3/30/2015 A.M.No.0986SC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/0986SC.htm 1/15

RepublicofthePhilippinesSupremeCourt

Manila

ENBANCRE:REQUESTFORCOPYOF2008STATEMENTOFASSETS,LIABILITIESANDNETWORTH[SALN]ANDPERSONALDATASHEETORCURRICULUMVITAEOFTHEJUSTICESOFTHESUPREMECOURTANDOFFICERSANDEMPLOYEESOFTHEJUDICIARY.

xxRE:REQUESTOFPHILIPPINECENTERFORINVESTIGATIVEJOURNALISM[PCIJ]FORTHE2008STATEMENTOFASSETS,LIABILITIESANDNETWORTH[SALN]ANDPERSONALDATASHEETSOFTHECOURTOFAPPEALSJUSTICES.

A.M.No.0986SCA.M.No.09807CAPresent:CARPIO,VELASCO,JR.,LEONARDODECASTRO,BRION,PERALTA,BERSAMIN,DELCASTILLO,ABAD,VILLARAMA,JR.,PEREZ,MENDOZA,SERENO,REYES,andPERLASBERNABE,JJ.Promulgated:June13,2012

xxRESOLUTION

MENDOZA,J.:

Inaletter,[1]

datedJuly30,2009,RowenaC.Paraan,ResearchDirectorof thePhilippineCenter for InvestigativeJournalism (PCIJ), soughtcopiesof theStatementofAssets,LiabilitiesandNetworth(SALN)oftheJusticesofthisCourtfortheyear2008.ShealsorequestedforcopiesofthePersonalDataSheet(PDS)ortheCurriculumVitae(CV)oftheJusticesofthisCourtforthepurposeofupdatingtheirdatabaseofinformationongovernmentofficials.

3/30/2015 A.M.No.0986SC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/0986SC.htm 2/15

In herLetter,[2]

datedAugust 13, 2009,KarolM. Ilagan, a researcherwriter also of thePCIJ, likewise sought for copiesof theSALNandPDSof the Justicesof theCourtofAppeals(CA),forthesameabovestatedpurpose.

The two requestswereordered consolidatedby theCourt onAugust 18, 2009.[3]

On thesameday, theCourt resolved tocreateaspecialcommittee(Committee) to review thepolicyonrequestsforSALNandPDSandothersimilardocuments,andtorecommendappropriateactionon

suchrequests.[4]

OnNovember23,2009,theCommittee,chairedbythenAssociateJusticeMinitaV.Chico

Nazario submitted its Memorandum[5]

dated November 18, 2009 and its Resolution[6]

datedNovember16,2009,recommendingthecreationofCommitteeonPublicDisclosurethatwould,inessence, takeover the functionsof theOfficeof theCourtAdministrator (OCA)with respect torequests for copies of, or access to, SALN, and other personal documents of members of theJudiciary.

Meanwhile, several requests forcopiesof theSALNandotherpersonaldocumentsof the

JusticesofthisCourt,theCAandtheSandiganbayan(SB)werefiled.Inparticular,theserequestsincludethe:

(1) SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM,[7]

dated September 10, 2009, issued byAtty.E.H.Amat,ActingDirector,GeneralInvestigationBureauBoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsman, directing the Office of Administrative Services, Supreme Court tosubmit two (2) copies of the SALN of Associate Justice Roland B. Jurado of theSandiganbayan for the years 19972008, his latest PDS, his Oath of Office,appointmentpapers,andservicerecords.

(2)LETTER,[8]

dated April 21, 2010, of the Philippine Public TransparencyReporting Project, asking permission to be able to access and copy the SALN ofofficialsandemployeesofthelowercourts.

(3)LETTER,[9]

filedonAugust24,2011,byMarvinLim,seekingcopiesoftheSALN of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio,PresbiteroJ.Velasco,Jr.,TeresitaLeonardoDeCastro,ArturoD.Brion,DiosdadoM.Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S.Villarama,Jr.,JosePortugalPerez,JoseC.Mendoza,andMariaLourdesP.A.Sereno.

(4) LETTER,[10]

dated August 26, 2011, of Rawnna Crisostomo, Reporter,GMANewsandPublicAffairsalsorequestingforcopiesoftheSALNofChiefJusticeRenatoC. Corona,Associate JusticesAntonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.,Teresita LeonardoDe Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P.Bersamin,MarianoC.DelCastillo,RobertoA.Abad,MartinS.Villarama, Jr., JosePortugal Perez, Jose C.Mendoza, andMaria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, for purposes ofproducingastoryontransparencyandgovernance,andupdatingtheirdatabase.

(5)LETTER,[11]

datedOctober11,2011,ofBalaS.Tamayo,requestingfora

3/30/2015 A.M.No.0986SC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/0986SC.htm 3/15

copyofthe2010SALNofanyJusticeoftheSupremeCourtaswellasacopyoftheJudiciaryDevelopmentFund,forpurposesofhersecuringahugepercentageinfinalexaminationinConstitutionalLawIattheSanBedaCollegeAlabangSchoolofLawand for her study on the state of the Philippine Judiciary, particularly the manner,nature and disposition of the resources under the JDF and how these have evolvedthroughtheyears.

