Ma. Carmen G. Aquino-Sarmiento vs Manuel L. Morato (G.r No. 92541, Novemeber 12,1991)FACTS: At issue in this petition is the citizen's right ofaccess to official records as guaranteed bytheconstitution.In February 1989, petitioner, herself a member ofrespondent Movie and Television Review andClassificationBoard (MTRCB), wrote itsrecords officer requestingthat she be allowed toexamine the board's recordspertaining to the votingslips accomplished by theindividual board members after a review of themoviesand television productions. It is on the basis of said slipsthat films are either banned,cut or classifiedaccordingly.Acting on the saidrequest, the records officer informedpetitioner that she hasto secure prior clearance fromrespondent Manuel Morato, as chairman of MTRCB,togain access to the records sought to be examined.Petitioner's request was eventually denied by respondentMorato on the ground that whenever the members ofthe board sit in judgment over a film, their decisions asreflected in the individual voting slips partakethenature of conscience votes and as such, are purely andcompletely private and personal. It isthe submission ofrespondents that the individual voting slips is theexclusive property of the member concerned and anybodywho wants access thereto must first secure his (themember's) consent, otherwise, a request thereformaybe legally denied.ISSUE : Wether or not

HELD : Petition is granted. there is nodoubtthat its very existence is public is character; it is anoffice created to serve public interest. It beingthe case,respondents can lay no valid claim to privacy. The rightto privacy belongs to the individual acting in his privatecapacity and not to a governmental agency or officerstasked with, andacting in, the discharge of public duties(See Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr.,supra.) There can beno invasion of privacy in thecase at bar since what issought to be divulged is a product of action undertakenin the course ofperforming official functions.MTRCB,pertaining to the decisions ofthe review committee aswell as the individual voting slips of its members, asviolative of petitioner's constitutional right of access topublic records. More specifically, Sec. 7, Art.III oftheConstitution provides that:The right of the people to information on matters ofpublic concern shall be recognized.Access to officialrecords, and to documents, and papers pertaining toofficial acts, transactions, ordecisions,as well as togovernment research data used as basisfor policydevelopment, shall be afforded the citizen, subject tosuch limitations as may beprovided by law.individual voting slip is their individual voteof conscienceon the motion picture or television program and assuch, makes the individual voting slippurely private andpersonal; an exclusive property of thememberconcerned.The term private has been defined as "belonging to orconcerning, an individual person, company, or interest";whereas, public means "pertaining to, or belonging to, oraffecting a nation, state, or community at large"

VALMONTE VS BELMONTE Jr. (170 SCRA 256, Februaddry 13, 1989)

Facts:Ricardo Valmonte wrote Feliciano Belmonte Jr. on 4 June 1986, requesting to be "furnished with the list of names of theopposition members of (the) BatasangPambansa who were able to secure a clean loan of P2 million each on guaranty (sic)of Mrs.Imelda Marcos" and also to "be furnished with the certified true copies of the documents evidencing their loan. Expenses inconnection herewith shall be borne by"Valmonte, et. al. Due toserious legal implications, President & General Manager FelicianoBelmonte, Jr. referred the letter to the Deputy General Counsel of the GSIS, Meynardo A. Tiro. Tiro replied that it is his opinion"that a confidential relationship exists between the GSIS and all those who borrow from it, whoever they may be; that the GSIShas aduty toitscustomers topreserve this confidentiality; andthat itwould notbe properfor theGSIS tobreach thisconfidentiality unlessso orderedby thecourts." On 20 June 1986, apparently not having yet received the reply of theGovernmentService and Insurance System (GSIS) Deputy General Counsel, Valmonte wrote Belmonte another letter, saying that for failure toreceive a reply "(W)e are nowconsidering ourselves free to dowhatever action necessary within the premises to pursue our desiredobjectiveinpursuanceofpublicinterest."On26June1986,RicardoValmonte,OswaldoCarbonell,DoyDelCastillo,RolandoBartolome,LeoObligar,JunGutierrez,ReynaldoBagatsing,Jun"Ninoy"Alba,Percy Lapid, Rommel Corro, and RolandoFadul filed a special civil action formandamus with preliminary injunction invoke theirright to information and pray that Belmonte be directed: (a) to furnish Valmonte, et. al. the list of the names of the BatasangPambansa membersbelonging to the UNIDO andPDP Laban whowere able to secure clean loans immediately before the February7 election thru the intercession/marginal note of the then First Lady Imelda Marcos; and/or (b) to furnish petitioners with certifiedtrue copies of the documents evidencing their respective loans; and/or (c) to allow petitioners access to the public records for thesubjectinformation

Issue : Whether Valmonte are entitled as citizens and taxpayers to inquire upon GSIS records on behest loans given by the formerFirst Lady Imelda Marcos to Batasang Pambansa members belonging to the UNIDOand PDP-Laban political parties.

Held : The GSIS is atrustee of contributions from the government and its employees and the administrator of various insurance programsfor the benefit of the latter. Undeniably, its funds assume a public character. More particularly, Secs. 5(b) and 46of PD 1146, asamended (the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977),provide for annual appropriations to pay the contributions,premiums, interest and other amounts payable to GSIS by the government, as employer, as well as the obligations which theRepublic of the Philippines assumes or guarantees to pay. Considering the nature of its funds, the GSIS is expected to manage itsresources with utmost prudence and in strict compliance with the pertinent laws or rules and regulations. Thus, one of the reasons thatpromptedtherevisionoftheoldGSISlaw(CA186,asamended)wasthenecessity"topreserveatalltimestheactuarialsolvency of the funds administered by the Systems [Second Whereas Clause, PD1146.] Consequently, as Feliciano Belmontehimself admits, the GSIS "is not supposed to grant 'clean loans.'" It is therefore the legitimate concern of the public to ensure thatthese fundsare managedproperly withthe endin viewofmaximizing thebenefits thataccrue tothe insuredgovernmentemployees. Moreover, the supposed borrowers were Members of the defunct Batasang Pambansa who themselves appropriatedfunds for the GSIS andwere therefore expected to be the first to seeto it that the GSISperformed its tasks with the greatestdegreeof fidelity and that all its transactions were above board. In sum, the public nature of theloanable funds of the GSIS and the publicoffice held by the alleged borrowers make the information sought clearly a matter of public interest and concern. Still, Belmontemaintains that a confidential relationship exists between the GSIS and its borrowers. It is argued that a policy of confidentialityrestricts the indiscriminate dissemination of information. Yet, Belmonte has failed to cite any law granting the GSIS the privilegeof confidentiality as regards the documents subject of the present petition. His position is apparently based merely onconsiderations of policy. The judiciary does not settle policy issues. The Court can only declare what the law is, and not what thelaw should be. Under our system of government, policy issues are within the domain of the political branches of the government,and of the people themselves asthe repository of all State power