TodayisThursday,November03,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

A.M.No.0986SCJune13,2012

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
OFFICERSANDEMPLOYEESOFTHEJUDICIARY.

xx

A.M.No.09807CA

RE: REQUEST OF PHILIPPINE CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM [PCIJ] FOR THE 2008
STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH [SALN] AND PERSONAL DATA SHEETS OF THE
COURTOFAPPEALSJUSTICES.

RESOLUTION

MENDOZA,J.:

In a letter,1 dated July 30, 2009, Rowena C. Paraan, Research Director of the Philippine Center for Investigative
Journalism(PCIJ),soughtcopiesoftheStatementofAssets,LiabilitiesandNetworth(SALN)oftheJusticesofthis
Courtfortheyear2008.ShealsorequestedforcopiesofthePersonalDataSheet(PDS)ortheCurriculumVitae
(CV)oftheJusticesofthisCourtforthepurposeofupdatingtheirdatabaseofinformationongovernmentofficials.

In her Letter,2 dated August 13, 2009, Karol M. Ilagan, a researcherwriter also of the PCIJ, likewise sought for
copiesoftheSALNandPDSoftheJusticesoftheCourtofAppeals(CA),forthesameabovestatedpurpose.

The two requests were ordered consolidated by the Court on August 18, 2009.3 On the same day, the Court
resolvedtocreateaspecialcommittee(Committee)toreviewthepolicyonrequestsforSALNandPDSandother
similardocuments,andtorecommendappropriateactiononsuchrequests.4

On November 23, 2009, the Committee, chaired by then Associate Justice Minita V. ChicoNazario submitted its
Memorandum5 dated November 18, 2009 and its Resolution6 dated November 16, 2009, recommending the
creationofCommitteeonPublicDisclosurethatwould,inessence,takeoverthefunctionsoftheOfficeoftheCourt
Administrator(OCA)withrespecttorequestsforcopiesof,oraccessto,SALN,andotherpersonaldocumentsof
membersoftheJudiciary.

Meanwhile,severalrequestsforcopiesoftheSALNandotherpersonaldocumentsoftheJusticesofthisCourt,the
CAandtheSandiganbayan(SB)werefiled.Inparticular,theserequestsincludethe:

(1)SUBPOENADUCESTECUM,7 dated September 10, 2009, issued by Atty. E. H. Amat, Acting Director,
General Investigation BureauB of the Office of the Ombudsman, directing the Office of Administrative
Services,SupremeCourttosubmittwo(2)copiesoftheSALNofAssociateJusticeRolandB.Juradoofthe
Sandiganbayanfortheyears19972008,hislatestPDS,hisOathofOffice,appointmentpapers,andservice
records.

(2) LETTER,8 dated April 21, 2010, of the Philippine Public Transparency Reporting Project, asking
permissiontobeabletoaccessandcopytheSALNofofficialsandemployeesofthelowercourts.

(3)LETTER,9filedonAugust24,2011,byMarvinLim,seekingcopiesoftheSALNofChiefJusticeRenato
C. Corona, Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita LeonardoDe Castro,
ArturoD.Brion,DiosdadoM.Peralta,LucasP.Bersamin,MarianoC.DelCastillo,RobertoA.Abad,MartinS.
Villarama,Jr.,JosePortugalPerez,JoseC.Mendoza,andMariaLourdesP.A.Sereno.
(4)LETTER,10datedAugust26,2011,ofRawnnaCrisostomo,Reporter,GMANewsandPublicAffairsalso
requestingforcopiesoftheSALNofChiefJusticeRenatoC.Corona,AssociateJusticesAntonioT.Carpio,
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita LeonardoDe Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P.
Bersamin,MarianoC.DelCastillo,RobertoA.Abad,MartinS.Villarama,Jr.,JosePortugalPerez,JoseC.
Mendoza, and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, for purposes of producing a story on transparency and
governance,andupdatingtheirdatabase.

(5)LETTER,11datedOctober11,2011,ofBalaS.Tamayo,requestingforacopyofthe2010SALNofany
Justice of the Supreme Court as well as a copy of the Judiciary Development Fund, for purposes of her
securing a huge percentage in final examination in Constitutional Law I at the San Beda College Alabang
SchoolofLawandforherstudyonthestateofthePhilippineJudiciary,particularlythemanner,natureand
dispositionoftheresourcesundertheJDFandhowthesehaveevolvedthroughtheyears.

(6)LETTERS,alldatedDecember19,2011,ofHarveyS.Keh,LeadConvenorofKayaNatin!Movementfor
Good Governance and Ethical Leadership, addressed to Chief Justice Renato C. Corona,12 Associate
Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.,13 Teresita LeonardoDe Castro,14 Arturo D. Brion,15 Diosdado M.
Peralta,16MarianoC.DelCastillo,17JosePortugalPerez,18andMariaLourdesP.A.Sereno,19requestingfor
copiesoftheirSALNandseekingpermissiontopostthesameontheirwebsiteforthegeneralpublic.