(6)LETTERS,alldatedDecember19,2011,ofHarveyS.Keh,LeadConvenor

ofKayaNatin!MovementforGoodGovernanceandEthicalLeadership,addressedto

ChiefJusticeRenatoC.Corona,[12]

AssociateJusticesPresbiteroJ.Velasco,Jr.,[13]

Teresita LeonardoDe Castro,[14]

Arturo D. Brion,[15]

Diosdado M. Peralta,[16]

MarianoC.DelCastillo,[17]

JosePortugalPerez,[18]

andMariaLourdesP.A.Sereno,[19]

requestingforcopiesoftheirSALNandseekingpermissiontopostthesameontheirwebsiteforthegeneralpublic.

(7)LETTER,[20]

dated December 21, 2011, of GlendaM. Gloria, ExecutiveDirector, Newsbreak, seeking copies of the SALN of the Supreme Court Justicescovering various years, for the purpose of the stories they intend to put on theirwebsiteregardingtheSupremeCourtandtheJudiciary.

(8) LETTERS, all dated January 3, 2012, of PhillipeManalang of Unlimited

Productions, Inc., addressed to Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.,[21]

Teresita LeonardoDe Castro,[22]

Mariano C. Del Castillo[23]

and Jose Portugal

Perez,[24]

and Atty. Enriqueta EsguerraVidal, Clerk of Court, Supreme Court[25]

requestingforcopiesof theSALNof theSupremeCourtJusticesfor theyears2010and2011.

(9) LETTER,[26]

dated December 19, 2011, of MalouMangahas, ExecutiveDirector,PCIJ,requestingforcopiesoftheSALN,PDSorCVsoftheJusticesoftheSupremeCourtfromtheyeartheywereappointedtothepresent.

(10)SUBPOENAADTESTIFICANDUMETDUCESTECUM,[27]

issuedonJanuary17,2012,bytheSenate,sittingasanImpeachmentCourt,inconnectionwithImpeachmentCaseNo. 0022011 againstChief JusticeRenatoC.Corona, requiringtheClerkofCourt,amongothers,tobringwithhertheSALNofChiefJusticeRenatoC.Coronafortheyears2002to2011.

(11)LETTER,[28]

dated January16,2012,ofNiloKaNiloH.Baculo,Sr.,requesting copiesof theSALNof theSupremeCourt Justices for theyears2008 to2011,forhisuseasamediapractitioner.

(12)LETTER,[29]

datedJanuary25,2012,ofRoxanneEscaroAlegreofGMANews, requesting for copies of the SALN of the Supreme Court Justices for thenetworks story on the political dynamics and process of decisionmaking in theSupremeCourt.

(13)LETTER,[30]

datedJanuary27,2012,ofDavidJudeSta.Ana,Head,NewsOperations,News 5, requesting for copies of the 20102011 SALNof the SupremeCourt Justices for use as reference materials for stories that will be aired in thenewscastsoftheirtelevisionnetwork.

3/30/2015 A.M.No.0986SC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/0986SC.htm 4/15

(14)LETTER,[31]

dated January31, 2012, ofMichaelG.Aguinaldo,DeputyExecutive Secretary for Legal Affairs, Malacaang, addressed to Atty. EnriquetaEsguerraVidal, Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, seeking her comments and

recommendationonHouseBillNo.5694,[32]

toaidintheirdeterminationofwhetherthemeasureshouldbecertifiedasurgent.

(15) Undated LETTER[33]

of Benise P. Balaoing, Intern of Rappler.com, anewswebsite,seekingcopiesofthe2010SALNoftheJusticesoftheCourtandtheCAfor thepurposeof completing itsdatabase inpreparation for its coverageof the2013elections.

(16)LETTER,[34]

datedApril 27, 2012, ofMariaA.Ressa,ChiefExecutiveOfficer and ExecutiveOfficer and Executive Editor ofRappler, Inc., requesting forcopies of the current SALN of all the Justices of the Supreme Court, the Court ofAppeals and the Sandiganbayan also for the purpose of completing its database inpreparationforitscoverageofthe2013elections.

(17) LETTER,[35]

dated May 2, 2012, of Mary Ann A. Seir, JuniorResearcher,NewsResearch Section,GMANews and PublicAffairs, requesting forcopiesoftheSALNofChiefJusticeRenatoC.CoronaandtheAssociateJusticesofthe SupremeCourt for the calendar year 2011 for the networks use in their publicaffairsprograms.

(18)LETTER,[36]

datedMay4,2012,ofEdwardGabud,Sr.,DeskEditorofSolarNetwork,Inc.,requestingforcopiesofthe2011SALNofalltheJusticesoftheSupremeCourt.

(19)LETTER,[37]

datedMay 30, 2012, of Gerry Lirio, SeniorNews Editor,TV5requestingforcopiesoftheSALNoftheJusticesoftheCourtforthelastthree(3) years for the purpose of a special report it would produce as a result of theimpeachmentandsubsequentconvictionofChiefJusticeRenatoC.Corona.

(20)LETTER,[38]

datedMay31,2012,ofAtty.JoselitoP.Fangon,AssistantOmbudsman,FieldInvestigationOffice,OfficeoftheOmbudsman,requestingfor1]certifiedcopiesoftheSALNofformerChiefJusticeRenatoC.Coronafortheyears20022011, as well as 2] a certificate of his yearly compensation, allowances, andbonuses,alsofortheyears20022011.

(21)LETTER,[39]

datedJune8,2012,ofTheaMarieS.Pias,requestingacopyoftheSALNofanypresentSupremeCourtJustice,forthepurposeofcompletinghergradeinLegalPhilosophyattheSanBedaCollegeofLaw.

