The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and upheld the requirement for public officials to submit a sworn statement of assets and liabilities (SAL) every two years. The Court found that:
1) The requirement was a valid exercise of police power and did not violate due process as it was a reasonable measure to ensure integrity in public service.
2) It did not infringe on the right to privacy as the information required in the SAL was rationally related to the objective of the statute.
3) The constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination did not apply in this case.
4) Courts cannot invalidate statutes based on assessing the wisdom of the action
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and upheld the requirement for public officials to submit a sworn statement of assets and liabilities (SAL) every two years. The Court found that:
1) The requirement was a valid exercise of police power and did not violate due process as it was a reasonable measure to ensure integrity in public service.
2) It did not infringe on the right to privacy as the information required in the SAL was rationally related to the objective of the statute.
3) The constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination did not apply in this case.
4) Courts cannot invalidate statutes based on assessing the wisdom of the action
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and upheld the requirement for public officials to submit a sworn statement of assets and liabilities (SAL) every two years. The Court found that:
1) The requirement was a valid exercise of police power and did not violate due process as it was a reasonable measure to ensure integrity in public service.
2) It did not infringe on the right to privacy as the information required in the SAL was rationally related to the objective of the statute.
3) The constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination did not apply in this case.
4) Courts cannot invalidate statutes based on assessing the wisdom of the action
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and upheld the requirement for public officials to submit a sworn statement of assets and liabilities (SAL) every two years. The Court found that:
1) The requirement was a valid exercise of police power and did not violate due process as it was a reasonable measure to ensure integrity in public service.
2) It did not infringe on the right to privacy as the information required in the SAL was rationally related to the objective of the statute.
3) The constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination did not apply in this case.
4) Courts cannot invalidate statutes based on assessing the wisdom of the action
BY MAROON 5 PARTNERS AND ASSOCIATES DECEMBER 29, 2011 SALN
Declaratory relief (Appeal)
Date of Promulgation: January 31, 1968
Ponente: Fernando, J.
Plaintiff-appellee: Jesus P. Morfe (Judge of CFI)
Defendants-appellants: Amelito R. Mutuc (Executive Secretary) et al.
Facts:
The Law: Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act of 1960 (RA No. 3019) Every public officer within 30 days after its approval or after his assumption of office “and within the month of January of every year thereafter”, as well as upon termination of his position, shall prepare and file with the head of the office to which he belongs, “a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year”. Plaintiff Morfe, a judge of a CFI, contends that the periodical submission “within the month of January of every other year thereafter” of their sworn statement of assets and liabilities (SAL) is violative of due process as an oppressive exercise of police power and as an unlawful invasion of the constitutional right to privacy implicit on the ban against unreasonable search and seizure construed together with the prohibition against self-incrimination. Executive Secretary and DOJ Sec: Acceptance of public position = voluntary assumption of obligation Merely seeks to adopt a reasonable measure of insuring the interest of general welfare in honest and clean public service and is therefore a legitimate exercise of police power. CFI of Pangasinan held that the requirement exceeds the permissible limit of the police power and is thus offensive to the due process clause Issue/s:
Whether the periodical submission of SAL for public officers is: 1. An oppressive exercise of police power; 2. Violative of due process and an unlawful invasion of the right to privacy implicit in the ban against unreasonable search and seizure construed together with the prohibition against self-incrimination; 3. An insult to the personal integrity and official dignity of public officials.
Ruling: Decision reversed.
Ratio:
1. Presumption of validity
Plaintiff asserted that the submission of SAL was a reasonable requirement for employment so a public officer can make of record his assets and liabilities upon assumption of office. Plaintiff did not present evidence to rebut the presumption of validity. “If the liberty involved were freedom of the mind or the person, the standard for the validity of governmental acts is much more rigorous and exacting, but where the liberty curtailed affects the most rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory measure is wider.” (Ermita-Malate Hotel v. Mayor of Manila)
1. Exercise of Police power and the defense provided by the Due Process Clause
“inherent and plenary power in the state which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society” (Justice Malcolm) The power of sovereignty, the power to govern men and things within the limits of its domain (Justice Taney, going beyond curtailment of rights) Anyone with an alleged grievance regarding the extension of police power to regulatory action affecting persons in public or private life can invoke the protection of due process. It has been held that due process may be relied upon by public official to protect the security of tenure which in a limited sense is analogous to property. Therefore he could also use due process to strike down what he considers as an infringement of his liberty. Under the Constitution, the challenged provision is allowable as long as due process is observed. The standard for due process is REASONABLENESS. Test: Official action must not outrun the bounds of reason and result in sheer oppression. “It would be to dwell in the realm of abstractions and to ignore the harsh and compelling realities of public service with its ever-present temptation to heed the call of greed and avarice to condemn as arbitrary and oppressive a requirement as that imposed upon public officials and employees to file such sworn statement of assets and liabilities every two years after having done so upon assuming office…There was therefore no unconstitutional exercise of police power.”
1. Right to privacy
Right to be let alone
“It cannot be said that the challenged statutory provision calls for disclosure of information which infringes on the right of a person to privacy. It cannot be denied that the rational relationship such a requirement possesses with the objective of a valid statute goes very far in precluding assent to an objection of such character. This is not to say that a public officer, by virtue of position he holds, is bereft of constitutional protection; it is only to emphasize that in subjecting him to such a further compulsory revelation of his assets and liabilities, including the statement of the amounts of personal and family expenses, and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year, there is no unconstitutional intrusion into what otherwise would be a private sphere.”
1. Unreasonable Search and Seizure
The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure does not give freedom from testimonial compulsion.
1. Right against self-incrimination
We are not aware of any constitutional provision designed to protect a man’s conduct from judicial inquiry, or aid him in fleeing from justice.
1. Insult to personal integrity and official dignity
Only congressional power or competence, not the wisdom of the action taken, mey be the basis for declaring a statute invalid.