(7) LETTER,20 dated December 21, 2011, of Glenda M. Gloria, Executive Director, Newsbreak, seeking
copiesoftheSALNoftheSupremeCourtJusticescoveringvariousyears,forthepurposeofthestoriesthey
intendtoputontheirwebsiteregardingtheSupremeCourtandtheJudiciary.

(8) LETTERS, all dated January 3, 2012, of Phillipe Manalang of Unlimited Productions, Inc., addressed to
AssociateJusticesPresbiteroJ.Velasco,Jr.,21TeresitaLeonardoDeCastro,22MarianoC.DelCastillo23and
JosePortugalPerez,24 and Atty. Enriqueta EsguerraVidal, Clerk of Court, Supreme Court25 requesting for
copiesoftheSALNoftheSupremeCourtJusticesfortheyears2010and2011.

(9) LETTER,26 dated December 19, 2011, of Malou Mangahas, Executive Director, PCIJ, requesting for
copiesoftheSALN,PDSorCVsoftheJusticesoftheSupremeCourtfromtheyeartheywereappointedto
thepresent.

(10)SUBPOENAADTESTIFICANDUMETDUCESTECUM,27issuedonJanuary17,2012,bytheSenate,
sittingasanImpeachmentCourt,inconnectionwithImpeachmentCaseNo.0022011againstChiefJustice
Renato C. Corona, requiring the Clerk of Court, among others, to bring with her the SALN of Chief Justice
RenatoC.Coronafortheyears2002to2011.

(11)LETTER,28datedJanuary16,2012,ofNilo"KaNilo"H.Baculo,Sr.,requestingcopiesoftheSALNof
theSupremeCourtJusticesfortheyears2008to2011,forhisuseasamediapractitioner.

(12)LETTER,29datedJanuary25,2012,ofRoxanneEscaroAlegreofGMANews,requestingforcopiesof
the SALN of the Supreme Court Justices for the networks story on the political dynamics and process of
decisionmakingintheSupremeCourt.

(13) LETTER,30 dated January 27, 2012, of David Jude Sta. Ana, Head, News Operations, News 5,
requestingforcopiesofthe20102011SALNoftheSupremeCourtJusticesforuseasreferencematerials
forstoriesthatwillbeairedinthenewscastsoftheirtelevisionnetwork.

(14) LETTER,31 dated January 31, 2012, of Michael G. Aguinaldo, Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal
Affairs, Malacaang, addressed to Atty. Enriqueta EsguerraVidal, Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, seeking
her comments and recommendation on House Bill No. 5694,32 to aid in their determination of whether the
measureshouldbecertifiedasurgent.

(15)UndatedLETTER33ofBeniseP.Balaoing,InternofRappler.com,anewswebsite,seekingcopiesofthe
2010SALNoftheJusticesoftheCourtandtheCAforthepurposeofcompletingitsdatabaseinpreparation
foritscoverageofthe2013elections.

(16)LETTER,34datedApril27,2012,ofMariaA.Ressa,ChiefExecutiveOfficerandExecutiveOfficerand
ExecutiveEditorofRappler,Inc.,requestingforcopiesofthecurrentSALNofalltheJusticesoftheSupreme
Court, the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan also for the purpose of completing its database in
preparationforitscoverageofthe2013elections.

(17)LETTER,35datedMay2,2012,ofMaryAnnA.Seir,JuniorResearcher,NewsResearchSection,GMA
News and Public Affairs, requesting for copies of the SALN of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and the
 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court for the calendar year 2011 for the networks use in their public
affairsprograms.

(18)LETTER,36datedMay4,2012,ofEdwardGabud,Sr.,DeskEditorofSolarNetwork,Inc.,requestingfor
copiesofthe2011SALNofalltheJusticesoftheSupremeCourt.

(19)LETTER,37 dated May 30, 2012, of Gerry Lirio, Senior News Editor, TV5 requesting for copies of the
SALN of the Justices of the Court for the last three (3) years for the purpose of a special report it would
produceasaresultoftheimpeachmentandsubsequentconvictionofChiefJusticeRenatoC.Corona.

(20)LETTER,38datedMay31,2012,ofAtty.JoselitoP.Fangon,AssistantOmbudsman,FieldInvestigation
Office, Office of the Ombudsman, requesting for 1] certified copies of the SALN of former Chief Justice
RenatoC.Coronafortheyears20022011,aswellas2]acertificateofhisyearlycompensation,allowances,
andbonuses,alsofortheyears20022011.

