The Supreme
Court has addressed the matter of SALN disclosure when it was itself confronted
with numerous requests for the copies of the Statement of Assets,
Liabilities and Networth (SALN) of its own Justices. Significantly,
the requests for the SALN were made as early as 2009 but the decision only came
out in June 2012 about a month after the Senate impeachment court ruled against
Chief Justice Renato Corona which involved, among others, issues on his SALN.
In
its Decision, the Supreme Court allowed the disclosure or public access to the
SALN of its Justices in keeping with the constitutional right of the people on
matters of public concern. According to the Court, while the inspection,
examination or copying of the SALNs is subject to regulation, access per se to such documents cannot be
altogether deprived. The disclosure of the SALN is not discretionary but
mandatory on the part of the public officers concerned.
The
pertinent part of the Decision is quoted as follows:
Corollary
to the above pronouncements, Section 7, Article III of the Constitution is
relevant in the issue of public disclosure of SALN and other documents of
public officials, viz:
Sec.
7. 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.
Emphasizing
the import and meaning of the foregoing constitutional provision, the Court, in
the landmark case of Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., elucidated on
the import of the right to information in this wise:
The
cornerstone of this republican system of government is delegation of power by
the people to the State. In this system, governmental agencies and institutions
operate within the limits of the authority conferred by the people. Denied
access to information on the inner workings of government, the citizenry can
become prey to the whims and caprices of those to whom the power had been
delegated. The postulate of public office is a public trust,
institutionalized in the Constitution to protect the people from abuse of
governmental power, would certainly be mere empty words if access to such
information of public concern is denied x x x.
x
x x The right to information goes hand-in-hand with the
constitutional policies of full public disclosure and honesty in the public
service. It is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in
governmental decision-making as well as in checking abuse in government. (Emphases
supplied)
In Baldoza
v. Dimaano, the importance of the said right was pragmatically
explicated:
The
incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recognition of the
fundamental role of free exchange of information in a democracy. There
can be no realistic perception by the public of the nation’s problems, nor a
meaningful democratic decision-making if they are denied access to information
of general interest. Information is needed to enable the members of
society to cope with the exigencies of the times. As has been aptly
observed: “Maintaining the flow of such information depends on protection for
both its acquisition and its dissemination since, if either process is
interrupted, the flow inevitably ceases.” However, restrictions on access to
certain records may be imposed by law.
Thus,
while “public concern” like “public interest” eludes exact definition and has
been said to embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to
know, either because such matters directly affect their lives, or simply
because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen, the Constitution itself, under Section 17,
Article XI, has classified the information 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 constitutional origin, the former is a command while the latter is a
permission. Hence, the duty on the part of members of the government
to disclose their SALNs to the public in the manner provided by law:
Section
17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often
thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his
assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the
Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court,
the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers
of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be
disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law. [Emphasis
supplied]
This
Constitutional duty is echoed and particularized in a statutory creation of
Congress: Republic Act No. 6713, also known as "Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees":
Section
8. Statements and Disclosure. - Public officials and employees
have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and
the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and
financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of
unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.
(A)
Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. - All public
officials and employees, except those who serve in an honorary capacity,
laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall file under oath their Statement
of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests and
Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children under
eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.
The
two documents shall contain information on the following:
(a)
real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value;
(b)
personal property and acquisition cost;
(c)
all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks,
bonds, and the like;
(d)
liabilities, and;
(e)
all business interests and financial connections.
The
documents must be filed:
(a)
within thirty (30) days after assumption of office;
(b)
on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and
(c)
within thirty (30) days after separation from the service.
All
public officials and employees required under this section to file the
aforestated documents shall also execute, within thirty (30) days from the date
of their assumption of office, the necessary authority in favor of the
Ombudsman to obtain from all appropriate government agencies, including the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents as may show their assets,
liabilities, net worth, and also their business interests and financial
connections in previous years, including, if possible, the year when they first
assumed any office in the Government.
Husband
and wife who are both public officials or employees may file the required
statements jointly or separately.
The
Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of Business
Interests and Financial Connections shall be filed by:
(1)
Constitutional and national elective officials, with the national office of the
Ombudsman;
(2)
Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme
Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator; and all national executive
officials with the Office of the President.
(3)
Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their
respective regions;
(4)
Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with
the Office of the President, and those below said ranks, with the Deputy
Ombudsman in their respective regions; and
(5)
All other public officials and employees, defined in Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, with the Civil Service Commission.
(B)
Identification and disclosure of relatives. - It shall be the duty of every
public official or employee to identify and disclose, to the best of his
knowledge and information, his relatives in the Government in the form, manner
and frequency prescribed by the Civil Service Commission. (Emphasis supplied)
Like
all constitutional guarantees, however, the right to information, with its
companion right of access to official records, is not absolute. While
providing guaranty for that right, the Constitution also provides that the
people’s right to know is limited to “matters of public concern” and is
further subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Jurisprudence has
provided the following limitations to that right: (1) national
security matters and intelligence information; (2) trade secrets and banking
transactions; (3) criminal matters; and (4) other confidential information such
as confidential or classified information officially known to public officers
and employees by reason of their office and not made available to the public as
well as diplomatic correspondence, closed door Cabinet meetings and executive
sessions of either house of Congress, and the internal deliberations of the
Supreme Court.xxx
xxxx
Considering the foregoing legal precepts vis-à-vis the various requests made, the
Court finds no cogent reason to deny the public access to the SALN, PDS
and CV of the Justices of the Court and other magistrates of the Judiciary
subject, of course, to the limitations and prohibitions provided in R.A. No. 6713,
its implementing rules and regulations, and in the guidelines set forth in the
decretal portion.
The
Court notes the valid concerns of the other magistrates regarding the possible
illicit motives of some individuals in their requests for access to such
personal information and their publication. However, custodians of public documents must not concern
themselves with the motives, reasons and objects of the persons seeking access
to the records. The moral or material injury which their misuse might
inflict on others is the requestor’s responsibility and lookout. Any
publication is made subject to the consequences of the law. 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 does not carry with it the authority to
prohibit access, inspection, examination, or copying of the records. After
all, public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must,
at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and
justice, and lead modest lives.(A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC, June 13, 2012)
