Elective: Advance Constitutional Law Seminar

Report on the Non-Release of Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).

Presented By: Ma. Gina M. Kinazo & Sara-Jane Ciantar

WHAT IS A SALN?

SALN stands for Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth. It is a declaration of assets and
liabilities, including business and financial interests, of an official/employee, of his or her
spouse, and of his or her unmarried children under 18 years old still living in their
parents’ households. The submission of a SALN is required by law under Article XI Section 17 of
the 1987 Constitution and Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713, the “Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees.” It includes a waiver authorizing the Ombudsman
or his authorized representatives to attain documents that may show assets, liabilities, net
worth, business interests, and financial connections from all appropriate government agencies.

WHO IS REQUIRED TO FILE A SALN?

All public officials and employees, whether regular or under temporary status, are required to
file a SALN.

Art. XI Sec. 17 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:    

“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.”

Administrative Code of 1987, Book 1, Chapter 9, Sec. 34:

“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.”

RA 6713, Sec. 8:

1|Page
Elective: Advance Constitutional Law Seminar | Ma. Gina M. Kinazo & Sara-Jane Ciantar
 “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.”

Public officials and employees under temporary status are also required to file under
oath their SALNs and Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections in
accordance with the guidelines provided under these rules.

BACKGROUND ON THE ISSUE:

Since 2019, there have been attempts to secure President Duterte’s SALN but to no avail.

On June 30, 2016, Duterte signed an Executive Order on Freedom of information which requires
government officials to file and make available for scrutiny their SALN in accordance with
existing laws, rules and regulations.

However, in 2019, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism stated that it is the first
time in the last 30 years that a President has not release his or her SALN. The PCIJ made
multiple requests for the President’s SALN but they were tossed back and forth between the
Office of the Executive Secretary and the Office of the Ombudsman. All PCIJ’s requests filed in a
series from June to November 2019 were all denied due to one reason. The reason being that
the Ombudsman has yet to finalize its new guidelines on the release of the SALN’s of the
President and other senior officials and Ombudsman Samuel Martires did not detail when the
same would be disclosed.

Also, in a press release statement on Sept. 7, 2021 by Sen. Leila M. De Lima, she stated that last
year she asked her lawyers to request for the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth of
President Duterte from Malacañang but they were refused and directed to the Ombudsman. In
going to the Ombudsman earlier this year, their request was yet again denied.

De Lima expressed that in past administrations, they would have not met such elusive
treatment, nor would even be necessary, given the fact that a President and his Cabinet are
expected to voluntarily publish their SALNs for the scrutiny of the public. At least, that was the
case before Duterte. She questioned why Duterte's SALN more difficult to access than anyone
else's when, as the highest official of the land, he is expected to be more, not less, transparent
and accountable than anybody else? Accountability of public officers is deemed so critical in our
system of government, that our Constitution devotes an entire Article on it, consisting of 18
Sections. Publicly disclosing one's SALN is the least that is expected of public officials to meet
the requirements of accountability, as mandated under the Constitution.

2|Page
Elective: Advance Constitutional Law Seminar | Ma. Gina M. Kinazo & Sara-Jane Ciantar
Correspondingly, Malacañang stated last September that President Duterte is willing to release
his SALN but he respects the constitutional prerogative of the Office of the Ombudsman. Palace
spokesman Harry Roque Jr. insists that Duterte has already complied with his constitutional
duty to submit of file his SALN and anyone who wants to see it may simply get it from the Office
of the Ombudsman.

But then again, In September 2020, the Ombudsman issued Memorandum Circular No. 1 series
of 2020 amending guidelines in public access to statements of assets, liabilities and net worth
and disclosure of business interests and financial connections filed with their office. Such
circular imposes new restrictions on the public's access to the SALNs of public officers, which
include a consent from the SALN's owner before the request is processed.

With this new policy, even the SALNs of Duterte from the past years cannot be disclosed.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON NON RELEASE OF SALN:

Article 11, Section 17, the Constitution requires of every public officer and employee a verified
declaration of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) upon assumption of office and as often as
may be required by law.
Art. XI Sec. 17 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides:       
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.