(21)LETTER,39datedJune8,2012,ofTheaMarieS.Pias,requestingacopyoftheSALNofanypresent
SupremeCourtJustice,forthepurposeofcompletinghergradeinLegalPhilosophyattheSanBedaCollege
ofLaw.

PursuanttoSection6,ArticleVIIIofthe1987Constitution,40theCourt,uponrecommendationoftheOCA,issued
its Resolution41 dated October 13, 2009, denying the subpoena duces tecum for the SALNs and personal
documentsofJusticeRolandB.JuradooftheSB.TheresolutionalsodirectedtheOmbudsmantoforwardtothe
Courtanycomplaintand/orderogatoryreportagainstJusticeRolandB.Jurado,inconsonancewiththedoctrinelaid
down in Caiobes v. Ombudsman.42 Upon compliance by the Ombudsman, the Court, in its Resolution43 dated
February2,2010,docketedthismatterasaregularadministrativecomplaint.44

Also,consideringthedevelopmentinImpeachmentCaseNo.0022011againstChiefJusticeRenatoC.Corona,the
Court,onJanuary24,2012,resolvedtoconsidermoottheSubpoenaAdTestificandumEtDucesTecumissuedby
theSenateimpeachmentcourt.45

Inresolvingtheremainingpendingincidents,theCourt,onJanuary17,2012requiredtheCA,theSB,theCTA,the
PhilippineJudgesAssociation,theMetropolitanandCityJudgesAssociationofthePhilippines,thePhilippineTrial
JudgesLeague,andthePhilippineWomenJudgesAssociation(PWJA),tofiletheirrespectivecomments.

Inessence,itistheconsensusoftheJusticesoftheabovementionedcourtsandthevariousjudgesassociations
thatwhiletheConstitutionholdsdeartherightofthepeopletohaveaccesstomattersofconcern,theConstitution
alsoholdssacredtheindependenceoftheJudiciary.Thus,althoughnodirectoppositiontothedisclosureofSALN
andotherpersonaldocumentsisbeingexpressed,itistheuniformpositionofthesaidmagistratesandthevarious
judgesassociationsthatthedisclosuremustbemadeinaccordwiththeguidelinessetbytheCourtandundersuch
circumstancesthatwouldnotunderminetheindependenceoftheJudiciary.

After a review of the matters at hand, it is apparent that the matter raised for consideration of the Court is not a
novelone.Asearlyas1989,theCourthadtheopportunitytoruleonthematterofSALNdisclosureinRe:Request
ofJoseM.Alejandrino,46wheretheCourtdeniedtherequestofAtty.AlejandrinofortheSALNsoftheJusticesof
theCourtduetoa"plainlydiscernible"impropermotive.AggrievedbyanadversedecisionoftheCourt,heaccused
the Justices of patent partiality and alluded that they enjoyed an early Christmas as a result of the decision
promulgated by the Court. Atty. Alejandrino even singled out the Justices who took part in the decision and
conspicuouslyexcludedtheotherswho,foronereasonoranother,abstainedfromvotingtherein.WhiletheCourt
expresseditswillingnesstohavetheClerkofCourtfurnishcopiesoftheSALNofanyofitsmembers,ithowever,
notedthatrequestsforSALNsmustbemadeundercircumstancesthatmustnotendanger,diminishordestroythe
independence, and objectivity of the members of the Judiciary in the performance of their judicial functions, or
exposethemtorevengeforadversedecisions,kidnapping,extortion,blackmailorotheruntowardincidents.Thus,in
order to give meaning to the constitutional right of the people to have access to information on matters of public
concern,theCourtlaiddowntheguidelinestobeobservedforrequestsmade.Thus:

1.AllrequestsforcopiesofstatementsofassetsandliabilitiesofanyJusticeorJudgeshallbefiledwiththe
Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court or with the Court Administrator, as the case may be (Section 8 [A][2],
R.A.6713),andshallstatethepurposeoftherequest.

2. The independence of the Judiciary is constitutionally as important as the right to information which is
subjecttothelimitationsprovidedbylaw.Underspecificcircumstances,theneedforfairandjustadjudication
of litigations may require a court to be wary of deceptive requests for information which shall otherwise be
freelyavailable.Wheretherequestisdirectlyorindirectlytracedtoalitigant,lawyer,orinterestedpartyina
case pending before the court, or where the court is reasonably certain that a disputed matter will come
beforeitundercircumstancesfromwhichitmay,alsoreasonably,beassumedthattherequestisnotmadein
 goodfaithandforalegitimatepurpose,buttofishforinformationand,withtheimplicitthreatofitsdisclosure,
to influence a decision or to warn the court of the unpleasant consequences of an adverse judgment, the
requestmaybedenied.

