The right to information vs the disinformation scourge

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

In the 1987 Constitution the right to information is designed to be a potent instrument for journalism and academic inquiry. Indeed, this fundamental right is meant to enable citizens to verify, contest, and ultimately trust the exercise of political power. That constitutional intent was given doctrinal clarity in Chavez vs Public Estates Authority (G.R. No 133250, 9 July 2002).

Let’s start with the scope of the constitutional right to information:

Article III, Section 7 mandates the people’s right to information on matters of public concern―

“The 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.”

Article II, Section 28 establishes the State policy of full transparency in all transactions involving public interest―

“Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.”

As per the Supreme Court in the Chavez decision:

“These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in the operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to exercise effectively other constitutional rights. These twin provisions are essential to the exercise of freedom of expression. If the government does not disclose its official acts, transactions and decisions to citizens, whatever citizens say, even if expressed without any restraint, will be speculative and amount to nothing.”

In principle, the primacy of the right to information should have been a settled matter. In practice, it has not been at all. The recent testimony of the Anti-Money Laundering Council in the hearing of the Committee on Justice on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte is evidence of this painful reality. The gap between recognition and enforcement has become one of the quiet drivers of distrust in our information ecosystem—and a fertile condition for disinformation to thrive.

Note that disinformation does not gain traction simply because falsehoods exist. It gains traction when verification is costly, delayed, or inaccessible. In such an environment, people fall back on heuristics rather than evidence. The right to information is supposed to lower the cost of verification. When citizens can access official records, contracts, data, and decision-making processes in a timely and usable form, the space for speculation narrows. When they cannot, speculation fills the void.

From the standpoint of purveyors of disinformation, that grey zone is valuable terrain. It is easier to distort a partial record than a complete one. It is easier to insinuate wrongdoing when documentation is inaccessible. It is easier to sustain conspiracy narratives when official accounts cannot be independently verified. In other words, weak enforcement of access rights does not merely fail to counter disinformation—it actively conditions the environment in which disinformation becomes persuasive.

What would stronger enforcement of the right to information look like in practice? At the minimum, government agencies would routinely publish datasets, contracts, and decisions in accessible formats, thus reducing the need for individual requests. Exceptions would be narrowly defined and justified with specificity, and subject to independent review. Most importantly, compliance would be measurable and enforceable, not left to administrative goodwill.

None of this guarantees the elimination of disinformation. Falsehoods will continue to circulate, and motivated actors will continue to exploit them. But stronger enforcement of the right to information reduces the space in which unverifiable claims can flourish. It provides journalists, researchers, and citizens with the tools to contest false narratives more effectively. And it signals, through consistent practice, that the state is willing to subject itself to scrutiny.

As fittingly articulated by the Supreme Court in the Chavez decision:

“Armed with the right information, citizens can participate in public discussions leading to the formulation of government policies and their effective implementation. An informed citizenry is essential to the existence and proper functioning of any democracy.”