The Right to Information vs. Examination Confidentiality: A Delicate Balance

Antolin-Rosero v. Professional Regulation Commission, G.R. No. 220378, June 30, 2021

Imagine spending years preparing for a crucial professional exam, only to fail and be denied access to your test results. This was the reality for Hazel Ma. C. Antolin-Rosero, whose quest for transparency in the Philippine Certified Public Accountant (CPA) Board Exams spanned over two decades. Her case raises fundamental questions about the right to information and the confidentiality of professional exams, a dilemma that affects thousands of aspiring professionals across the country.

Hazel took the 1997 CPA Board Exams but did not pass. When she requested access to her examination documents to understand her failure, the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) and the Board of Accountancy (BOA) denied her request, citing confidentiality rules. This led to a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court, challenging the balance between an individual’s right to information and the need to maintain the integrity of professional examinations.

Legal Context: The Right to Information and Its Limits

The 1987 Philippine Constitution enshrines the right to information on matters of public concern under Section 7, Article III. This right is crucial for promoting transparency and accountability in government actions. However, the Constitution also states that this right is “subject to such limitations as may be provided by law,” recognizing that not all information should be freely accessible.

In the context of professional licensure exams, the PRC, established under Presidential Decree No. 223, has the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to ensure the fair and efficient administration of these exams. One such regulation is PRC Resolution No. 338, which prohibits the release of exam questions unless the test bank for each subject contains at least 2,000 questions. This rule aims to prevent the leakage of exam questions and maintain the integrity of the exams.

Additionally, Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, mandates that public documents must be accessible to the public during reasonable working hours. However, it also prohibits the disclosure of confidential information, which includes exam questions protected under PRC Resolution No. 338.

Case Breakdown: A 23-Year Legal Odyssey

Hazel’s journey began in 1997 when she failed the CPA Board Exams. Seeking to understand her performance, she requested her examination documents, including the test questions, her answer sheets, and the grading system used. The BOA initially allowed her to see her answer sheets but denied access to other documents, citing PRC Resolution No. 338.

Undeterred, Hazel filed a petition for mandamus with damages against the BOA and its members in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Her petition was amended twice, eventually including the PRC as a respondent. The RTC initially dismissed the petition, ruling that it had become moot since Hazel passed the CPA Board Exams in 1998. However, upon reconsideration, the RTC allowed the case to proceed, focusing on Hazel’s right to access the examination documents.

The case went through multiple appeals, reaching the Court of Appeals (CA) and eventually the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in its decision dated June 30, 2021, upheld the RTC’s dismissal of the petition for mandamus. The Court reasoned that the confidentiality of exam questions was a reasonable limitation on the right to information, necessary to preserve the integrity of the CPA Board Exams.

Key quotes from the Supreme Court’s decision include:

“The confidentiality of the test questions is a reasonable measure to secure the integrity of the CPA Board Exams as an accurate gauge in determining who among the examinees have the technical aptitude to practice the profession.”

“To allow access to the used test questions would seriously preempt and limit the examiners’ discretion as to what questions he or she should include in future examinations.”

Practical Implications: Navigating Future Requests

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case sets a precedent for how the right to information is balanced against the need for confidentiality in professional exams. Aspiring professionals who fail their exams and seek access to their examination documents must be aware of the legal framework governing such requests.

It is crucial for examinees to understand that while they have a constitutional right to information, this right is not absolute. The confidentiality of exam questions, as upheld by the Supreme Court, is a valid limitation that must be respected. Examinees should also be aware of Section 36 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Regulation and Practice of Professionals, which allows access to test papers or answer sheets within 30 days of the exam results’ release, but only for reconsideration on grounds of mechanical error or malfeasance.

Key Lessons:

• Understand the legal limitations on the right to information, especially regarding professional exams.
• Be aware of the specific regulations, such as PRC Resolution No. 338, that govern the confidentiality of exam questions.
• Utilize the provisions of Section 36 of the RRG if seeking a reconsideration of exam results based on mechanical error or malfeasance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the right to information under the Philippine Constitution?

The right to information, as stated in Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, allows citizens access to official records and documents on matters of public concern, subject to legal limitations.

Can I access my exam results if I fail a professional licensure exam?

You can access your test papers or answer sheets within 30 days of the exam results’ release, as per Section 36 of the RRG, but only for reconsideration on grounds of mechanical error or malfeasance.

Why are exam questions kept confidential?

Exam questions are kept confidential to prevent leakage and maintain the integrity of the exams, ensuring that future examinees do not gain an unfair advantage.

What should I do if I believe there was an error in my exam grading?

File a request for reconsideration within 10 days of accessing your test papers, as allowed by Section 36 of the RRG, citing specific grounds of mechanical error or malfeasance.

How can I prepare for a professional exam to avoid failing?

Thoroughly study the exam syllabus, use reputable review materials, and consider joining a review center to enhance your preparation and increase your chances of passing.

ASG Law specializes in administrative and regulatory law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.