G.R. No. 74930 . February 13, 1989.
RICARDO VALMONTE, ET AL., petitioners, vs. FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR., respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners, led by Ricardo Valmonte, invoked their constitutional right to information by writing a letter-request to respondent Feliciano Belmonte, Jr., the General Manager of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). They sought: (1) a list of the names of opposition Batasang Pambansa members who secured “clean loans” of P2 million each allegedly guaranteed by then First Lady Imelda Marcos just before the February 7, 1986 election; (2) certified true copies of the loan documents; or (3) access to these public records. They premised their request on Section 6, Article IV of the Freedom Constitution, which recognizes the people’s right to information on matters of public concern.
The GSIS, through its Deputy General Counsel, denied the request. It asserted that a confidential relationship exists between the GSIS and its borrowers, and that disclosing such information would breach this confidentiality unless ordered by the courts. Unsatisfied, petitioners filed this special civil action for mandamus to compel disclosure. Respondent raised procedural objections, including petitioners’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing to the GSIS Board of Trustees.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of mandamus should issue to compel the GSIS General Manager to disclose the requested loan information, pursuant to the constitutional right to information.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition in part. On the procedural issue, the Court held the case falls under an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine. The core issue involves a pure question of law—the interpretation of the constitutional right to information—which courts are more competent to resolve than an administrative board like the GSIS Board of Trustees.
On the substantive right, the Court affirmed that the constitutional right to information is a public right designed to enhance transparency. The loan transactions of former Batasang Pambansa members, involving substantial public funds from a government financial institution, are undoubtedly matters of public concern. The GSIS’s claim of confidentiality, based on a banker-customer relationship, cannot override this constitutional right. The state policy of full public disclosure subordinates claims of confidentiality when public interest is involved.
However, the Court distinguished between the specific requests. It held that mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. The duty to allow access to existing public records, such as the loan documents, is ministerial. Therefore, the respondent was ordered to allow petitioners access to the documents and records evidencing the loans, subject to reasonable regulations on the time and manner of inspection. Conversely, the Court denied the request for a prepared list of names, as there is no clear, specific duty on the part of the respondent to create such a list. Mandamus cannot compel the performance of a discretionary act.