Pursuant to Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution,[40]

the Court, upon

recommendation of the OCA, issued its Resolution[41]

dated October 13, 2009, denying thesubpoenaducestecumfortheSALNsandpersonaldocumentsofJusticeRolandB.Juradoofthe

3/30/2015 A.M.No.0986SC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/0986SC.htm 5/15

SB.The resolution also directed theOmbudsman to forward to theCourt any complaint and/orderogatoryreportagainstJusticeRolandB.Jurado,inconsonancewiththedoctrinelaiddownin

Caiobes v. Ombudsman.[42]

Upon compliance by the Ombudsman, the Court, in its

Resolution[43]

datedFebruary2,2010,docketedthismatterasaregularadministrativecomplaint.[44]

Also, considering the development in Impeachment Case No. 0022011 against Chief

JusticeRenatoC.Corona,theCourt,onJanuary24,2012,resolvedtoconsidermoottheSubpoena

AdTestificandumEtDucesTecumissuedbytheSenateimpeachmentcourt.[45]

In resolving the remainingpending incidents, theCourt,onJanuary17,2012required the

CA, the SB, the CTA, the Philippine Judges Association, the Metropolitan and City JudgesAssociation of the Philippines, the Philippine Trial Judges League, and the PhilippineWomenJudgesAssociation(PWJA),tofiletheirrespectivecomments.

Inessence,itistheconsensusoftheJusticesoftheabovementionedcourtsandthevariousjudgesassociationsthatwhiletheConstitutionholdsdeartherightofthepeopletohaveaccesstomatters of concern, theConstitution also holds sacred the independence of the Judiciary. Thus,althoughnodirectopposition to thedisclosureofSALNandotherpersonaldocuments isbeingexpressed, it is theuniformpositionof thesaidmagistratesand thevarious judgesassociationsthat thedisclosuremustbemade inaccordwith theguidelines setby theCourtandunder suchcircumstancesthatwouldnotunderminetheindependenceoftheJudiciary.

Afterareviewofthemattersathand,itisapparentthatthematterraisedforconsiderationof

theCourtisnotanovelone.Asearlyas1989,theCourthadtheopportunitytoruleonthematter

of SALN disclosure in Re: Request of Jose M. Alejandrino,[46]

where the Court denied therequest of Atty. Alejandrino for the SALNs of the Justices of the Court due to a plainlydiscernible improper motive. Aggrieved by an adverse decision of the Court, he accused theJustices of patent partiality and alluded that they enjoyed an earlyChristmas as a result of thedecisionpromulgatedbytheCourt.Atty.AlejandrinoevensingledouttheJusticeswhotookpartin thedecisionandconspicuouslyexcludedtheotherswho,foronereasonoranother,abstainedfromvotingtherein.WhiletheCourtexpresseditswillingnesstohavetheClerkofCourtfurnishcopiesof theSALNofanyof itsmembers, ithowever,noted that requests forSALNsmustbemade under circumstances that must not endanger, diminish or destroy the independence, andobjectivity of the members of the Judiciary in the performance of their judicial functions, orexposethemtorevengeforadversedecisions,kidnapping,extortion,blackmailorotheruntowardincidents.Thus,inordertogivemeaningtotheconstitutionalrightofthepeopletohaveaccesstoinformationonmattersofpublicconcern, theCourt laiddowntheguidelines tobeobservedforrequestsmade.Thus:

1. All requests for copies of statements of assets and liabilities of any Justice orJudge shall be filed with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court or with the CourtAdministrator,asthecasemaybe(Section8[A][2],R.A.6713),andshallstatethepurposeoftherequest.

3/30/2015 A.M.No.0986SC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/0986SC.htm 6/15

2.TheindependenceoftheJudiciaryisconstitutionallyasimportantastherightto

information which is subject to the limitations provided by law. Under specificcircumstances,theneedforfairandjustadjudicationoflitigationsmayrequireacourttobe wary of deceptive requests for information which shall otherwise be freely available.Wheretherequestisdirectlyorindirectlytracedtoalitigant,lawyer,orinterestedpartyinacasependingbefore thecourt,orwhere thecourt is reasonablycertain thatadisputedmatter will come before it under circumstances from which it may, also reasonably, beassumedthattherequestisnotmadeingoodfaithandforalegitimatepurpose,buttofishforinformationand,withtheimplicitthreatofitsdisclosure,toinfluenceadecisionortowarnthecourtoftheunpleasantconsequencesofanadversejudgment,therequestmaybedenied.

3.Whereadecisionhasjustbeenrenderedbyacourtagainstthepersonmakingthe

request and the request for informationappears tobea fishingexpedition intended toharassorgetbackattheJudge,therequestmaybedenied.

4.Inthefewareaswherethereisextortionbyrebelelementsorwherethenatureof

theirworkexposesJudges toassaults against theirpersonal safety, the request shallnotonlybedeniedbutshouldbeimmediatelyreportedtothemilitary.

5.Thereasonforthedenialshallbegiveninallcases.