3.Whereadecisionhasjustbeenrenderedbyacourtagainstthepersonmakingtherequestandtherequest
forinformationappearstobea"fishingexpedition"intendedtoharassorgetbackattheJudge,therequest
maybedenied.

4. In the few areas where there is extortion by rebel elements or where the nature of their work exposes
Judges to assaults against their personal safety, the request shall not only be denied but should be
immediatelyreportedtothemilitary.

5.Thereasonforthedenialshallbegiveninallcases.

In the 1992 case of Re: Request for Certified True Copies of the Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and
Networth,47 the request was denied because the Court found that the purpose of the request was to fish for
informationagainstcertainmembersoftheJudiciary.Inthesamecase,theCourtresolvedtoauthorizetheCourt
Administrator to act on all requests for copies of SALN, as well as other papers on file with the 201 Personnel
Records of lower court judges and personnel, provided that there was a court subpoena duly signed by the
PresidingJudgeinapendingcriminalcaseagainstajudgeorpersonneloftheJudiciary.TheCourtaddedthatfor
requestsmadebytheOfficeoftheOmbudsman,thesamemustbepersonallysignedbytheOmbudsmanhimself.
Essentially,theCourtresolvedthat,inallinstances,requestsmustconformtotheguidelinessetintheAlejandrino
caseandthatthedocumentsorpapersrequestedformustberelevantandmaterialtothecasebeingtriedbythe
courtorunderinvestigationbytheOmbudsman.

In 1993, the Court, in Request for Certified True Copies of the Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net
WorthofformerJudgeLuisD.Dictado,48ruledthattheOCAmayextenditsgrantedauthoritytoretiredmembersof
theJudiciary.

With respect to investigations conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman in a criminal case against a judge, the
Court, in Maceda v. Vasquez,49 upheld its constitutional duty to exercise supervision over all inferior courts and
ruledthataninvestigationbytheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanwithoutpriorreferralofthecriminalcasetotheCourt
was an encroachment of a constitutional duty that ran afoul to the doctrine of separation of powers. This
pronouncementwasfurtheramplifiedintheabovementionedcaseofCaiobes.Thus:

x x x Under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive
administrativesupervisionoverallcourtsanditspersonnel.Prescindingfromthispremise,theOmbudsmancannot
determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves an
administrative matter. The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed
beforeit,referredtotheSupremeCourtfordeterminationastowhetheranadministrativeaspectisinvolvedtherein.
Thisruleshouldholdtrueregardlessofwhetheranadministrativecasebasedontheactsubjectofthecomplaint
beforetheOmbudsmanisalreadypendingwiththeCourt.For,asidefromthefactthattheOmbudsmanwouldnot
knowofthismatterunlessheisinformedofit,heshouldgiveduerespectforandrecognitionoftheadministrative
authorityoftheCourt,becauseindeterminingwhetheranadministrativematterisinvolved,theCourtpassesupon
notonlyadministrativeliabilitiesbutalsoadministrativeconcerns,asisclearlyconveyedinthecaseofMacedav.
Vasquez(221SCRA464[1993]).

TheOmbudsmancannotdictateto,andbindtheCourt,toitsfindingsthatthecasebeforeitdoesordoesnothave
administrativeimplications.TodosoistodeprivetheCourtoftheexerciseofitsadministrativeprerogativesandto
arrogateuntoitselfapowernotconstitutionallysanctioned.Thisisadangerouspolicywhichimpinges,asitdoes,
onjudicialindependence.

Macedaisemphaticthatbyvirtueofitsconstitutionalpowerofadministrativesupervisionoverallcourtsandcourt
personnel,fromthePresidingJusticeoftheCourtofAppealsdowntothelowestmunicipaltrialcourtclerk,itisonly
theSupremeCourtthatcanoverseethejudgesandcourtpersonnelscompliancewithalllaws,andtaketheproper
administrativeactionagainstthemiftheycommitanyviolationthereof.Nootherbranchofgovernmentmayintrude
intothispower,withoutrunningafoulofthedoctrineofseparationofpowers.

