BALDOZA vs.
DIMAANO through the Executive Judge, for the formulation of guidelines and policies on
In a verified letter-complaint dated September 9, 1975, the Municipal
Secretary of Taal, Batangas, charges Municipal Judge Rodolfo B. Dimaano, of
the same municipality, with abuse of authority in refusing to allow employees
of the Municipal Mayor to examine the criminal docket records of the
Municipal Court to secure data in connection with their contemplated report
on the peace and order conditions of the said municipality. Respondent, in
answer to the complaint, stated that there has never been an intention to refuse
access to official court records; that although court records are among public
documents open to inspection not only by the parties directly involved but also
by other persons who have legitimate interest to such inspection, yet the same
is always subject to reasonable regulation as to who, when, where and how
they may be inspected. He further asserted that a court has unquestionably the
power to prevent an improper use or inspection of its records and the furnishing
of copies therefrom may be refused where the person requesting is not
motivated by a serious and legitimate interest but acts out of whim or fancy or
mere curiosity or to gratify private spite or to promote public scandal.
In his answer, the respondent significantly observed:
Restrictions are imposed by the Court for fear of an abuse in the exercise of
the right. For fear that the dirty hands of partisan politics might again be at
play, Some of the cases filed and decided by the Court after the declaration of
Martial Law and years after the election still bore the stigma of partisan politics
as shown in the affidavits and testimonies of witnesses.
Without casting aspersion on any particular individual, it is worth mentioning,
that the padlocks of the door of the Court has recently been tampered by
inserting papers and matchsticks.
Under the circumstances, to allow an indiscriminate and unlimited exercise of
the right to free access, might do more harm than good to the citizenry of Taal.
Disorder and chaos might result defeating the very essence of their request.
The undersigned is just as interested as Mr. Baldoza in the welfare of the
community and the preservation of our democratic principles.
Be that as it may, a request of this magnitude cannot be immediately granted
without adequate deliberation and upon advisement, especially so in this case
where the undersigned doubts the propriety of such request. Hence, it is
believed that authority should first be secured from the Supreme Court,
this matter.
The case was thereupon referred to Judge Francisco Mat. Riodique for
investigation and report. At the preliminary hearing on October 16, 1975, Taal
Mayor Corazon A. Caniza filed a motion to dismiss the complaint to preserve
harmony and (cooperation among officers in the same municipality. This
motion was denied by the Investigating Judge, but after formal investigation,
he recommended the exoneration of respondent. Pertinent portion of his report
reads as follows:
* * * When this case was heard, complainant Dominador Baldoza informed
the Court that he is aware of the motion to dismiss filed by Mayor Corazon
A. Caniza and that he is in conformity with the dismissal of the
administrative charge against Judge Rodolfo Dimaano. The Court asked
him if he could prove his case and he said he can. So, the Court denied his
oral motion to dismiss and required him to present his evidence.
Complainant only manifested to the Court that he has no oral evidence. The
only evidence he has are the exchanged communication which were all in
writing and attached to the record between him and the respondent. The
Court asked the respondent what he has to say on the documentary evidence
of the complainant. He manifested that all his answers to the complaint are
all embodied in his answers filed with the Court.
A careful perusal, scrutiny, and study of the communications
between the complainant and the respondent, together with the answers
filed by the latter, reveal that there is no showing of abuse of authority on
the part of the respondent. The respondent allowed the complainant to open
and view the docket books of the respondent under certain conditions and
under his control and supervision. Complainant admitted that he was aware
of the rules and conditions imposed by the respondent when he went to his
office to view his docket books for the purpose mentioned in his
communication. He also agreed that he is amenable to such rules and
conditions which the respondent may impose. Under these conditions,
therefore, the Court finds that the respondent has not committed any abuse
of authority.
The complainant was warned to be more cautious in filing any
administrative charge against any public official especially, members of the
judiciary, considering that an administrative charge against a member of the
judiciary may expose the latter to public ridicule and scandal thereby
minimizing if not eradicating public trust and
After a careful evaluation of the recommendation, We find that the respondent
did not act arbitrarily in the premises. As found by the Investigating Judge, the
respondent allowed the complainant to open and view the docket books of
respondent certain conditions and under his control and supervision. it has not
been shown that the rules and conditions imposed by the respondent were
unreasonable. The access to public records predicated on the right of the people
to acquire information on matters of public concern. Undoubtedly in a
democracy, the public has a legitimate interest in matters of social and political
significance. In an earlier case, 1 this Court held that mandamus would lie to
compel the Secretary of Justice and the Register of Deeds to examine the
records of the latter office. Predicating the right to examine the records on
statutory provisions, and to a certain degree by general principles of
democratic institutions, this Court stated that while the Register of Deeds has
discretion to exercise as to the manner in which persons desiring to inspect,
examine or copy the records in his office may exercise their rights, such power
does not carry with it authority to prohibit. Citing with approval People ex rel.
Title Guarantee & T. Co. vs. Railly, 2 this Court said:
The subject is necessarily committed, to a great degree, 'to his
(register of deeds') discretion as to how much of the conveniences of the office
are required to be preserved for the accomodation of these persons. It is not his
duty to permit the office to be thronged needlessly with persons examining its
books of papers, but it is his duty to regulate, govern, and control his office in
such a manner as to permit the statutory advantages to be enjoyed by other
persons not employed by him as largely and extensibly as that consistently can
be done * * *. What the law expects and requires from him is the exercise of
an unbiased and impartial judgment, by which all persons resorting to the
office, under legal authority, and conducting themselves in an orderly manner,
shall be secured their lawful rights and privileges, and that a corporation
formed in the manner in which the relator has been, shall be permitted to obtain
all the information either by searches, abstracts, or copies, that the law has
entitled it to obtain.
Except, perhaps, when it is clear that the purpose of the examination is
unlawful, or sheer, Idle curiosity, we do not believe it is the duty under the
law of registration officers to concern themselves with the motives, reasons,