Inthe1992caseofRe:RequestforCertifiedTrueCopiesoftheSwornStatementsofAssets,

LiabilitiesandNetworth,[47]

therequestwasdeniedbecausetheCourtfoundthatthepurposeoftherequestwastofishforinformationagainstcertainmembersoftheJudiciary.Inthesamecase,theCourtresolvedtoauthorizetheCourtAdministratortoactonallrequestsforcopiesofSALN,as well as other papers on file with the 201 Personnel Records of lower court judges andpersonnel, provided that there was a court subpoena duly signed by the Presiding Judge in apending criminal case against a judge or personnel of the Judiciary. The Court added that forrequests made by the Office of the Ombudsman, the same must be personally signed by theOmbudsmanhimself.Essentially,theCourtresolvedthat,inallinstances,requestsmustconformtotheguidelinessetintheAlejandrinocaseandthatthedocumentsorpapersrequestedformustbe relevant and material to the case being tried by the court or under investigation by theOmbudsman.

In1993,theCourt,inRequestforCertifiedTrueCopiesoftheSwornStatementsofAssets,

LiabilitiesandNetWorthofformerJudgeLuisD.Dictado,[48]

ruledthattheOCAmayextenditsgrantedauthoritytoretiredmembersoftheJudiciary.

WithrespecttoinvestigationsconductedbytheOfficeoftheOmbudsmaninacriminalcase

against a judge, theCourt, inMaceda v.Vasquez,[49]

upheld its constitutional duty to exercisesupervisionoverallinferiorcourtsandruledthataninvestigationbytheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanwithoutprior referralof the criminal case to theCourtwas anencroachmentof a constitutionalduty that ran afoul to the doctrine of separation of powers. This pronouncement was furtheramplifiedintheabovementionedcaseofCaiobes.Thus:

xxxUnderSection6,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itistheSupremeCourtwhich

is vested with exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel.Prescinding from thispremise, theOmbudsmancannotdetermine for itself andby itselfwhether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves anadministrativematter.TheOmbudsmanisdutyboundtohaveallcasesagainstjudgesandcourt personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme Court for determination as towhetheranadministrativeaspectisinvolvedtherein.Thisruleshouldholdtrueregardlessof whether an administrative case based on the act subject of the complaint before the

3/30/2015 A.M.No.0986SC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/0986SC.htm 7/15

Ombudsman is already pending with the Court. For, aside from the fact that theOmbudsmanwouldnotknowofthismatterunlessheisinformedofit,heshouldgiveduerespect for and recognition of the administrative authority of the Court, because indeterminingwhetheranadministrativematterisinvolved,theCourtpassesuponnotonlyadministrativeliabilitiesbutalsoadministrativeconcerns,asisclearlyconveyedinthecaseofMacedav.Vasquez(221SCRA464[1993]).

TheOmbudsmancannotdictateto,andbindtheCourt,toitsfindingsthatthecase

beforeitdoesordoesnothaveadministrativeimplications.TodosoistodeprivetheCourtof the exercise of its administrative prerogatives and to arrogate unto itself a power notconstitutionally sanctioned. This is a dangerous policy which impinges, as it does, onjudicialindependence.

Maceda is emphatic that by virtue of its constitutional power of administrative

supervisionoverallcourtsandcourtpersonnel,fromthePresidingJusticeoftheCourtofAppealsdownto the lowestmunicipal trialcourtclerk, it isonly theSupremeCourt thatcanoverseethejudgesandcourtpersonnelscompliancewithalllaws,andtaketheproperadministrativeactionagainstthemiftheycommitanyviolationthereof.Nootherbranchofgovernment may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine ofseparationofpowers.

Corollarytotheabovepronouncements,Section7,ArticleIIIoftheConstitutionisrelevantintheissueofpublicdisclosureofSALNandotherdocumentsofpublicofficials,viz:

Sec.7.Therightofthepeopletoinformationonmattersofpublicconcernshallbe

recognized.Accesstoofficialrecords,andtodocuments,andpaperspertaining toofficialacts, transactions, ordecisions, aswell as to government researchdatausedasbasis forpolicy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may beprovidedbylaw.Emphasizingtheimportandmeaningoftheforegoingconstitutionalprovision,theCourt,in

the landmark case of Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr.,[50]

elucidated on the import of the right toinformationinthiswise:

Thecornerstoneofthisrepublicansystemofgovernmentisdelegationofpowerbythe people to the State. In this system, governmental agencies and institutions operatewithinthelimitsoftheauthorityconferredbythepeople.Deniedaccesstoinformationontheinnerworkingsofgovernment,thecitizenrycanbecomepreytothewhimsandcapricesof those towhomthepowerhadbeendelegated.Thepostulate ofpublic office is apublictrust, institutionalized in theConstitution toprotect thepeople fromabuseofgovernmentalpower,wouldcertainlybemereemptywordsifaccesstosuchinformationofpublicconcernisdeniedxxx.xxxTherighttoinformationgoeshandinhandwiththeconstitutionalpoliciesoffullpublicdisclosureandhonestyinthepublicservice.Itismeanttoenhancethewideningroleofthe citizenry in governmental decisionmaking aswell as in checking abuse in government.(Emphasessupplied)

InBaldozav.Dimaano,[51]

theimportanceofthesaidrightwaspragmaticallyexplicated:

The incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recognition of thefundamentalroleoffreeexchangeofinformationinademocracy.Therecanbenorealisticperceptionbythepublicof thenationsproblems,norameaningfuldemocraticdecisionmakingiftheyaredeniedaccesstoinformationofgeneralinterest.Informationisneededto enable themembers of society to copewith the exigencies of the times. As has beenaptlyobserved:Maintainingtheflowofsuchinformationdependsonprotectionforbothits acquisition and its dissemination since, if either process is interrupted, the flowinevitably ceases.However, restrictionsonaccess to certain recordsmaybe imposedbylaw.

