Office of the Solicitor General(OSG)

Looking for information on the above annulment case between Frelyn and Mark Acebuche from regional court 8th judicial region branch 21 Laoang N. Samar

Jan 30, 2020

Dear Ross Robinson,

Thank you for your request dated Jan 29, 2020 10:44:33 PM under Executive Order No. 2 (s. 2016) on Freedom of Information in the Executive Branch, for Declaration of nullity of a void marriage Case # 1954.

We received your request on Jan 29, 2020 10:44:33 PM and will respond on or before Feb 19, 2020 10:44:33 PM, in accordance with the Executive Order's implementing rules and regulations.

Should you have any questions regarding your request, kindly contact me using the reply function on the eFOI portal at https://www.foi.gov.ph/requests/aglzfmVmb2ktcGhyHQsSB0NvbnRlbnQiEE9TRy0xMjg0NzMwNzc1NTcM, for request with ticket number #OSG-128473077557.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Edsel Camazo
FOI Officer

February 11, 2020

MR. ROSS ROBINSON
196 Old Onondaga Road East
[email protected]. 

Re: 	eFOI request dated January 29, 2020 
(Tracking No. OSG-128473077557)

Dear Mr. Robinson:

This pertains to the eFOI request that you sent to the Office of the Solicitor General at 10:44 p.m. of January 29, 2020, in which you stated that you are “looking for information on the… annulment case between Frelyn and Mark Acebuche from regional trial court 8th judicial region branch 21 Laoang N. Samar.”

The OSG is constrained to deny your request for information on the following grounds:

(1)	Under Section 9(a) of E.O. No. 2 dated July 23, 2016, “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,” and Paragraph 1.2, Section 4 of the Freedom of Information People’s Manual, the request shall “reasonably describe the information requested and the reason for, or purpose of, the FOI request.” Your eFOI request fails to state a reason for the request. 

(2)	The information you requested (i.e., information on the annulment case between Frelyn and Mark Acebuche) would necessarily reveal the marital status of Frelyn and Mark Acebuche. R.A. No. 10173, the Data Privacy Act of 2012, considers marital status as a sensitive personal information  that cannot be processed, except in the cases provided under Section 13 of the law, to wit:

"(a) The data subject has given his or her consent, specific to the purpose prior to the processing, or in the case of privileged information, all parties to the exchange have given their consent prior to processing;

(b) The processing of the same is provided for by existing laws and regulations: Provided, That such regulatory enactments guarantee the protection of the sensitive personal information and the privileged information: Provided, further, That the consent of the data subjects are not required by law or regulation permitting the processing of the sensitive personal information or the privileged information;

(c) The processing is necessary to protect the life and health of the data subject or another person, and the data subject is not legally or physically able to express his or her consent prior to the processing;

(d) The processing is necessary to achieve the lawful and noncommercial objectives of public organizations and their associations: Provided, That such processing is only confined and related to the bona fide members of these organizations or their associations: Provided, further, That the sensitive personal information are not transferred to third parties: Provided, finally, That consent of the data subject was obtained prior to processing;

(e) The processing is necessary for purposes of medical treatment, is carried out by a medical practitioner or a medical treatment institution, and an adequate level of protection of personal information is ensured; or

(f) The processing concerns such personal information as is necessary for the protection of lawful rights and interests of natural or legal persons in court proceedings, or the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims, or when provided to government or public authority."

You have not shown that the circumstances under Section 13 of R.A. No. 10173 are present.

(3)	Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, on which E.O. No. 2 is based, provides that “[t]he right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official 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, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”  Thus, access to information under E.O. No. 2 is granted to “every Filipino”  or “any citizen of the Republic of the Philippines.”  Based on the proof of identification (i.e., your Canadian Passport No. HM045402) that you submitted together with your eFOI request, you are not a Filipino citizen.

Significantly, even as court records are considered public records under Section 2, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court, their inspection must be done “under the supervision of the clerk having custody of such records” and the court has the discretion “in any special case, [to forbid] their publicity, in the interest of morality or decency.” 

Thus, for the reasons discussed above, your eFOI request dated January 29, 2020 is hereby denied. Pursuant to Paragraph 1, Section 5 of the Freedom of Information People’s Manual, you may file a motion for reconsideration within fifteen days from notice of this denial.

Please be guided accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

Ma. Teresa Ana V. Bermejo
State Solicitor II