A.M. No.

1928 August 3, 1978 On January 27, 1976, the Court required the respondent to comment on
the resolution and letter adverted to above; he submitted his comment on
February 23, 1976, reiterating his refusal to pay the membership fees due
from him.
In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty.
MARCIAL A. EDILION (IBP Administrative Case No. MDD-1) On March 2, 1976, the Court required the IBP President and the IBP Board
of Governors to reply to Edillon's comment: on March 24, 1976, they
CASTRO, C.J.:
submitted a joint reply.
The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in
Thereafter, the case was set for hearing on June 3, 1976. After the hearing,
the Philippines.
the parties were required to submit memoranda in amplification of their
On November 29, 1975, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP for short) oral arguments. The matter was thenceforth submitted for resolution.
Board of Governors unanimously adopted Resolution No. 75-65 in
At the threshold, a painstaking scrutiny of the respondent's pleadings
Administrative Case No. MDD-1 (In the Matter of the Membership Dues
would show that the propriety and necessity of the integration of the Bar
Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edillon) recommending to the Court the
of the Philippines are in essence conceded. The respondent, however,
removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for
objects to particular features of Rule of Court 139-A (hereinafter referred
"stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues" to the IBP since the latter's
to as the Court Rule) 1 — in accordance with which the Bar of the
constitution notwithstanding due notice.
Philippines was integrated — and to the provisions of par. 2, Section 24,
On January 21, 1976, the IBP, through its then President Liliano B. Neri, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws (hereinabove cited).
submitted the said resolution to the Court for consideration and approval,
The authority of the IBP Board of Governors to recommend to the
pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of the By-Laws of the IBP,
Supreme Court the removal of a delinquent member's name from the Roll
which reads:
of Attorneys is found in par. 2 Section 24, Article Ill of the IBP By-Laws
.... Should the delinquency further continue until the following June 29, the (supra), whereas the authority of the Court to issue the order applied for is
Board shall promptly inquire into the cause or causes of the continued found in Section 10 of the Court Rule, which reads:
delinquency and take whatever action it shall deem appropriate, including
SEC. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. — Subject to the provisions of
a recommendation to the Supreme Court for the removal of the
Section 12 of this Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six
delinquent member's name from the Roll of Attorneys. Notice of the action
months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and
taken shall be sent by registered mail to the member and to the Secretary
default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of
of the Chapter concerned.
the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.
The all-encompassing, all-inclusive scope of membership in the IBP is
stated in these words of the Court Rule:
SECTION 1. Organization. — There is hereby organized an official
national body to be known as the 'Integrated Bar of the Philippines,'
composed of all persons whose names now appear or may hereafter be
included in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.
The obligation to pay membership dues is couched in the following words
of the Court Rule:
SEC. 9. Membership dues. Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay
such annual dues as the Board of Governors shall determine with the
approval of the Supreme Court. ...
The core of the respondent's arguments is that the above provisions
constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is
being compelled, as a pre-condition to maintaining his status as a lawyer in
good standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding
dues, and that as a consequence of this compelled financial support of the
said organization to which he is admittedly personally antagonistic, he is
being deprived of the rights to liberty and property guaranteed to him by
the Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes, the above provisions
of the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and
effect.
The respondent similarly questions the jurisdiction of the Court to strike
his name from the Roll of Attorneys, contending that the said matter is not
among the justiciable cases triable by the Court but is rather of an
"administrative nature pertaining to an administrative body."
The case at bar is not the first one that has reached the Court relating to
constitutional issues that inevitably and inextricably come up to the
surface whenever attempts are made to regulate the practice of law,
define the conditions of such practice, or revoke the license granted for
the exercise of the legal profession.
The matters here complained of are the very same issues raised in a
previous case before the Court, entitled "Administrative Case No. 526, In
the Matter of the Petition for the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines,
Roman Ozaeta, et al., Petitioners." The Court exhaustively considered all
these matters in that case in its Resolution ordaining the integration of the
Bar of the Philippines, promulgated on January 9, 1973. The Court there
made the unanimous pronouncement that it was
.. fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the
arguments adduced in Adm. Case No. 526 and the authoritative materials
and the mass of factual data contained in the exhaustive Report of the
Commission on Bar Integration, that the integration of the Philippine Bar is
'perfectly constitutional and legally unobjectionable'. ...
