Right to information not absolute, SC rules

The right to information is not absolute.

The Supreme Court (SC) made this ruling as it dismissed a petition filed by Association of Petrochemical Manufacturers of the Philippines Inc. (APMP) executive director Mario Jose Sereno, spouse of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, seeking release of certain data and documents from the Committee on Tariff and Related Matters (CTRM) of the National Economic and Development Authority.

“The constitutional guarantee to information does not open every door to any and all information, but is rather confined to matters of public concern. It is subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The state’s policy of full public disclosure is restricted to transactions involving public interest, and is tempered by reasonable conditions prescribed by law,” read the ruling penned by Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin.

In a 13- page decision promulgated on Feb. 1 but released only yesterday, the high court junked the petition of Mr. Sereno and instead affirmed an earlier ruling of the Pasig City Regional Trial Court Branch 268.

The petitioner sought relief from the courts to compel CTRM to provide him a copy of the minutes of its May 23, 2005 meeting and copies of all official records, documents, papers and government research data used as basis for the issuance of Executive Order (EO) 486.

Signed in 2006 by then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, EO 486 lifted the suspension of the tariff reduction on petrochemical resins and other plastic products under the ASEAN Free Trade Area- Common Effective Preferential Tariff scheme.

The SC held that court relief granting right to information and compelling an agency to release information has two requisites.

First, it explained that the information sought must be in relation to matters of public concern or public interest; and second, it must not be exempt by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee.

Citing its ruling on Chavez vs Public Estate Authority, the SC reiterated that the constitutional guarantee of the people’s right to information does not cover national security matters and intelligence information, trade secrets and banking transactions and criminal matters.

Equally excluded from coverage of the constitutional guarantee are diplomatic correspondence, closed- door Cabinet meetings and executive sessions of Congress, as well as internal deliberations of the high tribunal.

The SC stressed that the May 23, 2005 meeting of CTRM was classified as a closed- door Cabinet meeting by virtue of the committee’s composition and the nature of its mandate dealing with matters of foreign affairs, trade and policy-making.

The SC released the ruling after incoming president Rodrigo Duterte vowed to support the Freedom of Information bill in Congress and even implement it through an executive order.

Records showed that CTRM held a meeting in May 2005 where it resolved to recommend to then president Arroyo the lifting of the suspension of the tariff reduction schedule on petrochemicals and certain plastic products, thereby reducing the Common Effective Preferential Tariff rates on products covered by EO 161 from seven percent or 10 percent to five percent starting July 2005.

In June of the same year, the APMP requested CTRM for a copy of the minutes of the meeting, which was denied. This prompted APMP to file a petition for mandamus before the Pasig court.