and objects of the person seeking access to the records. It is not their
prerogative to see that the information which the records contain is not
flaunted before public gaze, or that scandal is not made of it. If it be wrong
to publish the contents of the records, it is the legislature and not the officials
having custody thereof which is called upon to devise a remedy. As to the
moral or material injury which the publication might inflict on other parties,
that is the publisher's responsibility and lookout. The publication is made
subject to the consequences of the law.
The concurring opinion of Justice Briones predicated such right not on
statutory grounds merely but on the constitutional right of the press to have
access to information as the essence of press freedom. 3
The New Constitution now expressly recognizes that the people are entitled to
information on matters of public concern and thus are expressly granted access
to official records, as well as documents of official acts, or transactions, or
decisions, subject to such limitations imposed by law. 4 The incorporation of
this right in the Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental role of free
exchange of information in a democracy. There can be no realistic perception
by the public of the nation's problems, nor a meaningful democratic decision
making if they are denied access to information of general interest. Information
is needed to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of the
times. As has been aptly observed: "Maintaining the flow of such information
depends on protection for both its acquisition and its dissemination since, if
either process is interrupted, the flow inevitably ceases. " 5 However,
restrictions on access to certain records may be imposed by law. Thus, access
restrictions imposed to control civil insurrection have been permitted upon a
showing of immediate and impending danger that renders ordinary means of
control inadequate to maintain order. 6
WHEREFORE, the case against respondent is hereby dismissed.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 02-16
OPERATIONALIZING IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THE
PEOPLE’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND
THE STATE POLICIES TO FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND
TRANSPARENCY IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND PROVIDING
GUIDELINES THEREFOR
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 28, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, the
State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest, subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law;
WHEREAS, Section 7, Article III of the Constitution guarantees the right of
the people to information on matters of public concern;
WHEREAS, the incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recognition
of the fundamental role of free and open exchange of information in a
democracy, meant to enhance transparency and accountability in government
official acts, transactions, or decisions;
WHEREAS, the Executive Branch recognizes the urgent need to
operationalize these Constitutional provisions;
WHEREAS, the President, under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution,
has control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, and the duty
to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed;
WHEREAS, the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (R.A. 10173), including its
implementing Rules and Regulations, strengthens the fundamental human
right of privacy, and of communication while ensuring the free flow of
information to promote innovation and growth;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE, President of the
Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and
existing laws, do hereby order:
SECTION 1. Definition. For the purpose of this Executive Order, the
following terms shall mean:
(a) “Information” shall mean any records, documents, papers, reports, letters,
contracts, minutes and transcripts of official meetings, maps, books,
photographs, data, research materials, films, sound and video recording,
magnetic or other tapes, electronic data, computer stored data, any other like
or similar data or materials recorded, stored or archived in whatever format,
whether offline or online, which are made, received, or kept in or under the
control and custody of any government office pursuant to law, executive order,
and rules and regulations or in connection with the performance or transaction
of official business by any government office.
(b) “Official record/records” shall refer to information produced or received
by a public officer or employee, or by a government office in an official
capacity or pursuant to a public function or duty.
(c) “Public record/records” shall include information required by laws,
executive orders, rules, or regulations to be entered, kept and made publicly
available by a government office.
SECTION 2. Coverage. This order shall cover all government offices under
the Executive Branch, including but not limited to the national government and
all its offices, departments, bureaus, offices, and instrumentalities, including
government-owned or -controlled corporations, and state universities and
colleges. Local government units (LGUs) are encouraged to observe and be
guided by this Order.
SECTION 3. Access to information. Every Filipino shall have access to
information, official records, public 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.
SECTION 4. Exception. Access to information shall be denied when the
information falls under any of the exceptions enshrined in the Constitution,
existing law or jurisprudence.
The Department of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General are hereby
directed to prepare an inventory of such exceptions and submit the same to the
Office of the President within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of
effectivity of this Order.
The Office of the President shall thereafter, immediately circularize the
inventory of exceptions for the guidance of all government offices and
instrumentalities covered by this Order and the general public.
Said inventory of exceptions shall periodically be updated to properly reflect
any change in existing law and jurisprudence and the Department of Justice
and the Office of the Solicitor General are directed to update the inventory of
exceptions as the need to do so arises, for circularization as hereinabove stated.
SECTION 5. Availability of SALN. Subject to the provisions contained in
Sections 3 and 4 of this Order, all public officials are reminded of their
obligation to file and make available for scrutiny their Statements of Assets,
Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) in accordance with existing laws, rules and
regulations, and the spirit and letter of this Order.
SECTION 6. Application and Interpretation. There shall be a legal
presumption in favor of access to information, public records and official
records. No request for information shall be denied unless it clearly falls under
any of the exceptions listed in the inventory or updated inventory of exceptions
circularized by the Office of the President provided in the preceding section.
The determination of the applicability of any of the exceptions to the request
shall be the responsibility of the Head of the Office which is in custody or
control of the information, public record or official record, or the responsible information; and
central or field officer duly designated by him in writing. (g) The schedule of applicable fees.