Be that as it may, we now restate briefly the posture of the Court.
An "Integrated Bar" is a State-organized Bar, to which every lawyer must
belong, as distinguished from bar associations organized by individual
lawyers themselves, membership in which is voluntary. Integration of the
Bar is essentially a process by which every member of the Bar is afforded
an opportunity to do his share in carrying out the objectives of the Bar as
well as obliged to bear his portion of its responsibilities. Organized by or
under the direction of the State, an integrated Bar is an official national
body of which all lawyers are required to be members. They are, therefore,
subject to all the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar, including
the requirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee for the effective
discharge of the purposes of the Bar, and adherence to a code of
professional ethics or professional responsibility breach of which
constitutes sufficient reason for investigation by the Bar and, upon proper
cause appearing, a recommendation for discipline or disbarment of the
offending member. 2
The integration of the Philippine Bar was obviously dictated by overriding
considerations of public interest and public welfare to such an extent as
more than constitutionally and legally justifies the restrictions that
integration imposes upon the personal interests and personal convenience
of individual lawyers. 3
Apropos to the above, it must be stressed that all legislation directing the
integration of the Bar have been uniformly and universally sustained as a
valid exercise of the police power over an important profession. The
practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege moreover
clothed with public interest because a lawyer owes substantial duties not
only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts,
and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions of
the State — the administration of justice — as an officer of the court. 4 The
practice of law being clothed with public interest, the holder of this
privilege must submit to a degree of control for the common good, to the
extent of the interest he has created. As the U. S. Supreme Court through
Mr. Justice Roberts explained, the expression "affected with a public
interest" is the equivalent of "subject to the exercise of the police power"
(Nebbia vs. New York, 291 U.S. 502).
When, therefore, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6397 5 authorizing
the Supreme Court to "adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the
Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit," it did so in the
exercise of the paramount police power of the State. The Act's avowal is to
"raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of
justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more
effectively." Hence, the Congress in enacting such Act, the Court in
ordaining the integration of the Bar through its Resolution promulgated on
January 9, 1973, and the President of the Philippines in decreeing the
constitution of the IBP into a body corporate through Presidential Decree
No. 181 dated May 4, 1973, were prompted by fundamental
considerations of public welfare and motivated by a desire to meet the
demands of pressing public necessity.
The State, in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with and
regulate personal liberty, property and occupations. Persons and property
may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to secure the general
prosperity and welfare of the State (U.S. vs. Gomez Jesus, 31 Phil 218), for,
as the Latin maxim goes, "Salus populi est supreme lex." The public welfare
is the supreme law. To this fundamental principle of government the rights
of individuals are subordinated. Liberty is a blessing without which life is a
misery, but liberty should not be made to prevail over authority because
then society win fall into anarchy (Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726). It is
an undoubted power of the State to restrain some individuals from all
freedom, and all individuals from some freedom.
But the most compelling argument sustaining the constitutionality and
validity of Bar integration in the Philippines is the explicit unequivocal
grant of precise power to the Supreme Court by Section 5 (5) of Article X of
the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines, which reads:
Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
xxx xxx xxx
(5) Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and pro.
procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law and the
integration of the Bar ...,
and Section 1 of Republic Act No. 6397, which reads:
SECTION 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act, the Supreme
Court may adopt rules of Court to effect the integration of the Philippine
Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the standards
of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable
the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
Quite apart from the above, let it be stated that even without the enabling
Act (Republic Act No. 6397), and looking solely to the language of the
provision of the Constitution granting the Supreme Court the power "to
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts,
and the admission to the practice of law," it at once becomes indubitable
that this constitutional declaration vests the Supreme Court with plenary
power in all cases regarding the admission to and supervision of the
practice of law.
Thus, when the respondent Edillon entered upon the legal profession, his
practice of law and his exercise of the said profession, which affect the
society at large, were (and are) subject to the power of the body politic to
require him to conform to such regulations as might be established by the
proper authorities for the common good, even to the extent of interfering
with some of his liberties. If he did not wish to submit himself to such
reasonable interference and regulation, he should not have clothed the
public with an interest in his concerns.
On this score alone, the case for the respondent must already fall.
The issues being of constitutional dimension, however, we now concisely
deal with them seriatim.
