In line with our constitutional right to be served with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency by those who are in the public office, as mandated under Art. XI sec 1 of the 1987 Constitution and the constitutional obligation of the State under Art. II sec 28 of the 1987 Constitution to adopt and implement a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest, even ordinary citizens, may create their own version of wikileaks.org to expose anomalies of the State or of major corporations.
However, the Constitution also expressly provided that such right and obligation is limited to those which will affect the public interest and to those reasonable conditions prescribed by law. Our freedom of expression is not without limitations.
Gathering, transmitting or losing information respecting the national defense from a warship, fort or naval or military establishment with intent to injure the Republic of the Philippines falls squarely within the elements of espionage which is considered as a crime against national security.
Malicious publication or causing to be published any official resolution or document without proper authority, or before they have been published officially is also punishable as an unlawful use of means of publication under Art. 154 of the Revised Penal Code.
Other restrictions on the access to information also include other national security matters and intelligence information, trade secrets and banking transactions and other confidential information.
But to ensure justice and fair play, there are various tests to determine the validity of government intervention to freedom of expression, namely: 1) Clear and Present Danger Rule, where such words are used in such circumstances that will bring about the substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent; or 2) Dangerous Tendency Rule, where the words will create a dangerous tendency of an evil which the State has a right to prevent; or 3) Balancing of Interest Rule, where the courts will determine which of the two conflicting interests between national security and abridgement of freedom of speech will demand greater protection under the particular circumstances.
On the other hand, anomalies which involve those acts expressly provided as graft and corrup practice under sec. 3 of R.A. 3019, as amended, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and violations of R.A. 1379 or an Act Declaring Forfeiture of Ill-gotten Wealth of Public Officers and Employees should be revealed as well as when the notion of a separate juridical personality is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend a crime, or is even used as a device to defeat the labor laws, since any person, whether natural or juridical who knowingly allows or assents to such acts, is also held liable under Philippine laws and jurisprudence.
In sum, although ordinary citizens are mandated by the Constitution and statutory laws to expose anomalies, such freedom or right however, should only be within the reasonable conditions provided by law and of public interest, since to go beyond what is authorized, allows any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security was violated or threatened, to file a petition for writ of habeas data as a remedy against the unlawful act or omisson of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
