MARIO JOSE E.

SERENO
vs.
COMMITTEE ON TARIFF AND RELATED MATTERS-NEDA
GR No. 175210
February 1, 2016

FACTS:
This case is a petition for mandamusfiled by the petitioner against Committee on trade and relation matters.
Petitioner wanted to compel respondent(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 government research data under his Constitutional
right of access to information on matters of public concern.
The respondents 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. They assert that the information withheld was within the scope of the exemption from
disclosure because the CTRM meetings were directly related to the exercise of the sovereign prerogative of the President
as the Head of State in the conduct of foreign affairs and the regulation of trade and that the record of the communications
of such body "falls under the category of privileged information because of the sensitive subject matter which could
seriously affect public interest.
The attitude of the CTRM prompted the petitioner and the APMP to bring the petition for mandamus in the RTC to
compel the CTRM to provide the copy of the minutes and to grant access to the minutes.
Subsequently, the RTC rendered decision dismissing the petition for mandamus for lack of merit

Issue:
Whether or not meetings of the CTRM and the minutes thereof are exempt from the Constitutional right of access
to information?

Ruling:
Yes, it is excluded in the right to information. The dismissal of the petition for mandamus by the RTC is affirmed.
In a democratic society like ours, the free exchange of information is necessary, and can be possible only if the
people are provided the proper information on matters that affect them. But the people's right to information is not
absolute.
Two requisites must concur before the right to information may be compelled by writ of mandamus. Firstly, the
information sought must be in relation to matters of public concern or public interest. And, secondly, it must not be
exempt by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee.
In that regard, the Court 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 sessions of either house of Congress, as well as the internal deliberations of the
Supreme Court.
The respondents are correct. It is always necessary, given the highly important and complex powers to fix tariff
rates vested in the President,[31] that the recommendations submitted for the President's consideration be well-thought
out and well-deliberated.
Without doubt, therefore, ensuring and promoting the free exchange of ideas among the members of the
committee tasked to give tariff recommendations to the President were truly imperative.
As such, the fact that some members of the committee were not part of the President's Cabinet was of no moment.
What should determine whether or not information was within the ambit of the exception from the people's right to
access to information was not the composition of the body, but the nature of the information sought to be accessed
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.