1. The first objection posed by the respondent is that the Court is
without power to compel him to become a member of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines, hence, Section 1 of the Court Rule is unconstitutional for
it impinges on his constitutional right of freedom to associate (and not to
associate). Our answer is: To compel a lawyer to be a member of the
Integrated Bar is not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate. 6
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is
not already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed
the Bar examinations. 7 All that integration actually does is to provide an
official national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and
incohesive group of which every lawyer is a ready a member. 8
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is
free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or
vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only compulsion
to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme
Court, in order to further the State's legitimate interest in elevating the
quality of professional legal services, may require that the cost of
improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and
beneficiaries of the regulatory program — the lawyers. 9
Assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense compel a lawyer to
be a member of the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as an
exercise of the police power of the State. 10
2. The second issue posed by the respondent is that the provision of
the Court Rule requiring payment of a membership fee is void. We see
nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Court, under its
constitutional power and duty to promulgate rules concerning the
admission to the practice of law and the integration of the Philippine Bar
(Article X, Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution) — which power the
respondent acknowledges — from requiring members of a privileged class,
such as lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee toward defraying the
expenses of regulation of the profession to which they belong. It is quite
apparent that the fee is indeed imposed as a regulatory measure, designed
to raise funds for carrying out the objectives and purposes of integration.
11
3. The respondent further argues that the enforcement of the
penalty provisions would amount to a deprivation of property without due
process and hence infringes on one of his constitutional rights. Whether
the practice of law is a property right, in the sense of its being one that
entitles the holder of a license to practice a profession, we do not here
pause to consider at length, as it clear that under the police power of the
State, and under the necessary powers granted to the Court to perpetuate
its existence, the respondent's right to practise law before the courts of
this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry.
And, if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is recognize,
then a penalty designed to enforce its payment, which penalty may be
avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary.
12
But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a property right
but a mere privilege, 13 and as such must bow to the inherent regulatory
power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer's public
responsibilities.
4. Relative to the issue of the power and/or jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court to strike the name of a lawyer from its Roll of Attorneys, it
is sufficient to state that the matters of admission, suspension, disbarment
and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation and supervision have
been and are indisputably recognized as inherent judicial functions and
responsibilities, and the authorities holding such are legion. 14
In In Re Sparks (267 Ky. 93, 101 S.W. (2d) 194), in which the report of the
Board of Bar Commissioners in a disbarment proceeding was confirmed
and disbarment ordered, the court, sustaining the Bar Integration Act of
Kentucky, said: "The power to regulate the conduct and qualifications of its
officers does not depend upon constitutional or statutory grounds. It is a
power which is inherent in this court as a court — appropriate, indeed
necessary, to the proper administration of justice ... the argument that this
is an arbitrary power which the court is arrogating to itself or accepting
from the legislative likewise misconceives the nature of the duty. It has
limitations no less real because they are inherent. It is an unpleasant task
to sit in judgment upon a brother member of the Bar, particularly where,
as here, the facts are disputed. It is a grave responsibility, to be assumed
only with a determination to uphold the Ideals and traditions of an
honorable profession and to protect the public from overreaching and
fraud. The very burden of the duty is itself a guaranty that the power will
not be misused or prostituted. ..."
The Court's jurisdiction was greatly reinforced by our 1973 Constitution
when it explicitly granted to the Court the power to "Promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice ... and the admission to the practice of law
and the integration of the Bar ... (Article X, Sec. 5(5) the power to pass
upon the fitness of the respondent to remain a member of the legal
profession is indeed undoubtedly vested in the Court.
We thus reach the conclusion that the provisions of Rule of Court 139-A
and of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines complained of
are neither unconstitutional nor illegal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is the unanimous sense of the Court
that the respondent Marcial A. Edillon should be as he is hereby disbarred,
and his name is hereby ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys of the
Court.
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.
x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
RESOLUTION
MENDOZA, J.:
In a letter,[1] dated July 30, 2009, Rowena C. Paraan, Research Director of
the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), sought copies of
the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) of the Justices of
this Court for the year 2008. She also requested for copies of the Personal
Data Sheet (PDS) or the Curriculum Vitae (CV) of the Justices of this Court
for the purpose of updating their database of information on government
officials.
