Freedom of Information

Section 7. 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 such limitations as may be provided by law.

Coverage:
1. Matters of public concern;
2. Official records, documents, and papers pertaining to official acts;
3. Official records, documents, and papers pertaining to transactions (e.g., government contracts,
procurement documents);
4. Official records, documents, and papers pertaining to decisions (decisions of judicial bodies or
tribunals); and
5. Government research data used as basis for policy development.

Limitations:
1. Those limitations provided by law (those pertaining to public security; EO No. 2 of President
Duterte may be invoked only against government agencies in the executive branch, such order
cannot be invoked in the Congress or in Courts, the EO also provided that the DOJ and Solicitor
General may adopt exceptions to the right to information under EO No. 2, the DOJ and Solicitor
General provided up to a hundred of exceptions);
2. Offers in treaty negotiations which may affect diplomatic or military objectives (Akbayan v.
Aquino, 2008, what was involved is the preparations of offers and counter-offers, JPIPA, before
actually signing; if the treaty has been final, it now goes to public domain and becomes covered
by the right to information);
3. Executive privilege

(a) State secrets privilege, privilege involving diplomatic or military objectives/matters; this
refers to “secrets” agreed by countries without signing a treaty; e.g., intelligence reports to
combat terrorism
(b) Generic privilege of internal deliberation – internal deliberations between government
agencies before the finality of decisions or official acts
(c) Informant’s Privilege - information or identity of the persons who gave the information
regarding the commission of a crime to law enforcers or law enforcement agencies

4. Presumptive Presidential Communication Privilege (Neri v. Executive Secretary);

5. Judicial privilege – covers the information which relates to deliberative adjudicatory functions of
the courts; decision making or deciding cases by the judiciary, BUT other matters such as those
administrative in nature are not covered, also the final decisions of courts are also not covered
Right of Association
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form
unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

Coverage:
1. Right to join
Except: If the purpose is contrary to law
In Bel-Air Village against Sta. Clara Association, one of the residents of the village was forced to
become a member of the village’s association and to avail of the car stickers, without which, he
may not go in and out of the village. Before one is able to purchase the car sticker, one has to be
a member of the association first. The Supreme Court explained that the resident shall not be
required to join the association because everyone has the right of association, which includes
both the right to join and right not to join.
2. Right not to join

Except: There is no contractual obligation to join

However, in Bel-Air Village, in buying a house or property there, there is an automatic

annotation in the title which says that anyone who buys land or property inside the village should
become a member of the village association. The Supreme Court then ruled that yes, a resident
may be compelled to join a village association because the annotation in the property’s title
constitute contractual obligation on his part. The Supreme Court further explained that his right
of association was not trampled upon, as he had the right to join or not to join, when he bought
the property, and even when he already had the property, he had the right not to join by selling
the property.

The coverage of this right excludes forming or joining unions, associations, or societies for purposes
contrary to law. For example, creating a group to commit a crime like rebellion or robbery
.
 (People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)) The Supreme Court held valid RA 11700 that punished
mere membership in:
o CPP and continue to pursue the objective of the Party (Everyone knows that CPP’s
objective is to overthrow the government which is an unlawful thing, not covered by the
right of association; Also, the prosecution need not only to establish membership, it also
has to prove that you continued to pursue the objective of the party; Furthermore, it is
only not the CPP which is being punished, but even non-CPP organizations whose
objective is to overthrow the government); and
o Non-CPP organization but the objective is to overthrow the government

But now, no one can be charged under RA1700 as it has been repealed by the Congress
by RA7636. But you can still be punished under the Revised Penal Code for rebellion.
 However, RA 1700 was repealed by Congress through RA 7636 on Sept. 24, 1002.
 Lawyers have the right to dismember themselves from the IBP and stop paying annual dues. Only
that they can no longer be allowed to practice law. (In re: Marcial Edillion, 84 SCRA 554 (1978))
Right to Just Compensation when Property Taken for Public Use

Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
 Already discussed under Eminent Domain
Non-Impairment of Contracts
Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

Coverage
Laws that impair contracts. Hence, a limit on legislative power.
This is a right that be invoked against the Congress.

Not Covered
1. Judicial or quasi-judicial orders affecting contracts (A case where the court ordered the
rehabilitation of a corporation which was objected by the creditors of the corporation; under
Commercial Law, when a corporation is placed under rehabilitation, the payment of its
obligations will be suspended until the corporation has recovered; the creditors argued that in
their contract, there is a period indicated on when to pay the obligations; the creditors argued
that the order of the court to rehabilitate the corporation is a violation on their right to non-
impairment of contracts; the Supreme Court ruled that Section 10 or the right to non-impairment
of contracts is invocable only against the Congress, it does not apply against Judicial or quasi-
judicial orders);
2. Impairment of non-contractual privileges such as government franchise and licenses (e.g., Timber
License Agreements, Mining Contracts, Permit to Carry Outside Residences; a law can be
passed cancelling all those privileges, they do not fall under contracts, they are mere privileges;
the Congress can also pass a law delegating the power to cancel these privileges and franchises
to any administrative agency)

Broad Casting when a company has been given legislative franchise by Congress, NTC cannot
just order the stoppage of their operations or cancel the 2 nd franchise (Certificate of Public
Convenience issued by the NTC) for them not to operate; the franchise issued by Congress is a
property right and a contractual privilege (contract between State and the media company, they
can invoke right to due process and non-impairment of contract clause)

Exceptions to the Right

i.e., Law can impair contracts if it is pursuant to:
1. Police power;
2. Eminent domain; and
3. Taxation
The Supreme Court consistently held that there is an implied limitation on the Bill of Rights, which is: all
rights under the Bill of Rights is subject to the police power, power of eminent domain and the taxation
power of the State.
Free Access to Courts and Quasi-Judicial Bodies and Adequate
Legal Assistance
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be
denied to any person by reason of poverty.
 Invocable only by natural party litigant. Not by corporations. (An NGO’s objective was to protect
the rights of the indigents. The NGO then requested for the courts to exempt their cases from
payment of docket fees, as they help indigent clients. The Supreme Court held that the NGO
cannot invoke Section 11 under the Bill of Rights as this right is available only to natural party
litigants, and not by corporations or associations.)
 All lawyers are required to render 60-hr free legal services to indigent litigants. Services
exceeding this entitles a lawyer deduction of amount of actual services or up to 10% of his gross
income, whichever is lower. (Free Legal Assistance Act of 2010) (Majority of lawyers do not
follow this law, as per Atty. Enan. They do not take pro-bono cases.)