Case Summary (A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC, 09-8-07-CA)
Factual Background
Research representatives of the PCIJ sought copies of the 2008 Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) and Personal Data Sheets (PDS) or curricula vitae (CV) of the Justices of the Supreme Court and later of the Court of Appeals for database-updating and reporting purposes. Multiple other requests for SALNs, PDSs, and CVs of members of the Judiciary followed from journalists, media entities, civil-society organizations, students, and the Office of the Ombudsman. The requests varied in scope, timeframe, and stated purpose and included subpoenas, letters of request, and a Senate subpoena in connection with an impeachment proceeding.
Procedural History
On August 18, 2009 the Court consolidated the PCIJ requests and established a special committee to review the policy on disclosure of SALNs and related personal documents. The committee recommended creation of a Committee on Public Disclosure to assume functions relating to such requests. The Court earlier denied an Ombudsman subpoena for the SALNs and personal documents of a Sandiganbayan justice by Resolution dated October 13, 2009, and docketed a related administrative complaint on February 2, 2010. Subsequent requests and incidents accumulated through 2012, including a Senate subpoena in connection with Impeachment Case No. 002-2011 that the Court later deemed moot.
Requests and Incidents Presented to the Court
The record comprised an array of specific requests, including an Ombudsman subpoena duces tecum for SALNs of a Sandiganbayan justice; requests from news organizations for SALNs of Supreme Court Justices for multiple years; petitions by civic groups seeking publication of SALNs; student requests for SALNs for academic purposes; media requests tied to election coverage; and a Senate subpoena seeking the former Chief Justice’s SALNs for 2002–2011. The multiplicity of requests prompted a comprehensive institutional response and legal review.
Prior Jurisprudence and Legal Framework
The Court reviewed its prior rulings limiting disclosure where requests were motivated by improper ends, including the 1989 Re: Request of Jose M. Alejandrino resolution, and the 1992 A.M. No. 92-9-851-RTC decision denying requests shown to be fishing expeditions. The Court underscored the exclusive administrative supervision conferred on it by Section 6, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution, as expounded in Maceda v. Vasquez and in Caiobes v. Ombudsman, and considered the constitutional right of public access under Section 7, Article III, 1987 Constitution and the duty to disclose SALNs under Section 17, Article XI, 1987 Constitution. Statutory provisions of Republic Act No. 6713 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations were treated as the governing statutory regime for accessibility, limitations, prohibitions, and penalties.
Parties’ Contentions
Requestors and media organizations asserted a constitutional and statutory right of access to SALNs, PDSs, and CVs as matters of public concern and necessary for transparency, accountability, and public information, invoking R.A. No. 6713 and relevant constitutional provisions. Members of the Judiciary and judges’ associations acknowledged the right of access but uniformly urged that disclosure be regulated by guidelines that protect judicial independence and guard against abusive, harassing, or unsafe uses of personal information.
Issues Presented
The central issue was whether copies of the SALN, PDS, and CV of members of the Judiciary must be disclosed to requestors and, if so, under what conditions and constraints consistent with the Constitution, R.A. No. 6713, its Implementing Rules and Regulations, and the Court’s duty of administrative supervision. Subsidiary issues concerned the authority to disclose, permissible scope of requests, protection of judicial independence and personal safety, and procedural safeguards against misuse.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Court granted the enumerated requests insofar as they sought copies of the 2011 SALN, PDS, and CV of the Justices of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax Appeals; judges of the lower courts; and other members of the Judiciary, subject to the limitations and prohibitions of R.A. No. 6713, its Implementing Rules and Regulations, and to guidelines the Court prescribed for disclosure and access.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the constitutional right of access to information on matters of public concern and the duty to disclose SALNs under Section 17, Article XI, 1987 Constitution and Section 8, R.A. No. 6713 compelled custodians not to withhold access outright. The Court reaffirmed that the right of access is not absolute and is subject to statutory limitations and exceptions, such as national security, privacy, investigatory confidentiality, and protection of internal deliberations. The Court emphasized its constitutional duty under Section 6, Article VIII to exercise administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel and to regulate disclosure in a manner that preserves judicial independence and guards against improper motives, harassment, or threats to safety. The Court held that custodians must not adjudicate the requestors’ motives but must ensure compliance with statutory and jurisprudential safeguards; misuse of disclosed information remained punishable under Section 11, R.A. No. 6713.