In her Letter,[2] dated August 13, 2009, Karol M. Ilagan, a researcher-
writer also of the PCIJ, likewise sought for copies of the SALN and PDS of
the Justices of the Court of Appeals (CA), for the same above-stated
purpose.
The two requests were ordered consolidated by the Court on August 18,
2009.[3] On the same day, the Court resolved to create a special
committee (Committee) to review the policy on requests for SALN and PDS
and other similar documents, and to recommend appropriate action on
such requests.[4]
On November 23, 2009, the Committee, chaired by then Associate Justice
Minita V. Chico-Nazario submitted its Memorandum[5] dated November
18, 2009 and its Resolution[6] dated November 16, 2009, recommending
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.
Meanwhile, several requests for copies of the SALN and other personal
documents of the Justices of this Court, the CA and the Sandiganbayan (SB)
were filed. In particular, these requests include the:
(1) SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM,[7] dated September 10, 2009, issued by
Atty. E. H. Amat, Acting Director, General Investigation Bureau-B of the
Office of the Ombudsman, directing the Office of Administrative Services,
Supreme Court to submit two (2) copies of the SALN of Associate Justice
Roland B. Jurado of the Sandiganbayan for the years 1997-2008, his latest
PDS, his Oath of Office, appointment papers, and service records.
(2) LETTER,[8] dated April 21, 2010, of the Philippine Public Transparency
Reporting Project, asking permission to be able to access and copy the
SALN of officials and employees of the lower courts.
(3) LETTER,[9] filed on August 24, 2011, by Marvin Lim, seeking copies of
the SALN of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Associate Justices Antonio T.
Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D.
Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo,
Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose C.
Mendoza, and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno.
(4) LETTER,[10] dated August 26, 2011, of Rawnna Crisostomo, Reporter,
GMA News and Public Affairs also requesting for copies of the SALN of
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio,
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion,
Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A.
Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose C. Mendoza, and
Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, for purposes of producing a story on
transparency and governance, and updating their database.
(5) LETTER,[11] dated October 11, 2011, of Bala S. Tamayo, requesting for
a copy of the 2010 SALN of any Justice of the Supreme Court as well as a
copy of the Judiciary Development Fund, for purposes of her securing a
huge percentage in final examination in Constitutional Law I at the San
Beda College Alabang School of Law and for her study on the state of the
Philippine Judiciary, particularly the manner, nature and disposition of the
resources under the JDF and how these have evolved through the years.
(6) LETTERS, all dated December 19, 2011, of Harvey S. Keh, Lead Convenor
of Kaya Natin! Movement for Good Governance and Ethical Leadership,
addressed to Chief Justice Renato C. Corona,[12] Associate Justices
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.,[13] Teresita Leonardo-De Castro,[14] Arturo D.
Brion,[15] Diosdado M. Peralta,[16] Mariano C. Del Castillo,[17] Jose
Portugal Perez,[18] and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno,[19] requesting for
copies of their SALN and seeking permission to post the same on their
website for the general public.
(7) LETTER,[20] dated December 21, 2011, of Glenda M. Gloria, Executive
Director, Newsbreak, seeking copies of the SALN of the Supreme Court
Justices covering various years, for the purpose of the stories they intend
to put on their website regarding the Supreme Court and the Judiciary.
(8) LETTERS, all dated January 3, 2012, of Phillipe Manalang of Unlimited
Productions, Inc., addressed to Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco,
Jr.,[21] Teresita Leonardo-De Castro,[22] Mariano C. Del Castillo[23] and
Jose Portugal Perez,[24] and Atty. Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal, Clerk of Court,
Supreme Court[25] requesting for copies of the SALN of the Supreme Court
Justices for the years 2010 and 2011.
(9) LETTER,[26] dated December 19, 2011, of Malou Mangahas, Executive
Director, PCIJ, requesting for copies of the SALN, PDS or CVs of the Justices
of the Supreme Court from the year they were appointed to the present.
(10) SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM ET DUCES TECUM,[27] issued on
January 17, 2012, by the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, in
connection with Impeachment Case No. 002-2011 against Chief Justice
Renato C. Corona, requiring the Clerk of Court, among others, to bring with
her the SALN of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona for the years 2002 to 2011.