In making such determination, the Head of the Office or his designated officer SECTION 9. Procedure. The following procedure shall govern the filing and
shall exercise reasonable diligence to ensure that no exception shall be used or processing of request for access to information:
availed of to deny any request for information or access to public records, or (a) Any person who requests access to information shall submit a written
official records if the denial is intended primarily and purposely to cover up a request to the government office concerned. The request shall state the name
crime, wrongdoing, graft or corruption. and contact information of the requesting party, provide valid proof of his
identification or authorization, reasonably describe the information requested,
SECTION 7. Protection of Privacy. While providing access to information, and the reason for, or purpose of, the request for information: Provided, that
public records, and official records, responsible officials shall afford full no request shall be denied or refused acceptance unless the reason for the
protection to the right to privacy of the individual as follows: request is contrary to law, existing rules and regulations or it is one of the
(a) Each government office per Section 2 hereof shall ensure that personal exceptions contained in the inventory or updated inventory of exception as
information in its custody or under its control is disclosed or released only if it hereinabove provided.
is material or relevant to the subject-matter of the request and its disclosure is (b) The public official receiving the request shall provide reasonable
permissible under this order or existing law, rules or regulations; assistance, free of charge, to enable, to enable all requesting parties and
(b) Each government office must protect personal information in its custody particularly those with special needs, to comply with the request requirements
or control by making reasonable security arrangements against leaks or under this Section.
premature disclosure of personal information which unduly exposes the (c) The request shall be stamped by the government office, indicating the date
individual whose personal information is requested, to vilification, harassment and time of receipt and the name, rank, title and position of the receiving public
or any other wrongful acts. officer or employee with the corresponding signature, and a copy thereof
(c) Any employee, official or director of a government office per Section 2 furnished to the requesting party. Each government office shall establish a
hereof who has access, authorized or unauthorized, to personal information in system to trace the status of all requests for information received by it.
the custody of the office, must not disclose that information except when (d) The government office shall respond to a request fully compliant with
authorized under this order or pursuant to existing laws, rules or regulation. requirements of sub-section (a) hereof as soon as practicable but not exceeding
fifteen (15) working days from the receipt thereof. The response mentioned
SECTION 8. People’s Freedom to Information (FOI) Manual. For the above refers to the decision of the agency or office concerned to grant or deny
effective implementation of this Order, every government office is directed to access to the information requested.
prepare within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days from the effectivity of (e) The period to respond may be extended whenever the information
this Order, its own People’s FOI Manual, which shall include among others requested requires extensive search of the government office’s records
the following provisions: facilities, examination of voluminous records, the occurrence of fortuitous
(a) The location and contact information of the head, regional, provincial, and cases or other analogous cases. The government office shall notify the person
field offices, and other established places where the public can obtain making the request of the extension, setting forth the reasons for such
information or submit requests; extension. In no case shall the extension go beyond twenty (20) working days
(b) The person or office responsible for receiving requests for information; unless exceptional circumstances warrant a longer period.
(c) The procedure for the filing and processing of the request as specified in (f) Once a decision is made to grant the request, the person making the request
the succeeding section 8 of this Order. shall be notified of such decision and directed to pay any applicable fees.
(d) The standard forms for the submission of requests and for the proper
acknowledgment of requests; SECTION 10. Fees. Government offices shall not charge any fee for
(e) The process for the disposition of requests; accepting requests for access to information. They may, however, charge a
(f) The procedure for the administrative appeal of any denial for access to reasonable fee to reimburse necessary costs, including actual costs of
reproduction and copying of the information required, subject to existing rules
and regulations. In no case shall the applicable fees be so onerous as to defeat sanctions against any erring public officer or employee as provided under
the purpose of this Order. existing laws or regulations.

