LEGASPI v CSC

FACTS: Petitioner filed a mandamus against respondent. Respondent had earlier

denied Legaspi's request for information on the civil service eligibilities of certain
persons employed as sanitarians in Health Dept. of Cebu City.  Sibonghanoy and
Agas had allegedly represented themselves to be civil service eligibles who passed
the CSC exams for sanitarians.
              Petitioner prays for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of
mandamus to compel respondent to disclose such information.
                
            "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 limitations as may be provided by law."
               These provisions are self-executing. They supply the rules by means
of which the right to information may be enjoyed as guaranteed by the Constitution
without the need of legislation.
                Respondent, thru SolGen interposes the legal standing of
petitioner. At most, there is a vague reference to an unnamed client in whose behalf
he had allegedly acted when he made inquiries on the subject. 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. 
                It has been held in the case of Tanada vs. Tuvera, that when the
question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the
enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party in interest,
and the person at whose instigation the proceedings are instituted need not show
that he has any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that
he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws.            
                The petitioner, being a citizen who, as such is clothed with
personality to seek redress for the alleged obstruction of the exercise of public right,
thus, the requirement is met.
                 In recognizing the people's right to be informed, both the 1973 and
1987 Consti expressly mandate the duty of the State and its agents to afford access
to official records, documents, papers, and in addition, government research data
used a basis for policy dev't, subject to limitations that may be provided by law.
                Government authorities are without discretion in refusing
disclosure of, or access to, information of public concern. This is not to lose sight of
reasonable regulations which may be imposed by said agencies in custody of public
records on the manner in which the right to information may be exercised by the
public. 
                In both Subido and Baldoza cases, the authority to regulate the
manner of examining public records does no carry with it the power to prohibit. A
distinction must be made between 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 limitation can only be done by the Legislature
and second pertains to the government agency charged with the custody of public
records.       
                Its authority to regulate access is to be exercised solely to the end
that damage to, or loss of, public records may be avoided, undue interference with
the duties of said agencies may be prevented, and that the exercise of the same
right by other persons shall be assured.
                However, said right is not absolute. It follows that, in every case,
the availability of access to a particular public record must be circumscribed by the
nature of the information sought, (a)being of public concern or one that involves
public  interest and (b)not being exempted by law from the operation of the
constitutional guarantee. 
                In this case, the information sought by petitioner is the truth of the
claim of certain gov't employees that they are CS eligibles for the position that they
were appointed. Respondent failed to cite a provision in the Civil Service Law which
would limit the petitioner's right to know who are and who are not, civil service
eligibles. The court take judicial notice of the fact that the name of passers in CS
exams just like in bar exams, are released on public. Hence, there is no secret about
one's CS eligibility, if actually possessed. Hence, Mandamus was proper.