(11) LETTER,[28] dated January 16, 2012, of Nilo Ka Nilo H. Baculo, Sr.,
requesting copies of the SALN of the Supreme Court Justices for the years
2008 to 2011, for his use as a media practitioner.
(12) LETTER,[29] dated January 25, 2012, of Roxanne Escaro-Alegre of GMA
News, requesting for copies of the SALN of the Supreme Court Justices for
the networks story on the political dynamics and process of decision-
making in the Supreme Court.
(13) LETTER,[30] dated January 27, 2012, of David Jude Sta. Ana, Head,
News Operations, News 5, requesting for copies of the 2010-2011 SALN of
the Supreme Court Justices for use as reference materials for stories that
will be aired in the newscasts of their television network.
(14) LETTER,[31] dated January 31, 2012, of Michael G. Aguinaldo, Deputy
Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs, Malacaang, addressed to Atty.
Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal, Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, seeking her
comments and recommendation on House Bill No. 5694,[32] to aid in their
determination of whether the measure should be certified as urgent.
(15) Undated LETTER[33] of Benise P. Balaoing, Intern of Rappler.com, a
news website, seeking copies of the 2010 SALN of the Justices of the Court
and the CA for the purpose of completing its database in preparation for its
coverage of the 2013 elections.
(16) LETTER,[34] dated April 27, 2012, of Maria A. Ressa, Chief Executive
Officer and Executive Officer and Executive Editor of Rappler, Inc.,
requesting for copies of the current SALN of all the Justices of the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan also for the purpose of
completing its database in preparation for its coverage of the 2013
elections.
(17) LETTER,[35] dated May 2, 2012, of Mary Ann A. Seir, Junior
Researcher, News Research Section, GMA News and Public Affairs,
requesting for copies of the SALN of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and the
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court for the calendar year 2011 for the
networks use in their public affairs programs.
(18) LETTER,[36] dated May 4, 2012, of Edward Gabud, Sr., Desk Editor of
Solar Network, Inc., requesting for copies of the 2011 SALN of all the
Justices of the Supreme Court.
(19) LETTER,[37] dated May 30, 2012, of Gerry Lirio, Senior News Editor,
TV5 requesting for copies of the SALN of the Justices of the Court for the
last three (3) years for the purpose of a special report it would produce as
a result of the impeachment and subsequent conviction of Chief Justice
Renato C. Corona.
(20) LETTER,[38] dated May 31, 2012, of Atty. Joselito P. Fangon, Assistant
Ombudsman, Field Investigation Office, Office of the Ombudsman,
requesting for 1] certified copies of the SALN of former Chief Justice
Renato C. Corona for the years 2002-2011, as well as 2] a certificate of his
yearly compensation, allowances, and bonuses, also for the years 2002-
2011.
(21) LETTER,[39] dated June 8, 2012, of Thea Marie S. Pias, requesting a
copy of the SALN of any present Supreme Court Justice, for the purpose of
completing her grade in Legal Philosophy at the San Beda College of Law.
Pursuant to Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution,[40] the Court,
upon recommendation of the OCA, issued its Resolution[41] dated October
13, 2009, denying the subpoena duces tecum for the SALNs and personal
documents of Justice Roland B. Jurado of the SB. The resolution also
directed the Ombudsman to forward to the Court any complaint and/or
derogatory report against Justice Roland B. Jurado, in consonance with the
doctrine laid down in Caiobes v. Ombudsman.[42] Upon compliance by the
Ombudsman, the Court, in its Resolution[43] dated February 2, 2010,
docketed this matter as a regular administrative complaint.[44]
Also, considering the development in Impeachment Case No. 002-2011
against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, the Court, on January 24, 2012,
resolved to consider moot the Subpoena Ad Testificandum Et Duces Tecum
issued by the Senate impeachment court.[45]
In resolving the remaining pending incidents, the Court, on January 17,
2012 required the CA, the SB, the CTA, the Philippine Judges Association,
the Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines, the
Philippine Trial Judges League, and the Philippine Women Judges
Association (PWJA), to file their respective comments.
In essence, it is the consensus of the Justices of the above-mentioned
courts and the various judges associations that while the Constitution
holds dear the right of the people to have access to matters of concern,
the Constitution also holds sacred the independence of the Judiciary. Thus,
although no direct opposition to the disclosure of SALN and other personal
documents is being expressed, it is the uniform position of the said
magistrates and the various judges associations that the disclosure must
be made in accord with the guidelines set by the Court and under such
circumstances that would not undermine the independence of the
Judiciary.