SECTION 11. Identical or Substantially Similar Requests. The
government office shall not be required to act upon an unreasonable
subsequent identical or substantially similar request from the same requesting
party whose request from the same requesting party whose request has already
been previously granted or denied by the same government office.
SECTION 16. Implementing Details. All government offices in the
Executive Branch are directed to formulate their respective implementing
details taking into consideration their mandates and the nature of information
in their custody or control, within one hundred twenty (120) days from the
effectivity of this Order.

SECTION 12. Notice of Denial. If the government office decides to deny the SECTION 17. Separability Clause. If any section or part of this Order is held
request, in whole or in part, it shall as soon as practicable, in any case within unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions not otherwise
fifteen (15) working days from the receipt of the request, notify the requesting affected shall remain in full force or effect.
party the denial in writing. The notice shall clearly set forth the ground or
grounds for denial and the circumstances on which the denial is based. Failure SECTION 18. Repealing Clause. All orders, rules and regulations, issuances
to notify the requesting party of the action taken on the request within the or any part thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order are
period herein stipulated shall be deemed a denial of the request for access to hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly: Provided, that the
information. provisions of Memorandum Circular No. 78 (s. 1964), as amended, shall not
be deemed repealed pending further review.
SECTION 13. Remedies in Cases of Denial of Request for Access to
Information. SECTION 19. Effectivity. This Order shall take effect immediately upon
(a) Denial of any request for access to information may be appealed to the publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
person or office next higher in the authority, following the procedure
mentioned in Section 7 (f) of this Order: Provided, that the written appeal must DONE, in the City of Manila, this 23rd day of July in the year of our Lord two
be filed by the same person making the request within fifteen (15) thousand and sixteen.
working days from the notice of denial or from the lapse of the relevant period
to respond to the request.
(b) The appeal be decided by the person or office next higher in authority
within thirty (30) working days from the filing of said written appeal. Failure
of such person or office to decide within the afore-stated period shall be
deemed a denial of the appeal.
(c) Upon exhaustion of administrative appeal remedies, the requesting part
may file the appropriate case in the proper courts in accordance with the Rules
of Court.

SECTION 14. Keeping of Records. Subject to existing laws, rules, and

regulations, government offices shall create and/or maintain accurate and
reasonably complete records of important information in appropriate formats,
and implement a records management system that facilitates easy
identification, retrieval and communication of information to the public.

SECTION 15. Administrative Liability. Failure to comply with the

provisions of this Order may be a ground for administrative and disciplinary