Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission

Article II, Sec.
28 (Policy of Full Public Disclosure)
Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission

No. L-72119
May 29, 1987
Facts:
Petitioner Valentine Legaspi questions the eligibility of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas before the Civil Service
commissions as employee in the Health Service Department, employed as sanitarians.
The respondent had denied Legaspi's request for information on the civil service eligibilities of certain persons employed
as sanitarians in the Health Department of Cebu City.
Petitioner Valentin L. Legaspi files for Mandamus to compel respondent Civil Service Commission to release information
on the civil service eligibilities of persons employed as sanitarians (Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas) in the Health
Department of Cebu City.
OSG contends that petitioner has no locus standing as he failed to show his actual interest.
The Court ruled however that the petition on mandamus is anchored upon the right of the people for information on
matters of public concern which is a public right.
1. The petitioner being a citizen (hence, part of the public) warrants standing in his part; and
2. The State and its agents are mandated by the Constitution by virtue of Sec. 7 Article III and Sec. 28, Article II.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent should release the information.
Held:
Yes.
 The constitutional right to information on matters of public information is grounded on Sec. 7, Article III and Sec.
28, Article II of the 1987 Constitution. These are self-executory.
In the case at bar, the government agency Civil Service Commission does not have the discretion to
prohibit the access to information sought. It only has the authority to regulate the manner of
examination (e.g. ensuring that the records are not damaged or destroyed).
 These constitutional guarantees, however, are not absolute as they are “subject to the limitations as may be
provided by law” (Art. III Sec. 7 2nd sentence). The information sought must be not be exempted by law.
The right of the Public on information of public concern is not absolute because it is subject to reasonable conditions
that may be prescribed by law. Trade secrets, confidential communications and financial information’s, or matters
involving national security may not be just inquired into. If the purpose of inquiry is unlawful, or sheer or idle
curiosity, then the right cannot be invoked. (Garcia vs. BOI G.R. no. 88637)
In the case at bar, the information is within the enumerations provided by law.
1. The information sought relates to a public office which can be considered as a legitimate concern of citizens (public
office as public trust);
2. Respondent failed to cite any provision in the Civil Service Law which would limit the petitioner’s right to know who
are, and who are not civil service eligible; and
3. Civil service exams results are released in the public.
Ratio:
 Government agencies such as the Civil Service Commission do not have the discretion in refusing disclosure of,
or access to, information of public concern.
What is within the bounds of the agencies then? They still have the authority to regulate the manner of
examining public records.
 The authority to regulate the manner of examining public records does not carry with it the power to
prohibit.
 The Court provided a distinction between discretion/ prohibition and authority to regulate.
o Refusal to disclose only the Legislature may impose (Sec. 6, Article III)
o Authority to regulate the manner of examination done by government agency which has the
custody of public records.
 In case of denial by the agency, it must prove that the information is not of public concern or if it is of
public concern, it is within the exemptions (e.g. national security). Further, every denial is subject to
review by courts.
 Is the information sought by the petitioner considered “public concern/ interest” within those mentioned in the
articles? YES!
 The constitutional guarantees are not absolute as the law may exempt certain types of information from
public scrutiny such as those affecting national security.
 There is no rigid test as the term “public concern/ interest” is broad. It is for the courts to determine if
the information falls within “public concern” or “public interest.”
 Legal historical background of the right to public information

 Right to information on matters of public concern first gained recognition in the 1973 Constitution
(Section 6 of Article IV-Bill of Rights).
 This was retained by Article III Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution. Further, such guarantee was
enhanced with the adoption of Section 18, Article II (Policy of Full Public Disclosure).

Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article II, Sec.

28 (Policy of Full Public Disclosure)

Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission

 Legal historical background of the right to public information

You might also like