DOMINADOR C. BALDOZA, complainant, vs. HON. JUDGE RODOLFO B. DIMAANO, respondent.

A.M. No. 1120-MJ, May 5, 1976

Right to Information (Access to Public Records)

Syllabus:

The New Constitution now expressly recognizes that the people are entitled to information on matters
of public concern and thus are expressly granted to access to official records, as well as documents of official
acts, or transactions, or decisions, subject to such limitations imposed by law. The incorporation of this right in
the Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental role of free exchange of information in a democracy. There
can be no realistic perception by the public of the nation's problems, nor a meaningful democratic decision-
making if they are denied access to information of general interest. Information is needed to enable the
members of society to cope with the exigencies of the times. As has been aptly observed: "Maintaining the flow
of such information depends on protection for both its acquisition and its dissemination since, if either process
is interrupted, the flow inevitably ceases.

Facts:

In a verified letter-complaint dated September 9, 1975, the Municipal Secretary of Taal, Batangas,
charges Municipal Judge Rodolfo B. Dimaano, of the same municipality, with abuse of authority in refusing to
allow employees of the Municipal Mayor to examine the criminal docket records of the Municipal Court to
secure data in connection with their contemplated report on the peace and order conditions of the said
municipality.

Respondent answered that there has never been an intention to refuse access to official court records
but that the same is always subject to reasonable regulation as to who, when, where and how they may be
inspected. He further asserted that a court has the power to prevent an improper use or inspection of its
records and furnishing copies may be refuse when the motivation is not serious and legitimate interest, out of
whim or fancy or mere curiosity or to gratify private site or promote public scandal.

The case was thereupon referred to Judge Francisco Mat. Riodique for investigation and report. At the
preliminary hearing on October 16, 1975, Taal Mayor Corazon A. Caniza filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint but the motion was denied by the Investigating Judge. After formal investigation, he recommended
the exoneration of respondent.

Issue:
Whether or not the rules and conditions imposed by Judge Dimaano on the inspection of the docket
books infringe upon the right of individuals to information.

Ruling:
No. As found by the Investigating Judge, the respondent allowed the complainant to open and view the
docket books of respondent certain conditions and under his control and supervision. It has not been shown
that the rules and conditions imposed by the respondent were unreasonable. The access to public records
predicated on the right of the people to acquire information on matters of public concern.

The incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental role of free
exchange of information in a democracy. Information is needed to enable the members of society to cope with
the exigencies of the times. As has been aptly observed: "Maintaining the flow of such information depends on
protection for both its acquisition and its dissemination since, if either process is interrupted, the flow inevitably
ceases.” However, restrictions on access to certain records may be imposed by law. Thus, access restrictions
imposed to control civil insurrection have been permitted upon a showing of immediate and impending danger
that renders ordinary means of control inadequate to maintain order.