3/30/2015 A.M.No.0986SC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/0986SC.htm 8/15

Thus,whilepublicconcernlikepublicinteresteludesexactdefinitionandhasbeensaidtoembraceabroadspectrumofsubjectswhichthepublicmaywanttoknow,eitherbecausesuchmattersdirectlyaffecttheirlives,orsimplybecausesuchmattersnaturallyarousetheinterestofan

ordinary citizen,[52]

the Constitution itself, under Section 17, Article XI, has classified theinformationdisclosedintheSALNasamatterofpublicconcernandinterest. Inotherwords,adutytodisclosesprangfromtherighttoknow.Bothofconstitutionalorigin,theformerisacommand while the latter is a permission. Hence, the duty on the part of members of thegovernmenttodisclosetheirSALNstothepublicinthemannerprovidedbylaw:

Section17.Apublicofficeroremployeeshall,uponassumptionofofficeandasoftenthereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets,liabilities,andnetworth.InthecaseofthePresident,theVicePresident,theMembersoftheCabinet,theCongress,theSupremeCourt,theConstitutionalCommissionsandotherconstitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, thedeclaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law. [Emphasissupplied]ThisConstitutional duty is echoed and particularized in a statutory creation ofCongress:

Republic Act No. 6713, also known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public

OfficialsandEmployees":[53]

Section8.StatementsandDisclosure. Publicofficials andemployeeshaveanobligationtoaccomplishandsubmitdeclarationsunderoathof,andthepublichastherighttoknow, their assets, liabilities, networth and financial andbusiness interests includingthoseoftheirspousesandofunmarriedchildrenundereighteen(18)yearsofagelivingintheirhouseholds. (A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. All publicofficials and employees, except those who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers andcasualortemporaryworkers,shallfileunderoaththeirStatementofAssets,LiabilitiesandNetWorthandaDisclosureofBusinessInterestsandFinancialConnectionsandthoseoftheir spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in theirhouseholds.Thetwodocumentsshallcontaininformationonthefollowing:(a)realproperty,itsimprovements,acquisitioncosts,assessedvalueandcurrentfairmarketvalue(b)personalpropertyandacquisitioncost(c)allotherassetssuchasinvestments,cashonhandorinbanks,stocks,bonds,andthelike(d)liabilities,and(e)allbusinessinterestsandfinancialconnections.Thedocumentsmustbefiled:(a)withinthirty(30)daysafterassumptionofoffice(b)onorbeforeApril30,ofeveryyearthereafterand(c)withinthirty(30)daysafterseparationfromtheservice.Allpublicofficialsandemployeesrequiredunderthissectiontofiletheaforestateddocumentsshallalsoexecute,withinthirty(30)daysfromthedateoftheirassumptionofoffice, thenecessaryauthority in favorof theOmbudsmantoobtain fromallappropriategovernmentagencies, including theBureauof InternalRevenue, suchdocumentsasmayshow their assets, liabilities, net worth, and also their business interests and financialconnectionsinpreviousyears,including,ifpossible,theyearwhentheyfirstassumedanyofficeintheGovernment.Husbandandwifewhoarebothpublicofficialsoremployeesmayfiletherequiredstatementsjointlyorseparately.TheStatementsofAssets,LiabilitiesandNetWorthandtheDisclosureofBusiness

3/30/2015 A.M.No.0986SC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/0986SC.htm 9/15

InterestsandFinancialConnectionsshallbefiledby: (1)Constitutional andnational elective officials,with thenational office of theOmbudsman(2)SenatorsandCongressmen,withtheSecretariesoftheSenateandtheHouseofRepresentatives, respectively Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme CourtJudges,withtheCourtAdministratorandallnationalexecutiveofficialswiththeOfficeofthePresident.(3)Regionalandlocalofficialsandemployees,withtheDeputyOmbudsmanintheirrespectiveregions(4)Officersofthearmedforcesfromtherankofcolonelornavalcaptain,withtheOfficeofthePresident,andthosebelowsaidranks,withtheDeputyOmbudsmanintheirrespectiveregionsand (5)Allotherpublicofficialsandemployees,definedinRepublicActNo.3019,asamended,withtheCivilServiceCommission. (B)Identificationanddisclosureofrelatives.Itshallbethedutyofeverypublicofficialoremployeetoidentifyanddisclose,tothebestofhisknowledgeandinformation,hisrelativesintheGovernmentintheform,mannerandfrequencyprescribedbytheCivilServiceCommission.(Emphasissupplied)

Like all constitutional guarantees, however, the right to information, with its companionright of access to official records, is not absolute. While providing guaranty for that right, theConstitutionalsoprovidesthatthepeoplesrighttoknowislimitedtomattersofpublicconcernandisfurthersubjecttosuchlimitationsasmaybeprovidedbylaw.

Jurisprudence[54]

hasprovidedthefollowinglimitationstothatright:(1)nationalsecuritymatters and intelligence information (2) trade secrets and banking transactions (3) criminalmatters and (4) other confidential information such as confidential or classified informationofficiallyknowntopublicofficersandemployeesbyreasonoftheirofficeandnotmadeavailableto thepublicaswellasdiplomaticcorrespondence,closeddoorCabinetmeetingsandexecutivesessionsofeitherhouseofCongress,andtheinternaldeliberationsoftheSupremeCourt.

