Case Digest (A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC, 09-8-07-CA)
Facts:
A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC; A.M. No. 09-8-7-CA, June 10, 2013, the Supreme Court En Banc, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court. The consolidated administrative matters arose from multiple requests for copies of the Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) and Personal Data Sheets/CVs (PDS/CV) of members of the Judiciary, principally prompted by letters from researchers of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) dated July 30 and August 13, 2009.After consolidation of the requests on August 18, 2009, the Court created a special committee to review policy on disclosure of SALNs and related documents. The Committee, chaired by Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, submitted a memorandum and resolution recommending creation of a Committee on Public Disclosure to take over functions of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) regarding such requests. Meanwhile numerous other requests and subpoenas were filed by media organizations, individual journalists, civil-society groups, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Senate (in the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona), seeking various years’ SALNs and related documents of Justices of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, and lower-court judges and personnel.
The Court earlier denied a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Ombudsman seeking the SALNs and personal documents of Sandiganbayan Justice Roland B. Jurado (Resolution dated October 13, 2009), and upon receipt of any complaint or derogatory report from the Ombudsman the matter was docketed as a regular administrative complaint (A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-21-SB-J). The Court also deemed moot the subpoena issued by the Senate impeachment court in Impeachment Case No. 002-2011. The OCA, various courts, and judges’ associations filed comments; they expressed that disclosure should be permitted but regulated so as not to undermine judicial independence or endanger magistrates.
The Court reviewed constitutional provisions (Art. VIII, Sec. 6; Art. III, Sec. 7; Art. XI, Sec. 17), statutory law (Republic Act No. 6713, Secs. 8 and 11), and the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 6713 (Rules IV and VI). It surveyed controlling jurisprudence including Re: Request of Jose M. Alejandrino, Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., Maceda v. Vasquez, Caiobes v. Ombudsman, and other cases dealing with access to official records and the Court’s supervisory prerogatives. Balancing the constitutional right of access to information against the Constitution’s grant of administrative supervision to the Supreme Court and concerns for judicial independence and safety, the Court concluded that access to SALNs, PDS and CVs should be granted subject to ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under the Constitution and R.A. No. 6713, do members of the public have a right to access the SALNs, PDS, and CVs of Justices and other members of the Judiciary?
- May access to those documents be denied or restricted to protect the independence, safety, or proper functioning of the Judiciary?
- If access is permitted, what guidelines and procedures should govern disclosure of SALNs, PDS, an...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)