Aside from the 1987 Philippine Constitution, it is also provided in Rule 7, IRR of RA 6713 or the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees that the assets and
liabilities of public officials must be disclose.
Rule 7 on Public Disclosure, the IRR states explicitly:

Section 1. Every official and employee, except those who serve in an official honorary
capacity, without service credit or pay, temporary laborers and casual or temporary and
contractual workers, shall file under oath their statements of assets, liabilities and net
worth and a disclosure of business interest and financial connections…including those of
their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen years of age living in their
households in the prescribed form.

3|Page
Elective: Advance Constitutional Law Seminar | Ma. Gina M. Kinazo & Sara-Jane Ciantar
Furthermore, in Sec. 8 of RA 6713, paragraph “C” provides for the accessibility of documents:

(C) Accessibility of documents. –

(1) Any and all statements filed under this Act, shall be made available for
inspection at reasonable hours.
(2) Such statements shall be made available for copying or reproduction after
ten (10) working days from the time they are filed as required by law.
(3) Any person requesting a copy of a statement shall be required to pay a
reasonable fee to cover the cost of reproduction and mailing of such
statement, as well as the cost of certification.
(4) Any statement filed under this Act shall be available to the public for a period
of ten (10) years after receipt of the statement. After such period, the
statement may be destroyed unless needed in an ongoing investigation.

From these provisions cited above, the non-release of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and
Net Worth of a public official is against the Constitution. It can be said that it is mandatory that
all public officials shall disclose their SALN’s to the public so that the citizens can determine if
public officials are engage in corruption or not.
Such right to this information is also provided in our Constitution under Sec. 7 of Art. III which
states:
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.

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.
The Constitution itself, under Art. XI Sec. 17 mentioned above, 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.

There are two conditions which must be present before the right to information may be
invoked to access information such as a public officer's SALN:

1. The information sought is a matter of public concern; and 

2. The information is not exempted by law from the Constitutional guarantee.

4|Page
Elective: Advance Constitutional Law Seminar | Ma. Gina M. Kinazo & Sara-Jane Ciantar
Then, it becomes the duty of the State to provide such access in light of the right to
information. From here, the debate now centers on whether or not the disclosure of Duterte's
SALN can be considered as a matter of public concern and whether or not the Court has the
duty to protect public officers from political and other motives perceived to be illicit or
illegitimate.
In one case, the Supreme Court acknowledged the possible illicit motives of some individuals
who request for access to information. Nevertheless, the Court emphasized that "custodians of
public documents must not concern themselves with the motives, reasons and objects of the
persons seeking access to the records." Basically, the point is that the manner of inspection,
although regulated, does not means that access may be prohibited.
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.
Moreover, Constitutional provisions on State Policies can also be applied. Art. II, Secs. 27 and 28
state that:

Sec. 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take
positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.

Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and
implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest.

As well as, Sec. 1 of Art. XI on Accountability of Public Officers, which provides:

Sec. 1. 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.

In taking measures against graft and corruption, the SALN is instrumental in determining
whether a public official is engaged in such activities. Any sudden or unexplainable changes in
their financial status may be an indication of corruption or misappropriation of public funds.
This is why Sec. 28 of Art. II requires full disclosure of transactions involving public funds, to
ensure the public that their taxpayer’s money is being used correctly and for the general
welfare of the people.

5|Page
Elective: Advance Constitutional Law Seminar | Ma. Gina M. Kinazo & Sara-Jane Ciantar
Former Comelec Commissioner Luie Guia also explained that the wisdom behind the
requirements of SALN and Statements of Contribution and Expenditures or SOCE comes from
the basic nature of public office, which is public trust. SALN is such an effective tool in helping
reduce opportunities for corruption, that the danger it is said to pose on public officers is
outweighed by the benefit it has to having a transparent and accountable government.
Hence, being clearly mandated by our Constitution, the SALN of President Duterte should be
released. Both the President and the Ombudsman have the obligation to make his SALN
publicly available for the citizens to scrutinize. The Ombudsman cannot withhold this
information on the ground of their new rules and regulations on the same issue as such would
be contrary to the law of the land.