This could only mean that while no prohibition could stand against access to officialrecords,suchastheSALN,thesameisundoubtedlysubjecttoregulation.

In this regard, Section 8 (c) and (d) of R.A. No. 6713 provides for the limitation and

prohibitionontheregulatedaccesstoSALNsofgovernmentofficialsandemployees,viz:(C)Accessibilityofdocuments.(1)AnyandallstatementsfiledunderthisAct,shallbemadeavailableforinspectionatreasonablehours. (2)Suchstatementsshallbemadeavailableforcopyingorreproductionafterten(10)workingdaysfromthetimetheyarefiledasrequiredbylaw.(3)Anypersonrequestingacopyofastatementshallberequiredtopayareasonablefeetocoverthecostofreproductionandmailingofsuchstatement,aswellasthecostofcertification.(4)AnystatementfiledunderthisActshallbeavailabletothepublicforaperiodoften (10) years after receipt of the statement. After such period, the statement may bedestroyedunlessneededinanongoinginvestigation. (D)Prohibited acts. It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain or use anystatementfiledunderthisActfor:(a)anypurposecontrarytomoralsorpublicpolicyor (b)anycommercialpurposeotherthanbynewsandcommunicationsmedia fordisseminationtothegeneralpublic.Moreover,thefollowingprovisionsintheImplementingRulesandRegulationsofR.A.No.

6713provide:

RuleIV

3/30/2015 A.M.No.0986SC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/0986SC.htm 10/15

TransparencyofTransactionsandAccesstoInformation

xxxx

Section 3. Every department, office or agency shall provide official information,recordsordocumentstoanyrequestingpublic,exceptif:

(a) such information, recordordocumentmustbekept secret in the

interestofnationaldefenseorsecurityortheconductofforeignaffairs(b) such disclosure would put the life and safety of an individual in

imminentdanger(c) the information, record or document sought falls within the

conceptsofestablishedprivilegeorrecognizedexceptionsasmaybeprovidedbylaworsettledpolicyorjurisprudence

(d) such information, record or document compromises drafts or

decisions,orders,rulings,policy,decisions,memoranda,etc(e)itwoulddiscloseinformationofapersonalnaturewheredisclosure

wouldconstituteaclearlyunwarrantedinvasionofpersonalprivacy(f) it would disclose investigatory records complied for law

enforcementpurposes,orinformationwhichifwrittenwouldbecontainedinsuch records or information would (i) interfere with enforcementproceedings, (ii) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartialadjudication,(iii)disclosetheidentityofaconfidentialsourceand,inthecaseofarecordcompiledbyacriminallawenforcementauthorityinthecourseofacriminalinvestigation,orbyanagencyconductingalawfulnationalsecurityintelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by theconfidentialsource,or(iv)unjustifiablydiscloseinvestigativetechniquesandproceduresor

(g) it would disclose information the premature disclosure of which

would(i)inthecaseofadepartment,officeoragencywhichagencyregulatescurrencies,securities,commodities,offinancialinstitutions,belikelytoleadto significant financial speculation in currencies, securities, or commoditiesorsignificantlyendangerthestabilityofanyfinancialinstitution,or(ii)inthecaseofanydepartment,officeoragencybelikelyorsignificantlytofrustrateimplementationofaproposedofficialaction,exceptthatsubparagraph(f)(ii)shall not apply in any instancewhere the department, office or agency hasalreadydisclosedtothepublicthecontentornatureofitsproposedaction,orwhere the department, office or agency is required by law to make suchdisclosure on its own initiative prior to taking final official action on suchproposal.

xxxx

RuleVI

DutiesofPublicOfficialsandEmployees

Section6.Allpublicdocumentsmustbemadeaccessibleto,andreadilyavailableforinspectionby, thepublicduringworkinghours,except thoseprovided inSection3,RuleIV.

ThepowertoregulatetheaccessbythepublictothesedocumentsstemsfromtheinherentpoweroftheCourt,ascustodianofthesepersonaldocuments,tocontrolitsveryofficetotheendthatdamageto,orlossof,therecordsmaybeavoidedthatundueinterferencewiththedutiesofthe custodianof thebooks anddocuments andother employeesmaybeprevented and that the

rightofotherpersonsentitledtomakeinspectionmaybeinsured.[55]

3/30/2015 A.M.No.0986SC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/0986SC.htm 11/15

