Case Summary (G.R. No. L-20387)
Factual and Procedural Background
On January 31, 1962 Morfe filed a declaratory relief action in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. He had complied with the initial filing under Administrative Order No. 334 but alleged that the biennial submission requirement was oppressive, violated due process, invaded privacy, and infringed constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination.
Issue and Lower Court Ruling
Morfe contended that Section 7 of RA 3019 exceeded the police power, unlawfully invaded his privacy, and compelled self-incrimination. The trial court agreed and, on July 19, 1962, declared the periodic-filing provision unconstitutional for offending the due process clause.
Presumption of Constitutionality and Police Power
The Supreme Court first noted that statutes are presumed valid absent clear rebuttal. It underscored that the police power—“the power of sovereignty…to govern men and things within the limits of its domain”—includes enacting regulations to promote public morals and welfare. RA 3019’s detailed prohibitions against corrupt practices and its asset-disclosure regime further a legitimate public-trust objective.
Due Process Analysis
Under the 1935 Constitution’s due process clause, liberty is broadly defined to include freedom from arbitrary restraints. Regulatory measures affecting liberty or property withstand substantive due process if they bear a reasonable relation to a public purpose and avoid arbitrariness. The Court found the biennial disclosure requirement a reasonable, non-oppressive exercise of police power to deter corruption.
Privacy and Intrusion Claims
Although recognizing privacy as a constitutional value, the Court held that demanding periodic financial disclosures by public officers does not unlawfully intrude into a private sphere. The requirement directly advances the State’s interest in honest public service and does not impinge on any core privacy interest beyond what the Constitution permits for regulated office-holders.
Search, Seizure, and Self-Incrimination Claims
The periodic filing of statements is not a “search” or “seizure” of private papers akin to general warrants. Nor does it compel testimonial self-incrimination, since the officer willingly furnishes information as a condition of public employment. Precedents distinguishing government property and voluntary disclosures undermine any Fourth or Fifth Amendment analogue.
Separation of Powers and
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-20387)
Background and Procedural History
- In 1960, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) to deter dishonesty in public service.
- Section 7 mandates each public officer to file a sworn statement of assets and liabilities: within 30 days of assuming office, every January of every other year thereafter, and upon leaving office.
- On January 31, 1962, Jesus P. Morfe, then a judge of the Court of First Instance, filed a declaratory relief suit in Pangasinan, challenging the biennial-filing requirement as violative of due process, privacy, unreasonable search and seizure, and self-incrimination clauses.
- The trial court granted Morfe’s petition and declared Section 7 unconstitutional insofar as it required periodic filings after the initial statement.
- The Executive Secretary and Secretary of Justice appealed to the Supreme Court.
Statutory Framework and Policy Objectives
- Section 1 (Statement of Policy) of RA 3019: affirms that “a public office is a public trust” and seeks to repress graft by public officers and private persons.
- Section 7 (Statement of Assets and Liabilities): prescribes the contents of the sworn statement—assets, liabilities, income sources, personal/family expenses, and income taxes paid—for the preceding calendar year.
- RA 1379 (1955) earlier provided for forfeiture in favor of the State of unlawfully acquired wealth by public officers.
Provision Challenged
- The biennial-filing clause in Section 7 (“within the month of January of every other year thereafter”) after the initial 30-day filing.
- Coverage includes all public officers: Department heads file with the Office of the President; Congress members with their respective House Secretary.
Arguments of the Plaintiff-Appellee (Morfe)
- The periodic-filing requirement is an oppressive exercise of police power and violates procedural and substantive due process.
- It unlawfully invades the constitutional right to privacy and amounts to an unreasonable search and seizure.
- It compels self-incrimination by forcing disclosure of financial matters.
- It is premised on a derogatory assumption that public officers are “corrupt at heart.”
- Existing tax laws already provide means to detect unexplained wealth, rendering the provision unnecessary.