Department of Transportation(DOTr)

September 10, 2018 Dear Jeremiah Acena, I refer to my letter of Aug 22, 2018 03:02:25 PM about your request under Executive Order No. 2 (s. 2016) on Freedom of Information in the Executive Branch, for Research on Metro Manila Urban Rail. Per memorandum released by our Legal Affairs Office last 24 August 2018, any person who request information or documents in DOTr via the eFOI portal should "reasonably describe the information requested, and the reason for, or purpose of, the request for information." This also in accordance to E.O No. 2, the Freedom of Information Law. In order for us to work further on your request, we need more information from you regarding your query. Please state from what school you are, what is the purpose of the request, and to what extent you will use the information that you are requesting. During the period of us awaiting your reply, your request will be put on hold. If we do not receive a reply on or before Dec 03, 2018 07:52:51 AM, your request will be closed. We hope to hear from you at the soonest possible time. Thank you. Respectfully, DOTR-DM DOTR FOI Officer

September 18, 2018 Dear Jeremiah Acena, Greetings! Thank you for your request dated Aug 22, 2018 03:02:25 PM under Executive Order No. 2 (s. 2016) on Freedom of Information in the Executive Branch. You asked for Research on Metro Manila Urban Rail. Your FOI request is approved. I enclosed the MRT3 Financial Statements and other related agreements to the email address that you had provided. However, for the MRT7 documents, please take note that MRT 7 is a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Project being undertaken by a Concessionaire, which is the San Miguel Corporation (SMC). Any request of reports should be directly lodge to the SMC for their consideration. It should be noted that the Freedom of Information principle under Executive Order No. 2 dated 23 July 2016 (An Order Operationalizing 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) is not absolute since there are information and documents that the Government may still withhold from the public or any requesting person. Accordingly, in the case of Chavez vs. Presidential Commission on Good Government, the Supreme Court clearly emphasized that aside from national security matters, intelligence information, bank transactions (pursuant to Secrecy of Bank Deposit Act), trade or industrial secrets (pursuant to Intellectual Property Code and other related laws) are also exempt from compulsory disclosure. Trade Secrets may not be the subject of compulsory disclosure. By reason of their confidential and privileged character, if disclosed, would eventually exposed to unwarranted business competition with others who may imitate and market the same kind of products or industry in violation of proprietary rights. Relatively, in accordance with Memorandum dated 24 November 2016 (Inventory of Exceptions to Executive No. 2, Series of 2016 or the Freedom of Information Order) of Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, trade secrets, intellectual property, business, commercial, financial and other proprietary information are one of the exceptions to the public’s Right of Access to Information. This Office opines that the same contains trade and industrial secrets as well as non-disclosure provisions affecting the Intellectual Property Rights of certain individuals, consulting firms and institutions that conducted the plans, designs and surveys for the said projects. As such, those persons or entities possessed certain proprietary and economic rights on the “Feasibility Studies and other related documents” considering that its plans, designs and surveys thereof are not known to the general public and are peculiar to them. For this reason, the DOTr, being the recipient of the these documents has the right to safeguard its trade or industrial secrets against competitors of said individuals, consulting firms and institutions as well as the public. Otherwise, such information, if disclosed or disseminated can be illegally and unfairly utilized by other business competitors who, through their access to those business secrets, may use the same for their own private gain and to the irreparable prejudice of the owner of the said “documents.” If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Office of the President under Administrative Order No. 22 (s. 2011). Thank you. Respectfully, DOTR-DM DOTR