Inthisconnection,Section11ofthesamelawprovidesforthepenaltiesincasethereshould

beamisuseoftheSALNandtheinformationcontainedtherein,viz:Section11.Penalties.(a)Anypublicofficialoremployee,regardlessofwhetherornotheholdsofficeoremploymentinacasual,temporary,holdover,permanentorregularcapacity,committinganyviolationofthisActshallbepunishedwithafinenotexceedingthe equivalent of six (6) months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, orremoval depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by theappropriate body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty underanotherlaw,heshallbeprosecutedunderthelatterstatute.ViolationsofSections7,8or9ofthisActshallbepunishablewithimprisonmentnotexceedingfive(5)years,orafinenotexceeding five thousand pesos (5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court ofcompetentjurisdiction,disqualificationtoholdpublicoffice. (b)Anyviolationhereofproven in aproper administrativeproceeding shall besufficientcauseforremovalordismissalofapublicofficialoremployee,evenifnocriminalprosecutionisinstitutedagainsthim.(c)Privateindividualswhoparticipateinconspiracyascoprincipals,accomplicesoraccessories,withpublicofficialsoremployees, inviolationof thisAct,shallbesubject tothesamepenalliabilitiesasthepublicofficialsoremployeesandshallbetriedjointlywiththem.(d)TheofficialoremployeeconcernedmaybringanactionagainstanypersonwhoobtainsorusesareportforanypurposeprohibitedbySection8(d)ofthisAct.TheCourtinwhichsuchaction isbroughtmayassessagainstsuchpersonapenalty inanyamountnottoexceedtwentyfivethousandpesos(25,000.00).Ifanothersanctionhereunderorunderanyotherlawisheavier,thelattershallapply.Consideringtheforegoinglegalpreceptsvisvisthevariousrequestsmade,theCourtfinds

nocogentreasontodenythepublicaccesstotheSALN,PDSandCVoftheJusticesoftheCourtand other magistrates of the Judiciary subject, of course, to the limitations and prohibitionsprovidedinR.A.No.6713,itsimplementingrulesandregulations,andintheguidelinessetforthinthedecretalportion.

The Court notes the valid concerns of the othermagistrates regarding the possible illicit

motives of some individuals in their requests for access to such personal information and theirpublication. However, custodians of public documents must not concern themselves with themotives,reasonsandobjectsofthepersonsseekingaccesstotherecords.Themoralormaterialinjurywhichtheirmisusemightinflictonothersistherequestorsresponsibilityandlookout.Any

publication is made subject to the consequences of the law.[56]

While public officers in thecustodyorcontrolofpublicrecordshave thediscretion toregulate themanner inwhichrecordsmaybeinspected,examinedorcopiedbyinterestedpersons,suchdiscretiondoesnotcarrywithit

theauthoritytoprohibitaccess,inspection,examination,orcopyingoftherecords.[57]

Afterall,publicofficeisapublictrust.Publicofficersandemployeesmust,atalltimes,beaccountabletothe people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with

patriotismandjustice,andleadmodestlives.[58]

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves toGRANT the requests contained in the (1) Letter,datedJuly30,2009,ofRowenaC.Paraan(2)Letter,datedAugust13,2009,ofKarolM.Ilagan(3) Letter, dated April 21, 2010, of the Philippine Public Transparency Reporting Project (4)Letter,filedonAugust24,2011,byMarvinLim(5)Letter,datedAugust26,2011,ofRawnnaCrisostomo (6) Letter, dated October 11, 2011, of Bala S. Tamayo (7) Letters, all datedDecember19,2011,ofHarveyS.Keh(8)Letter,datedDecember21,2011,ofGlendaM.Gloria(9)Letters,alldatedJanuary3,2012,ofPhillipeManalang(10)Letter,datedDecember19,2011,

3/30/2015 A.M.No.0986SC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/0986SC.htm 12/15

of Malou Mangahas (11) Letter, dated January 16, 2012, of Nilo Ka Nilo H. Baculo (12)Letter,datedJanuary25,2012,ofRoxanneEscaroAlegre(13)Letter,datedJanuary27,2012,ofDavidJudeSta.Ana(14)Letter,datedJanuary31,2012,ofMichaelG.Aguinaldo(15)undatedLetterofBeniseP.Balaoing(16)Letter, datedApril27,2012,ofMariaA.Ressa(17)Letter,datedMay2,2012,ofMaryAnnA.Seir(18)Letter,datedMay4,2012,ofEdwardGabud,Sr.,DeskEditorofSolarNetwork,Inc.(19)Letter,datedMay30,2012,ofGerryLirio,SeniorNewsEditor, TV5 (20) Letter, datedMay 31, 2002, ofAtty. Joselito P. Fangon of theOffice of theOmbudsmanand(21)Letter,datedJune7,2012,ofTheaMarieS.Pias,insofarascopiesofthe2011 SALN, PDS, and CV of the Justices of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, theSandiganbayan,andtheCourtofTaxAppealsJudgesoflowercourtsandothermembersoftheJudiciary,areconcerned,subjecttothelimitationsandprohibitionsprovidedinR.A.No.6713,itsimplementingrulesandregulations,andthefollowingguidelines:

1. AllrequestsshallbefiledwiththeOfficeoftheClerkofCourtoftheSupremeCourt,theCourtofAppeals,theSandiganbayan,theCourtofTaxAppealsforthelower courts, with the Office of the Court Administrator and for attachedagencies,withtheirrespectiveheadsofoffices.

2.RequestsshallcoveronlycopiesofthelatestSALN,PDSandCVofthemembers,

officialsandemployeesoftheJudiciary,andmaycoveronlypreviousrecordsifsospecifically requested and considered as justified, as determined by the officialsmentioned in par. 1 above, under the terms of these guidelines and theImplementingRulesandRegulationsofR.A.No.6713.

3.InthecaseofrequestsforcopiesofSALNoftheJusticesoftheSupremeCourt,the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals, theauthoritytodiscloseshallbemadebytheCourtEnBanc.

4. Every request shall explain the requesting partys specific purpose and theirindividualinterestssoughttobeservedshallstatethecommitmentthattherequestshallonlybeforthestatedpurposeandshallbesubmittedinadulyaccomplishedrequest form secured from theSCwebsite. The use of the information securedshallonlybeforthestatedpurpose.