Guidelines Ordered
The Court prescribed procedural and substantive guidelines: requests must be filed with the appropriate custodian office (Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Court Administrator for lower courts, or heads of attached agencies). Requests shall ordinarily cover only the latest SALN, PDS, and CV, with access to prior records allowed only if specifically requested and justified as determined by the appropriate custodian under these guidelines and R.A. No. 6713. Disclosure of SALNs of Justices of t
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC, 09-8-07-CA)
Parties and Posture
- Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) and individual researchers filed requests for copies of the 2008 SALN and PDS or CV of the Justices of the Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals.
- Various media entities, private individuals, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, submitted multiple requests and subpoenas for SALNs and related personal documents of members of the Judiciary.
- The matters were consolidated by the Court and referred to a special committee to review the policy on requests for SALN and PDS and to recommend a course of action.
- The Court received reports and resolutions from the Committee chaired by then Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario recommending the creation of a Committee on Public Disclosure.
- The Court received comments from the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Philippine Judges Association, and several judges associations expressing concern over disclosure but urging regulation consistent with judicial independence.
Key Facts
- Requesters included journalists from GMA, TV5, Rappler, Newsbreak, research organizations, students, and the Office of the Ombudsman.
- The Ombudsman issued a subpoena duces tecum for the SALNs of Justice Roland B. Jurado of the Sandiganbayan, which the Court denied by Resolution upon recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
- The Senate impeachment court issued a subpoena for the SALNs of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona for the years 2002 to 2011, which the Court later deemed moot given developments in the impeachment proceedings.
- Requests sought SALNs, PDS, CVs, oath of office, appointment papers, service records, and compensation certificates for various years and purposes including media reporting, academic research, and oversight.
Procedural History
- The Court consolidated the requests on August 18, 2009, and created a special review Committee the same day.
- The Committee submitted a Memorandum and Resolution recommending a Committee on Public Disclosure to handle SALN and personal document requests.
- The Court issued a Resolution denying the Ombudsman subpoena for Justice Roland B. Jurado and directed the Ombudsman to forward complaints or derogatory reports to the Court.
- The matter involving Justice Jurado was docketed as a regular administrative complaint following compliance by the Ombudsman.
- The Court required affected courts and judges associations to file comments and otherwise proceeded to resolve the pending incidents by issuing a comprehensive resolution governing disclosure.
Issues Presented
- Whether SALNs, Personal Data Sheets, and Curricula Vitae of Justices and other members of the Judiciary are subject to public disclosure.
- What standards, limitations, and procedures must govern access to such documents to reconcile the right to information with the independence of the Judiciary.
- Which judicial or administrative body has authority to disclose or regulate disclosure of SALNs of Justices and judges.
- Whether custodians of public records may refuse disclosure based on the requestor’s motive or possible misuse.
Statutory Framework
- Section 6, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution vests the Supreme Court with administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel.
- Section 7, Article III, 1987 Constitution recognizes the right of the people to information on matters of public concern and conditions access to official records on limitations provided by law.
- Section 17, Article XI, 1987 Constitution classifies disclosure of SALNs of certain high officials as a matter of public concern and requires disclosure in the manner provided by law.
- Republic Act No. 6713 (R.A. No. 6713) mandates filing of SALNs and provides for accessibility, limited availability, and prohibited acts regarding use of SALNs.
- The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 6713, particularly Rule IV, Section 3 and Rule VI, Section 6, enumerate exceptions to disclosure and duties of public officials regarding access.
Prior Jurisprudence
- Re: Request of Jose M. Alejandrino established guidelines denying requests where improper motive or threat to judicial independence is evident.
- A.M. No. 92-9-851-RTC (1992) denied requests that sought to "fish" for information and authori