Corollary to the above pronouncements, Section 7, Article III of the Constitution is relevant in the issue of public
disclosureofSALNandotherdocumentsofpublicofficials,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
limitationsasmaybeprovidedbylaw.
Emphasizing the import and meaning of the foregoing constitutional provision, the Court, in the landmark case of
Valmontev.Belmonte,Jr.,50elucidatedontheimportoftherighttoinformationinthiswise:

ThecornerstoneofthisrepublicansystemofgovernmentisdelegationofpowerbythepeopletotheState.Inthis
system, governmental agencies and institutions operate within the limits of the authority conferred by the people.
Deniedaccesstoinformationontheinnerworkingsofgovernment,thecitizenrycanbecomepreytothewhimsand
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
certainlybemereemptywordsifaccesstosuchinformationofpublicconcernisdeniedxxx.

xxxTherighttoinformationgoeshandinhandwiththeconstitutionalpoliciesoffullpublicdisclosureand
honesty in the public service. It is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental
decisionmakingaswellasincheckingabuseingovernment.(Emphasessupplied)

InBaldozav.Dimaano,51theimportanceofthesaidrightwaspragmaticallyexplicated:

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 nations problems, nor a
meaningfuldemocraticdecisionmakingiftheyaredeniedaccesstoinformationofgeneralinterest.Informationis
needed to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of the times. As has been aptly observed:
"Maintainingtheflowofsuchinformationdependsonprotectionforbothitsacquisitionanditsdisseminationsince,if
eitherprocessisinterrupted,theflowinevitablyceases."However,restrictionsonaccesstocertainrecordsmaybe
imposedbylaw.

Thus, while "public concern" like "public interest" eludes exact definition and has been said to embrace a broad
spectrumofsubjectswhichthepublicmaywanttoknow,eitherbecausesuchmattersdirectlyaffecttheirlives,or
simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen,52 the Constitution itself, under
Section 17, Article XI, has classified the information disclosed in the SALN as a matter of public concern and
interest.Inotherwords,a"dutytodisclose"sprangfromthe"righttoknow."Bothofconstitutionalorigin,theformer
isacommandwhilethelatterisapermission.Hence,thedutyonthepartofmembersofthegovernmenttodisclose
theirSALNstothepublicinthemannerprovidedbylaw:

Section17.Apublicofficeroremployeeshall,uponassumptionofofficeandasoftenthereafterasmayberequired
bylaw,submitadeclarationunderoathofhisassets,liabilities,andnetworth.InthecaseofthePresident,theVice
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
disclosedtothepublicinthemannerprovidedbylaw.[Emphasissupplied]

This Constitutional duty is echoed and particularized in a statutory creation of Congress: Republic Act No. 6713,
alsoknownas"CodeofConductandEthicalStandardsforPublicOfficialsandEmployees":53

Section8.StatementsandDisclosure.Publicofficialsandemployeeshaveanobligationtoaccomplishandsubmit
declarationsunderoathof,andthepublichastherighttoknow,theirassets,liabilities,networthandfinancial
andbusinessinterestsincludingthoseoftheirspousesandofunmarriedchildrenundereighteen(18)yearsofage
livingintheirhouseholds.

(A)StatementsofAssetsandLiabilitiesandFinancialDisclosure.Allpublicofficialsandemployees,
exceptthosewhoserveinanhonorarycapacity,laborersandcasualortemporaryworkers,shallfile
underoaththeirStatementofAssets,LiabilitiesandNetWorthandaDisclosureofBusinessInterests
and Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18)
yearsofagelivingintheirhouseholds.

Thetwodocumentsshallcontaininformationonthefollowing:

(a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market
value

(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.

All public officials and employees required under this section to file the aforestated documents shall
alsoexecute,withinthirty(30)daysfromthedateoftheirassumptionofoffice,thenecessaryauthority
infavoroftheOmbudsmantoobtainfromallappropriategovernmentagencies,includingtheBureauof
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
theyfirstassumedanyofficeintheGovernment.

Husbandandwifewhoarebothpublicofficialsoremployeesmayfiletherequiredstatementsjointlyor
separately.

The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of Business Interests and
FinancialConnectionsshallbefiledby:

(1)Constitutionalandnationalelectiveofficials,withthenationalofficeoftheOmbudsman

(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,
withtheCourtAdministratorandallnationalexecutiveofficialswiththeOfficeofthePresident.

(3)Regionalandlocalofficialsandemployees,withtheDeputyOmbudsmanintheirrespective
regions

(4)Officersofthearmedforcesfromtherankofcolonelornavalcaptain,withtheOfficeofthe
President,andthosebelowsaidranks,withtheDeputyOmbudsmanintheirrespectiveregions
and

(5)Allotherpublicofficialsandemployees,definedinRepublicActNo.3019,asamended,with
theCivilServiceCommission.

(B)Identificationanddisclosureofrelatives.Itshallbethedutyofeverypublicofficialoremployeeto
identifyanddisclose,tothebestofhisknowledgeandinformation,hisrelativesintheGovernmentin
theform,mannerandfrequencyprescribedbytheCivilServiceCommission.(Emphasissupplied)

Likeallconstitutionalguarantees,however,therighttoinformation,withitscompanionrightofaccess
toofficialrecords,isnotabsolute.Whileprovidingguarantyforthatright,theConstitutionalsoprovides
that the peoples right to know is limited to "mattersofpublicconcern" and is further subject to such
limitationsasmaybeprovidedbylaw.

Jurisprudence54 has provided the following limitations to that right: (1) national security matters and
intelligenceinformation(2)tradesecretsandbankingtransactions(3)criminalmattersand(4)other
confidentialinformationsuchasconfidentialorclassifiedinformationofficiallyknowntopublicofficers
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,
andtheinternaldeliberationsoftheSupremeCourt.

Thiscouldonlymeanthatwhilenoprohibitioncouldstandagainstaccesstoofficialrecords,suchas
theSALN,thesameisundoubtedlysubjecttoregulation.

Inthisregard,Section8(c)and(d)ofR.A.No.6713providesforthelimitationandprohibitiononthe
regulatedaccesstoSALNsofgovernmentofficialsandemployees,viz:

(C)Accessibilityofdocuments.(1)AnyandallstatementsfiledunderthisAct,shallbemadeavailable
forinspectionatreasonablehours.

(2)Suchstatementsshallbemadeavailableforcopyingorreproductionafterten(10)working
daysfromthetimetheyarefiledasrequiredbylaw.

(3) Any person requesting a copy of a statement shall be required to pay a reasonable fee to
coverthecostofreproductionandmailingofsuchstatement,aswellasthecostofcertification.

(4) Any statement filed under this Act shall be available to the public for a period of ten (10)
yearsafterreceiptofthestatement.Aftersuchperiod,thestatementmaybedestroyedunless
 neededinanongoinginvestigation.

(D)Prohibitedacts.Itshallbeunlawfulforanypersontoobtainoruseanystatementfiledunderthis
Actfor:

(a)anypurposecontrarytomoralsorpublicpolicyor

(b)anycommercialpurposeotherthanbynewsandcommunicationsmediafordisseminationto
thegeneralpublic.

Moreover, the following provisions in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 6713
provide:

RuleIV
TransparencyofTransactionsandAccesstoInformation

xxxx

Section 3. Every department, office or agency shall provide official information, records or documents to any
requestingpublic,exceptif:

(a)suchinformation,recordordocumentmustbekeptsecretintheinterestofnationaldefenseorsecurityor
theconductofforeignaffairs

(b)suchdisclosurewouldputthelifeandsafetyofanindividualinimminentdanger

(c)theinformation,recordordocumentsoughtfallswithintheconceptsofestablishedprivilegeorrecognized
exceptionsasmaybeprovidedbylaworsettledpolicyorjurisprudence

(d)suchinformation,recordordocumentcompromisesdraftsordecisions,orders,rulings,policy,decisions,
memoranda,etc

(e)itwoulddiscloseinformationofapersonalnaturewheredisclosurewouldconstituteaclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy

(f) it would disclose investigatory records complied for law enforcement purposes, or information which if
writtenwouldbecontainedinsuchrecordsorinformationwould(i)interferewithenforcementproceedings,
(ii) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (iii) disclose the identity of a
confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the
course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence
investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source, or (iv) unjustifiably disclose
investigativetechniquesandproceduresor

(g) it would disclose information the premature disclosure of which would (i) in the case of a department,
officeoragencywhichagencyregulatescurrencies,securities,commodities,offinancialinstitutions,belikely
toleadtosignificantfinancialspeculationincurrencies,securities,orcommoditiesorsignificantlyendanger
the stability of any financial institution, or (ii) in the case of any department, office or agency be likely or
significantlytofrustrateimplementationofaproposedofficialaction,exceptthatsubparagraph(f)(ii)shallnot
applyinanyinstancewherethedepartment,officeoragencyhasalreadydisclosedtothepublicthecontent
ornatureofitsproposedaction,orwherethedepartment,officeoragencyisrequiredbylawtomakesuch
disclosureonitsowninitiativepriortotakingfinalofficialactiononsuchproposal.

xxxx

RuleVI
DutiesofPublicOfficialsandEmployees

Section 6. All public documents must be made accessible to, and readily available for inspection by, the public
duringworkinghours,exceptthoseprovidedinSection3,RuleIV.

ThepowertoregulatetheaccessbythepublictothesedocumentsstemsfromtheinherentpoweroftheCourt,as
custodianofthesepersonaldocuments,tocontrolitsveryofficetotheendthatdamageto,orlossof,therecords
may be avoided that undue interference with the duties of the custodian of the books and documents and other
employeesmaybepreventedandthattherightofotherpersonsentitledtomakeinspectionmaybeinsured.55

Inthisconnection,Section11ofthesamelawprovidesforthepenaltiesincasethereshouldbeamisuseofthe
SALNandtheinformationcontainedtherein,viz:
Section 11. Penalties. (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office or
employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of this Act
shallbepunishedwithafinenotexceedingtheequivalentofsix(6)months'salaryorsuspensionnotexceedingone
(1)year,orremovaldependingonthegravityoftheoffenseafterduenoticeandhearingbytheappropriatebodyor
agency.Iftheviolationispunishablebyaheavierpenaltyunderanotherlaw,heshallbeprosecutedunderthelatter
statute. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5)
years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P 5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of
competentjurisdiction,disqualificationtoholdpublicoffice.

(b)Anyviolationhereofproveninaproperadministrativeproceedingshallbesufficientcauseforremovalor
dismissalofapublicofficialoremployee,evenifnocriminalprosecutionisinstitutedagainsthim.

(c)Privateindividualswhoparticipateinconspiracyascoprincipals,accomplicesoraccessories,withpublic
officials or employees, in violation of this Act, shall be subject to the same penal liabilities as the public
officialsoremployeesandshallbetriedjointlywiththem.

(d)Theofficialoremployeeconcernedmaybringanactionagainstanypersonwhoobtainsorusesareport
foranypurposeprohibitedbySection8(d)ofthisAct.TheCourtinwhichsuchactionisbroughtmayassess
against such person a penalty in any amount not to exceed twentyfive thousand pesos (P 25,000.00). If
anothersanctionhereunderorunderanyotherlawisheavier,thelattershallapply.

Consideringtheforegoinglegalpreceptsvisvisthevariousrequestsmade,theCourtfindsnocogentreasonto
denythepublicaccesstotheSALN,PDSandCVoftheJusticesoftheCourtandothermagistratesoftheJudiciary
subject, of course, to the limitations and prohibitions provided in R.A. No. 6713, its implementing rules and
regulations,andintheguidelinessetforthinthedecretalportion.

TheCourtnotesthevalidconcernsoftheothermagistratesregardingthepossibleillicitmotivesofsomeindividuals
in their requests for access to such personal information and their publication. However, custodians of public
documentsmustnotconcernthemselveswiththemotives,reasonsandobjectsofthepersonsseekingaccessto
therecords.Themoralormaterialinjurywhichtheirmisusemightinflictonothersistherequestorsresponsibility
andlookout.Anypublicationismadesubjecttotheconsequencesofthelaw.56Whilepublicofficersinthecustody
orcontrolofpublicrecordshavethediscretiontoregulatethemannerinwhichrecordsmaybeinspected,examined
orcopiedbyinterestedpersons,suchdiscretiondoesnotcarrywithittheauthoritytoprohibitaccess,inspection,
examination,orcopyingoftherecords.57Afterall,publicofficeisapublictrust.Publicofficersandemployeesmust,
atalltimes,beaccountabletothepeople,servethemwithutmostresponsibility,integrity,loyalty,andefficiency,act
withpatriotismandjustice,andleadmodestlives.58

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to GRANT the requests contained in the (1) Letter, dated July 30, 2009, of
Rowena C. Paraan (2) Letter, dated August 13, 2009, of Karol M. Ilagan (3) Letter, dated April 21, 2010, of the
Philippine Public Transparency Reporting Project (4) Letter, filed on August 24, 2011, by Marvin Lim (5) Letter,
datedAugust26,2011,ofRawnnaCrisostomo(6)Letter,datedOctober11,2011,ofBalaS.Tamayo(7)Letters,
all dated December 19, 2011, of Harvey S. Keh (8) Letter, dated December 21, 2011, of Glenda M. Gloria (9)
Letters,alldatedJanuary3,2012,ofPhillipeManalang(10)Letter,datedDecember19,2011,ofMalouMangahas
(11)Letter,datedJanuary16,2012,ofNilo"KaNilo"H.Baculo(12)Letter,datedJanuary25,2012,ofRoxanne
EscaroAlegre(13)Letter,datedJanuary27,2012,ofDavidJudeSta.Ana(14)Letter,datedJanuary31,2012,of
Michael G. Aguinaldo (15) undated Letter of Benise P. Balaoing (16) Letter, dated April 27, 2012, of Maria A.
Ressa(17)Letter,datedMay2,2012,ofMaryAnnA.Seir(18)Letter,datedMay4,2012,ofEdwardGabud,Sr.,
DeskEditorofSolarNetwork,Inc.(19)Letter,datedMay30,2012,ofGerryLirio,SeniorNewsEditor,TV5(20)
Letter,datedMay31,2002,ofAtty.JoselitoP.FangonoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanand(21)Letter,datedJune
7,2012,ofTheaMarieS.Pias,insofarascopiesofthe2011SALN,PDS,andCVoftheJusticesoftheSupreme
Court,theCourtofAppeals,theSandiganbayan,andtheCourtofTaxAppealsJudgesoflowercourtsandother
membersoftheJudiciary,areconcerned,subjecttothelimitationsandprohibitionsprovidedinR.A.No.6713,its
implementingrulesandregulations,andthefollowingguidelines:

1.AllrequestsshallbefiledwiththeOfficeoftheClerkofCourtoftheSupremeCourt,theCourtofAppeals,
theSandiganbayan,theCourtofTaxAppealsforthelowercourts,withtheOfficeoftheCourtAdministrator
andforattachedagencies,withtheirrespectiveheadsofoffices.

