Ma. Kara Alexir C.

Calamba Media Laws | Assessment 3

COMM3A Atty. Eugene Kho

Synthesis Paper | Module 3 – Access to Information

We live in a democratic country and we are given the right to information. It is the right of

every citizen to access official records, documents and papers pertaining to official acts,

transactions or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy

development (Sec. 7, Art. III, 1987 Constitution). It is important for us to be aware that freedom

to information is a constitutionally - mandated right (Ragaza, 2019). It has always been our rights

and will always be. Every Filipinos has the right to be informed, especially if it’s a public concern.

It matters because it would help people to come up with right and intelligent judgment in their

decision-making. It’s a right that is exercised during the election. Filipinos have the right to be

granted information about the candidates who run for the positions, so they could tell whether the

person they want to elect is worth their vote. This example alone shows how important it is to

every individual. Moreover, this would enforce the government to be transparent with its

transaction and information. Thus, this becomes one way to lessen the corruption, the main reason

this was such a big deal. The freedom to access information allows people, particularly the media

to seek and receive public documents that could be used to unveil the evil deeds of the officials of

this country. In other words, it not only serves as an informative tool to people but a “machinery”

that checks the activities of the government authorities (B&B Associates, 2018).

However, every freedom has its limitations. This freedom is not absolute because if it is, it

would lead to big chaos. In fact, there are four limits of rights that are recognized restrictions to

access to information: those affecting national security, diplomatic correspondence relating to

national security and national interest, matters still pending decision and confidential records of
different branches of government. The first one is “those affecting national security” wherein

the demands of information can be denied if it is a threat to national security. There are government

documents and records that will not be made available to the public because of the potential danger

it could bring. The second one is the “diplomatic correspondence relating to national security

and national interest” that says, diplomatic secrets and agreements are exempted from the right.

One case that would fit for this is in the 2000 case of Chavez vs. PEA and AMARI wherein the

court restated the right of information and mentioned that disclosure of information involving the

matters of national security or foreign relation and intelligence is strictly prohibited – such as the

Presidential conversation and cabinet meeting. This is actually specifically classified in Almonte

vs. Vasquez where they cleared that the right to information does not apply to military and

diplomatic secrets. The third one is the “matters still pending decision” wherein court cases are

not subjected to be accessed except by those who have a party. The court can prevent the requestor

from accessing the information. It is important to consider that such cases are not substantial since

it’s still pending. We can relate this to Sec. of Justice v. Estrada case, wherein the petitioners – the

media, including Sandiganbayan and Kapisanan ng mga BroadKaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) invoked

their rights to conduct a live coverage of the court trial of former President Joseph Estrada, who

faced plunder and other criminal charges. Since, this trial involved the former President of the

Republic, they believed it’s a public concern and a national interest, thus, the television and radio

networks should be allowed to be present during the trial proper. The court recognized the freedom

of the press and right of the public to information, but they give paramount consideration to the

right of the accused to due process. One more thing to consider is the fact that they could influence

the performance of the defendant in the court trial. Their presence could be distracting during the

hearing, since the defendant is aware that he’s being filmed and is cautious on his words and

actions. Hence, they could affect the court’s pending decision towards the case. In the end, the
court denied their petition. And lastly, the “confidential records of different branches of

government” where they stated that there’s information not intended for public’s consumption.

Hence, they are not supposed to be released in the first place. In fact, in Baldoza vs. Dimaano case,

this involved the complainant, Dominador Baldoza who filed a case against Municipal Judge

Rodolfo B. Dimaano after he refused the request of the Mayor Office’s employees to examine the

criminal docket records of the Municipal. The respondent, Dimaano explained that there’s no

intention of denying their rights to access the files, however, they are given restrictions in accessing

certain records that are imposed by law. A fact that needs to be considered in this case is that it

happened during Marcos’ regime. These restrictions are imposed because of the fear that there

would be an abuse in exercising the right of access to information – or civil insurrection. In fact,

he allowed the complaint but it must be under his control and supervision. In the end, the court

found the respondent not guilty of abuse of authority. Hence, the case against Dimaano was

dismissed.

To sum it up, freedom to information is not just simply a right but a responsibility given to

us. People should use this power to protect themselves from abuse or injustices. Here in the

Philippines, Filipino viewed it as a weapon to fight against corruption. However, it's important to

keep in mind that there’s a lot of factors to consider in exercising such freedom because it’s not

absolute in the first place.

References:

B&B, A. (2018, June 22). Limitations to Right to Information: An Indian Perspective: B&B
Associates. Retrieved September 08, 2020, from https://bnblegal.com/article/limitations-
right-information/
God Law & Practice. (2019, January 9). Constitutional Protections of the Right to Information.
Retrieved September 29, 2020, from https://www.right2info.org/archived-
content/constitutional-protections

Ragaza, M. (2019, February 8). Philippines: The right to know – Freedom of information in the
Supreme Court - In-House Community. Retrieved September 28, 2020, from
https://www.inhousecommunity.com/article/right-know-freedom-information-supreme-
court/