Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 601 views

    Two (2) Requisites Must Concur Before The Right To Information May Be Compelled by Writ of Mandamus.-Two Requisites

    Uploaded by

    Tin Lico
    The petitioner requested minutes from a closed-door meeting of the CTRM regarding lifting tariff reductions on petrochemicals. The CTRM denied this request three times. [The petitioner] filed a writ of mandamus, which was dismissed by the RTC. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the CTRM, finding that while the information concerned public interest, closed-door cabinet meetings are exempt from disclosure requirements. The constitutional right to information is balanced with privileges needed to allow free exchange of ideas among government officials.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Two (2) Requisites Must Concur Before The Right To Information May Be Compelled by Writ of Mandamus.-Two Requisites

    Uploaded by

    Tin Lico
    601 views1 page
    The petitioner requested minutes from a closed-door meeting of the CTRM regarding lifting tariff reductions on petrochemicals. The CTRM denied this request three times. [The petitioner] filed a writ of mandamus, which was dismissed by the RTC. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the CTRM, finding that while the information concerned public interest, closed-door cabinet meetings are exempt from disclosure requirements. The constitutional right to information is balanced with privileges needed to allow free exchange of ideas among government officials.

    Original Title

    10. Sereno v. CTRM

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner requested minutes from a closed-door meeting of the CTRM regarding lifting tariff reductions on petrochemicals. The CTRM denied this request three times. [The petitioner] filed a writ of mandamus, which was dismissed by the RTC. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the CTRM, finding that while the information concerned public interest, closed-door cabinet meetings are exempt from disclosure requirements. The constitutional right to information is balanced with privileges needed to allow free exchange of ideas among government officials.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    601 views1 page

    Two (2) Requisites Must Concur Before The Right To Information May Be Compelled by Writ of Mandamus.-Two Requisites

    Uploaded by

    Tin Lico
    The petitioner requested minutes from a closed-door meeting of the CTRM regarding lifting tariff reductions on petrochemicals. The CTRM denied this request three times. [The petitioner] filed a writ of mandamus, which was dismissed by the RTC. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the CTRM, finding that while the information concerned public interest, closed-door cabinet meetings are exempt from disclosure requirements. The constitutional right to information is balanced with privileges needed to allow free exchange of ideas among government officials.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Sereno vs.

    Committee on Trade Related Matters


    GR No. 175210, 1 February 2016

    FACTS: The CTRM, an office under the NEDA, held a meeting to recommend to President Arroyo the lifting of the
    suspension of the tariff reduction schedule on petrochemicals and certain plastic products. Paras, then the Chairman of the
    Association of Petrochemical Manufacturers of the Philippines (APMP), requested a copy of the minutes of the said
    meeting, but it was denied by stating that it is a closed-door cabinet meetings. He requested for three times but still
    denied. He filed a petition for mandamus, alleging that there is a violation of Constitutional right of access to information
    on matters of public concern.

    President Arroyo issued EO 486 to lift the said suspension of the tariff reduction schedule. RTC dismissed the said
    petition, ruling that said documents “falls under the category of privileged information”; that the information withheld was
    within the scope of the exemption from disclosure because the CTRM meetings were directly related to the exercise of the
    sovereign prerogative of the President as the Head of State in the conduct of foreign affairs and the regulation of trade.

    ISSUE: WON the CTRM may be compelled by mandamus to furnish the petitioner with a copy of the minutes.

    RULING: NO. Two requisites must concur before the right to information may be compelled by writ
    of mandamus. Firstly, the information sought must be in relation to matters of public concern or public interest.
    And secondly, it must not be exempt by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee.

    As to the first requisite, the position of the petrochemical industry as an essential contributor to the overall growth of our
    country’s economy easily makes the information sought a matter of public concern or interest.

    As to the second requisite, the CTRM has well-discharged the burden that the information sought to be obtained is
    exempted from the coverage of the constitutional guarantee. 3 Without doubt, therefore, ensuring and promoting the free
    exchange of ideas among the members of the committee tasked to give tariff recommendations to the President were truly
    imperative.

    DOCTRINES: The constitutional guarantee of the right to information on matters of public concern enunciated in
    Section 7 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution complements the State’s policy of full public disclosure in all transactions
    involving public interest expressed in Section 28 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution.

    Two (2) requisites must concur before the right to information may be compelled by writ of mandamus.—Two requisites
    must concur before the right to information may be compelled by writ of mandamus. Firstly, the information sought must
    be in relation to matters of public concern or public interest. And secondly, it must not be exempt by law from the
    operation of the constitutional guarantee.

    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 meeting and executive sessions of either
    house of Congress, as well as the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court.

    In case of conflict, there is a need to strike a balance between the right of the people and the interest of the Government to
    be protected. Here, the need to ensure the protection of the privilege of non-disclosure is necessary to allow the free
    exchange of ideas among Government officials as well as to guarantee the well-considered recommendation free from
    interference of the inquisitive public.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy