ALMONTE v.

VASQUEZ
GR No. 95367 May 23, 1995 Mendoza, J.
Article XI - Section 12
Petitioners Respondents
Commissioner Jose T. Almonte, et al. Honorable Conrado M. Vasquez & Concerned
Citizens

Recit Ready Summary

 This is a petition to annul the subpoena duces tecum and orders issued by respondent
Ombudsman, requiring petitioners to produce all documents relating to Personal Services
Funds for the year 1988 and all evidences such as vouchers (salary) for the whole plantilla
of the Economic Intelligence & Investigation Bureau (EIIB) for year 1988, and to enjoin him
from enforcing his orders. The subpoena duces tecum was issued by the Ombudsman in
connection w/ his investigation of an anonymous letter alleging that funds representing
savings from unfilled positions in the EIIB had been illegally disbursed. The issue in this
case is W/N petitioners can be ordered to produce documents relating to personal services
and salary vouchers of the EIIB employees on the plea that such documents are classified.
The Court ruled that, yes, it can be ordered to produce the pertinent documents. It is worth
noting that there is no claim that military or diplomatic secrets will be revealed by their
production. Moreover, the plantilla and other personnel records are relevant to the
investigation of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s need for such documents outweigh
the claim of confidentiality of the petitioners. On the contention that the case is not an
appropriate one because the complaint in this case is unverified and unsigned (i.e., an
anonymous letter), the Court ruled that this lacks merit because the Const. expressly
enjoins the Ombudsman to act on any complaint filed “in any form or manner” concerning
official acts or omissions, as provided in Art. XI, Sec. 12.
Facts of the Case
 Petition to annul the subpoena duces tecum and orders issued by respondent Ombudsman,
requiring petitioners to produce all documents relating to Personal Services Funds for the
year 1988 and all evidences such as vouchers (salary) for the whole plantilla of the
Economic Intelligence & Investigation Bureau (EIIB) for year 1988, and to enjoin him from
enforcing his orders.
 The subpoena duces tecum was issued by the Ombudsman in connection w/ his
investigation of an anonymous letter alleging that funds representing savings from unfilled
positions in the EIIB had been illegally disbursed. Such anonymous letter was said to have
been written by an employee of the EIIB and a concerned citizen.
 To put this in perspective, it should be noted that this case concerns the power of the Office
of the Ombudsman to obtain evidence in connection w/ an investigation conducted vis-à-vis
the claim of privilege of an agency of the gov’t (referring to the EIIB claiming privilege that
such documents relating to personal services and salary vouchers of the EIIB employees
are considered classified information that are confidential).
Issues Ruling
1. W/N petitioners can be ordered to produce documents relating to personal Yes
services and salary vouchers of the EIIB employees on the plea that such
documents are classified
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. In the case at bar, there is no claim that military or diplomatic secrets will be revealed by the
production of records pertaining to the personnel of the EIIB. Its function is primarily to
gather and evaluate intelligence information regarding illegal activities affecting the national
economy, such as but not limited to, economic sabotage, smuggling, tax evasion, dollar
salting. Hence, it cannot be excused on the pretext that state secrets will be disclosed.
2. The Ombudsman is investigating a complaint that several items in the EIIB were filled by
fictitious persons and that allotments for these items in 1988 were used for illegal purposes.
The plantilla and other personnel records are relevant to his investigation. The
Ombudsman’s need for such documents outweigh the claim of confidentiality of the
petitioners. Moreover, even if the subpoenaed documents are treated as presumptively
privileged, this would only justify ordering their inspection in camera but not their
nonproduction. To concede to the nature of the functions of the EIIB and just to be sure that
no information of confidential character is disclosed, the examination of records should be
made in strict confidence by the Ombudsman himself.
3. Petitioners contend that because the complaint in this case is unverified and unsigned (i.e.,
merely an anonymous letter), the case is not an appropriate one. The Court ruled that this
contention lacks merit because the Const. expressly enjoins the Ombudsman to act on any
complaint filed “in any form or manner” concerning official acts or omissions, as provided in
Art. XI, Sec. 12.

Disposition
Petition is DISMISSED, but it is directed that the inspection of subpoenaed documents be made
personally in camera by the Ombudsman and with all the safeguards outlined in this decision.
Separate Opinions
Kapunan, dissenting.
 Disclosure of the documents as required by the Ombudsman would defeat the legal
mandate of the EIIB as intelligence arm of the executive branch relating to matters affecting
the national economy. As such, EIIB’s functions are related to matters affecting national
security. In the performance of its function in relation w/ the gathering of intelligence
information, executive privilege could as well be invoked by the EIIB esp. in relation to its
covert operations.
 The expenditures of the EIIB for personal funds had already been previously examined and
passed upon in audit by the Commission on Audit, and since there has been no allegation
of any irregularity by the COA, the previous determination ought to be accorded our respect.
 The determination of the legality of EIIB’s disbursements of funds are properly w/in the
competence of the COA. The COA had adopted, as in the past, measures to protect
“classified information” pertaining to examination of expenditures of intelligence agencies. In
this case, disclosure of information to any other agency (such as the Office of the
Ombudsman) would unnecessarily expose the covert operations of EIIB as a gov’t agency
charged w/ national security functions.