JURISPRUDENCE ON THE RELEASE OF SALN

1. A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC, June 13, 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 officers
and employees of the judiciary.

Facts: In 2009, Rowena C. Paraan, Research Director of the Philippine Center for
Investigative Journalism and a researcher-writer Karol M. Ilagan, sought copies of the
SALNs of the Justices of the Supreme Court for the year 2008 as well as copies of their
Personal Data Sheet or the Curriculum Vitae for purposes of updating their database of
information on government officials. The requests were consolidated by the Court who
resolved to create a committee to review the policy on requests for SALN, PDS and other
similar documents, and to recommend appropriate action. The Committee
recommended the creation of Committee on Public Disclosure that would, in essence,
take over the functions of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) with respect to
requests for copies of, or access to, SALN, and other personal documents of members of
the Judiciary.
Issue: Whether or not the public has the right to access the SALNs of officers of the
judiciary.
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition.
Citing the landmark case of Valmont eVs Belmonte Jr., the Court held that 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. The right to information goes hand-in-hand

6|Page
Elective: Advance Constitutional Law Seminar | Ma. Gina M. Kinazo & Sara-Jane Ciantar
 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. 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.
However, like all constitutional guarantees, 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.
Such limitations could only mean that while no prohibition could stand against
access to official records, such as the SALN, the same is undoubtedly subject to
regulation. The power to regulate the access by the public to these documents stems
from the inherent power of the Court, as custodian of these personal documents, to
control its very office to the end that damage to, or loss of, the records may be avoided;
that undue interference with the duties of the custodian of the books and documents
and other employees may be prevented; and that the right of other persons entitled to
make inspection may be insured.
Nevertheless, the Court ruled that 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.

2. G.R. No. 254516, February 2, 2021

Louis “Barok” C. Biraogo Vs. Hon. Ombudsman Samuel R. Martires

7|Page
Elective: Advance Constitutional Law Seminar | Ma. Gina M. Kinazo & Sara-Jane Ciantar
 Facts: Petitioner seeks to set aside and prohibit the implementation of Memorandum
Circular No. 1 series of 2020 for being unconstitutional. Petitioner requested for
procedure to obtain a copy of the latest SALN of Vice-President Maria Leonor “Leni”
Robredo for his own study on the Vice-President’s alleged use of a mansion in Quezon
City which was purportedly being paid for with taxpayer’s money.
However, petitioner was told that his request could not be accommodated in
view of Memorandum Circular No.1. Allegedly, under such Circular, access to a copy of a
SALN on file with the Ombudsman may no longer be obtained without the prior written
and duly notarized consent of the declarant. Petitioner asserts that this is a violation of
the right to information enshrined in Sec. 7, Art. III and Sec. 17, Art. XI of the
Constitution as well as in Sections 5(e) and 8 of R.A. No. 6713.
Issue: Whether or not Memorandum Circular No. 1 is unconstitutional.
Held: No. The Supreme Court held that the questioned circular is not unconstitutional.
Here, while the right of access and information to a public official’s SALN is
provided under the Constitution and R.A 6713, the same is not an absolute vested right.
The Court has declared in the past that while no prohibition could stand against access
to official records such as the SALN, the same is undoubtedly subject to regulation. The
power to regulate the access by the public to these documents stems from the inherent
power of the custodian to control its very office to the end that damage to, or loss of the
records may be avoided; that undue interference with the duties of the custodian of the
books and documents and other employees may be prevented; and that the right of
other persons entitled to make inspection may be insured.
Thus, a custodian such as the Office of the Ombudsman is not bound under
every circumstance to allow or to grant the request of disclosure of a public official’s
SALN to the public. A custodian is not prohibited by the Constitution to regulate such
disclosure. Its duty therefore, under the Constitution and applicable laws, is far from
being merely ministerial. The Court, in fact, as custodian of the SALNs of justices and
judges, has itself laid down some guideline to be observed for requests made to gain
access to these SALNs. It has likewise, on occasions, denied requests due to a “plainly
discernible improper motive” or one that “smacked of a fishing expedition”.

8|Page
Elective: Advance Constitutional Law Seminar | Ma. Gina M. Kinazo & Sara-Jane Ciantar