s duty to disclose - A distinction has to be made between the discretion
to refuse outright the disclosure of or access to a particular information and the
authority to regulate the manner in which the access is to be afforded. The first is
a limitation upon the availability of access to the information sought, which only
the Legislature may impose. The second pertains to the government agency
charged with the custody of public records (Here, the CSC). CSC has a
constitutional duty (the performance of which is not discretionary). As such,
Mandamus lies.
 The Constitutional guarantee to information of matters of public concern is not
absolute but subject to limitations imposed by law (matters of national security).
The threshold question is: WON the information is of public interest/public
concern.