5. In the case of requesting individuals other than members of the media, their

interestsshouldgobeyondpureormerecuriosity.

6. In the case of the members of the media, the request shall additionally besupported by proof under oath of their media affiliation and by a similarcertification of the accreditation of their respective organizations as legitimatemediapractitioners.

3/30/2015 A.M.No.0986SC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/0986SC.htm 13/15

7. Therequestingparty,whetheras individualsorasmembersof themedia,musthave no derogatory record of having misused any requested informationpreviouslyfurnishedtothem.

Therequestingpartiesshallcompletetheirrequestsinaccordancewiththeseguidelines.The

custodiansofthesedocuments[59]

(therespectiveClerksofCourtoftheSupremeCourt,CourtofAppeals,Sandiganbayan,andCourtofTaxAppealsfortheJusticesandtheCourtAdministratorfortheJudgesofvarioustrialcourts)shallpreliminarilydetermineiftherequestsarenotcoveredby the limitations and prohibitions provided in R.A. No. 6713 and its implementing rules andregulations,andinaccordancewiththeaforecitedguidelines.Thereafter,theClerkofCourtshallreferthematterpertainingtoJusticestotheCourtEnBancforfinaldetermination.

SOORDERED.

JOSECATRALMENDOZAAssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIOSeniorAssociateJustice

(Onofficialleave)PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTROAssociateJusticeAssociateJusticeARTUROD.BRIONDIOSDADOM.PERALTAAssociateJusticeAssociateJusticeLUCASP.BERSAMINMARIANOC.DELCASTILLOAssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

3/30/2015 A.M.No.0986SC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/0986SC.htm 14/15

ROBERTOA.ABADMARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.AssociateJusticeAssociateJusticeJOSEPORTUGALPEREZMARIALOURDESP.A.SERENOAssociateJusticeAssociateJusticeBIENVENIDOL.REYESESTELAM.PERLASBERNABEAssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

[1]Rollo(A.M.No.0986SC),p.2.

[2]Rollo(A.M.No.0987CA),p.1.

[3]Rollo(A.M.No.0987CA),p.2rollo(A.M.No.0986SC),p.15.

[4]Rollo(A.M.No.0986SC),p.11.

[5]Id.at7375.

[6]Id.at7685.

[7]Id.at21.

[8]Id.at105106.

[9]Id.at115116.

[10]Id.at117118.

[11]Id.at123.

[12]Id.at128.

[13]Id.at132.

[14]Id.at149.

[15]Id.at141.

[16]Id.at140.

[17]Id.at130.

[18]Id.at139.

[19]Id.at159.

[20]Id.at133.

[21]Id.at172.

[22]Id.at151.

[23]Id.at146.

[24]Id.at147.

[25]Id.at152.

[26]Id.at175178.

[27]Id.at188.

[28]Id.at209219.

[29]Id.at222223.

[30]Id.at225.

[31]Id.at238.

[32]EntitledAnActProvidingfortheCentralizationofFilingofStatementofAssets,Liabilities,andNetWorth(SALN)ofPublic

Officials and itsMandatory Disclosure to Promote Transparency and Accountability in Public Service, Amending for the PurposeSection8(A)ofRepublicActNo.6713otherwiseknownasTheCodeofConductandEthicalStandardsForPublicOfficialsandEmployees.[33]

Rollo(A.M.No.0986SC),p.318.[34]

Id.at340.

3/30/2015 A.M.No.0986SC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/0986SC.htm 15/15

[35]Id.at342.

[36]Id.at343.

[37]Id.at328.

[38]Id.at329.

[39]Id.at333.

[40]Section6.TheSupremeCourtshallhaveadministrativesupervisionoverallcourtsandthepersonnelthereof.

[41]Rollo(A.M.No.0986SC),p.24.

[42]413Phil.717(2001).

[43]Rollo(A.M.No.0986SC),p.97.

[44]DocketedasA.M.OCAIPINo.1021SBJ.

[45]Rollo(A.M.No.0986SC),pp.272273.

[46]ResolutiondatedMay2,1989.

[47]A.M.No.929851RTC,September22,1992.

[48]A.M.No.929851RTC,November11,1993.

[49]G.R.No.102781,April22,1993,221SCRA464,466467.

[50]252Phil.264,271272(1989).

[51]163Phil.15,2021(1976).

[52]Legaspiv.CivilServiceCommission,234Phil.521(1987).

[53]EntitledAnActEstablishingaCodeofConductandEthicalStandardsforPublicOfficialsandEmployees,toUpholdtheTime

Honored Principle of Public Office Being A Public Trust, Granting Incentives and Rewards For Exemplary Service, EnumeratingProhibitedActsandTransactionsandProvidingPenaltiesForViolationsThereofandForOtherPurposes.[54]

Chavezv.PCGG,360Phil.133,160162(1998).[55]

Subidov.Ozaeta,80Phil.383,387(1948).[56]

Id.at388.[57]

Hiladov.JudgeAmorA.Reyes,496Phil.55(2005),citingLantaco,Sr.v.Llamas,195Phil.325,334(1981).[58]

Sec.1ArticleXI,1987ConstitutionoftheRepublicofthePhilippines.[59]

Section1,RuleVII,RulesImplementingtheCodeofConductandEthicalStandardsforPublicOfficialsandEmployees.