2.RequestsshallcoveronlycopiesofthelatestSALN,PDSandCVofthemembers,officialsandemployees
oftheJudiciary,andmaycoveronlypreviousrecordsifsospecificallyrequestedandconsideredasjustified,
as determined by the officials mentioned in par. 1 above, under the terms of these guidelines and the
ImplementingRulesandRegulationsofR.A.No.6713.

3.InthecaseofrequestsforcopiesofSALNoftheJusticesoftheSupremeCourt,theCourtofAppeals,the
SandiganbayanandtheCourtofTaxAppeals,theauthoritytodiscloseshallbemadebytheCourtEnBanc.
 4.Everyrequestshallexplaintherequestingpartysspecificpurposeandtheirindividualinterestssoughtto
be served shall state the commitment that the request shall only be for the stated purpose and shall be
submitted in a duly accomplished request form secured from the SC website. The use of the information
securedshallonlybeforthestatedpurpose.

5. In the case of requesting individuals other than members of the media, their interests should go beyond
pureormerecuriosity. 1wphi1

6.Inthecaseofthemembersofthemedia,therequestshalladditionallybesupportedbyproofunderoathof
their media affiliation and by a similar certification of the accreditation of their respective organizations as
legitimatemediapractitioners.

7.Therequestingparty,whetherasindividualsorasmembersofthemedia,musthavenoderogatoryrecord
ofhavingmisusedanyrequestedinformationpreviouslyfurnishedtothem.

Therequestingpartiesshallcompletetheirrequestsinaccordancewiththeseguidelines.Thecustodiansofthese
documents59(therespectiveClerksofCourtoftheSupremeCourt,CourtofAppeals,Sandiganbayan,andCourtof
Tax Appeals for the Justices and the Court Administrator for the Judges of various trial courts) shall preliminarily
determine if the requests are not covered by the limitations and prohibitions provided in R.A. No. 6713 and its
implementingrulesandregulations,andinaccordancewiththeaforecitedguidelines.Thereafter,theClerkofCourt
shallreferthematterpertainingtoJusticestotheCourtEnBancforfinaldetermination.

SOORDERED.

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
SeniorAssociateJustice

(Onofficialleave)
TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRION DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ROBERTOA.ABAD MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

BIENVENIDOL.REYES ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

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

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

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

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

5Id.at7375.
6Id.at7685.

7Id.at21.

8Id.at105106.

9Id.at115116.

10Id.at117118.

11Id.at123.

12Id.at128.

13Id.at132.

14Id.at149.

15Id.at141.

16Id.at140.

17Id.at130.

18Id.at139.

19Id.at159.

20Id.at133.

21Id.at172.

22Id.at151.

23Id.at146.

24Id.at147.

25Id.at152.

26Id.at175178.

27Id.at188.

28Id.at209219.

29Id.at222223.

30Id.at225.

31Id.at238.

32Entitled"AnActProvidingfortheCentralizationofFilingofStatementofAssets,Liabilities,andNetWorth
(SALN)ofPublicOfficialsanditsMandatoryDisclosuretoPromoteTransparencyandAccountabilityinPublic
Service,AmendingforthePurposeSection8(A)ofRepublicActNo.6713otherwiseknownas"TheCodeof
ConductandEthicalStandardsForPublicOfficialsandEmployees."

33Rollo(A.M.No.0986SC),p.318.

34Id.at340.

35Id.at342.

36Id.at343.
37Id.at328.

38Id.at329.

39Id.at333.

40 Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel
thereof.

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

42413Phil.717(2001).

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

44DocketedasA.M.OCAIPINo.1021SBJ.

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

46ResolutiondatedMay2,1989.

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

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

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

50252Phil.264,271272(1989).

51163Phil.15,2021(1976).

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

53Entitled"AnActEstablishingaCodeofConductandEthicalStandardsforPublicOfficialsandEmployees,
toUpholdtheTimeHonoredPrincipleofPublicOfficeBeingAPublicTrust,GrantingIncentivesandRewards
ForExemplaryService,EnumeratingProhibitedActsandTransactionsandProvidingPenaltiesForViolations
ThereofandForOtherPurposes."