0% found this document useful (0 votes)
78 views4 pages

P Ol I T Ic A L L Aw

The Supreme Court received requests for copies of the 2008 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) and Personal Data Sheet (PDS) or Curriculum Vitae (CV) of its Justices. While Justices expressed valid concerns about possible illicit motives for the requests and publication of personal information, the Constitution establishes that SALNs are a matter of public concern and interest that officials have a duty to disclose in the manner provided by law. As such, while officials can regulate how records are accessed, they cannot prohibit access altogether, as public office is a public trust.

Uploaded by

DheimEres
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
78 views4 pages

P Ol I T Ic A L L Aw

The Supreme Court received requests for copies of the 2008 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) and Personal Data Sheet (PDS) or Curriculum Vitae (CV) of its Justices. While Justices expressed valid concerns about possible illicit motives for the requests and publication of personal information, the Constitution establishes that SALNs are a matter of public concern and interest that officials have a duty to disclose in the manner provided by law. As such, while officials can regulate how records are accessed, they cannot prohibit access altogether, as public office is a public trust.

Uploaded by

DheimEres
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

p ol i t ic a l l aw

119

RE: REQUEST FOR COPY OF 2008 STATEMENT OF ASSETS,


LIABILITIES AND NETWORTH [SALN] AND PERSONAL DATA
SHEET OR CURRICULUM VITAE OF THE JUSTICES OF THE
SUPREME COURT AND OFFICERS
AND EMPLOYEES OF THE JUDICIARY
A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC, 13 June 2012, EN BANC (Mendoza, J.)
In accordance with Section 17, Article IX of the 1987 Philippine Const
itution, there
is a duty on the part of the members of the judiciary to disclose their SALNs a
nd other personal
documents, being a matter of public concern and interest, as long as it is mad
e in the manner
provided by law.
The Court received two letters from Rowena C. Paraan and Karol M.
Ilagan
requesting for copies of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth
(SALN)
and the Personal Data Sheet (PDS) or the Curriculum Vitae (CV) of its Just
ices
for the year 2008 for the purpose of updating their database of informatio
n on
government officials. The special committee created by the Supreme Cour
t (SC)
to review the request issued a Memorandum recommending the creation
of a
Committee on Public Disclosure to take over the functions of the Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA) with respect to requests for copies of SAL
N
and other personal documents of members of the Judiciary. Meanwhile, se
veral
requests for copies of the SALN and other personal documents of the Just
ices of
the Court, the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Sandiganbayan (SB) were fil
ed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Supreme Court Justices are mandated by law to
release
their SALN to the public
HELD:

Section 7 of Article III of the Constitution is relevant in the issue of


public
disclosure of SALN and other documents of public officials, which provide
s that
the right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall
be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pert
aining
to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government resear
ch data
used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject
to such
limitations as may be provided by law.
Emphasizing the import and meaning of the foregoing constitution
al
provision, the Court, in the landmark case of Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., elu
cidated

u s t l aw l aw r e v i e w, v ol lv i i , n o . 1 , n o v e m be r 2 0 1 2
recent jurisprudence

120

that the right to information goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional polic
ies
of full public disclosure and honesty in the public service. It is meant to en
hance
the widening role of the citizenry in governmental decision-making as well
as in
checking abuse in government. The importance of the said right was pragm
atically
explicated that the incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recog
nition
of the fundamental role of free exchange of information in a democracy. Th
ere
can be no realistic perception by the public of the nations problems, nor a
meaningful democratic decision-making if they are denied access to inform
ation
of general interest. Information is needed to enable the members of societ
y to
cope with the exigencies of the times. However, restrictions on access to ce
rtain
records may be imposed by law.
Thus, while public concern like public interest eludes exact defini
tion
and has been said to embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the publi
c may
want to know, either because such matters directly affect their lives, or sim
ply
because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen, t
he
Constitution itself, under Section 17, Article XI, has classified the informati
on
disclosed in the SALN as a matter of public concern and interest. In other
words,
a duty to disclose sprang from the right to know. Both of constitution
al
origin, the former is a command while the latter is a permission. Hence, th
ere is
a duty on the part of members of the government to disclose their SALNs t
o the
public in the manner provided by law.
In the case at bar, the Court notes the valid concerns of the other
magistrates regarding the possible illicit motives of some individuals in th
eir
requests for access to such personal information and their publication. Ho
wever,
custodians of public documents must not concern themselves with the moti
ves,

reasons and objects of the persons seeking access to the records. The mor
al
or material injury which their misuse might inflict on others is the requesto
rs
responsibility and lookout. While public officers in the custody or control of
public records have the discretion to regulate the manner in which records
may
be inspected, examined or copied by interested persons, such discretion do
es not
carry with it the authority to prohibit access, inspection, examination, or co
pying
of the records. After all, public office is a public trust.

u s t l aw l aw r e v i e w, v ol lv i i , n o . 1 , n o v e m be r 2 0 1 2

You might also like