After a review of the matters at hand, it is apparent that the matter raised
for consideration of the Court is not a novel one. As early as 1989, the
Court had the opportunity to rule on the matter of SALN disclosure in Re:
Request of Jose M. Alejandrino,[46] where the Court denied the request of
Atty. Alejandrino for the SALNs of the Justices of the Court due to a plainly
discernible improper motive. Aggrieved by an adverse decision of the
Court, he accused the Justices of patent partiality and alluded that they
enjoyed an early Christmas as a result of the decision promulgated by the
Court. Atty. Alejandrino even singled out the Justices who took part in the
decision and conspicuously excluded the others who, for one reason or
another, abstained from voting therein. While the Court expressed its
willingness to have the Clerk of Court furnish copies of the SALN of any of
its members, it however, noted that requests for SALNs must be made
under circumstances that must not endanger, diminish or destroy the
independence, and objectivity of the members of the Judiciary in the
performance of their judicial functions, or expose them to revenge for
adverse decisions, kidnapping, extortion, blackmail or other untoward
incidents. Thus, in order to give meaning to the constitutional right of the
people to have access to information on matters of public concern, the
Court laid down the guidelines to be observed for requests made. Thus:
1. All requests for copies of statements of assets and liabilities of any
Justice or Judge shall be filed with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court
or with the Court Administrator, as the case may be (Section 8 [A][2], R.A.
6713), and shall state the purpose of the request.
2. The independence of the Judiciary is constitutionally as important as the
right to information which is subject to the limitations provided by law.
Under specific circumstances, the need for fair and just adjudication of
litigations may require a court to be wary of deceptive requests for
information which shall otherwise be freely available. Where the request is
directly or indirectly traced to a litigant, lawyer, or interested party in a
case pending before the court, or where the court is reasonably certain
that a disputed matter will come before it under circumstances from which
it may, also reasonably, be assumed that the request is not made in good
faith and for a legitimate purpose, but to fish for information and, with the
implicit threat of its disclosure, to influence a decision or to warn the court
of the unpleasant consequences of an adverse judgment, the request may
be denied.
3. Where a decision has just been rendered by a court against the person
making the request and the request for information appears to be a fishing
expedition intended to harass or get back at the Judge, the request may be
denied.
4. In the few areas where there is extortion by rebel elements or where
the nature of their work exposes Judges to assaults against their personal
safety, the request shall not only be denied but should be immediately
reported to the military.
5. The reason for the denial shall be given in all cases.
In the 1992 case of Re: Request for Certified True Copies of the Sworn
Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Networth,[47] the request was denied
because the Court found that the purpose of the request was to fish for
information against certain members of the Judiciary. In the same case, the
Court resolved to authorize the Court Administrator to act on all requests
for copies of SALN, as well as other papers on file with the 201 Personnel
Records of lower court judges and personnel, provided that there was a
court subpoena duly signed by the Presiding Judge in a pending criminal
case against a judge or personnel of the Judiciary. The Court added that for
requests made by the Office of the Ombudsman, the same must be
personally signed by the Ombudsman himself. Essentially, the Court
resolved that, in all instances, requests must conform to the guidelines set
in the Alejandrino case and that the documents or papers requested for
must be relevant and material to the case being tried by the court or under
investigation by the Ombudsman.
In 1993, the Court, in Request for Certified True Copies of the Sworn
Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth of former Judge Luis D.
Dictado,[48] ruled that the OCA may extend its granted authority to retired
members of the Judiciary.
With respect to investigations conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman
in a criminal case against a judge, the Court, in Maceda v. Vasquez,[49]
upheld its constitutional duty to exercise supervision over all inferior
courts and ruled that an investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman
without prior referral of the criminal case to the Court was an
encroachment of a constitutional duty that ran afoul to the doctrine of
separation of powers. This pronouncement was further amplified in the
abovementioned case of Caiobes. Thus:
x x x Under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is the Supreme
Court which is vested with exclusive administrative supervision over all
courts and its personnel. Prescinding from this premise, the Ombudsman
cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaint
against a judge, or court employee, involves an administrative matter. The
Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court
personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme Court for determination
as to whether an administrative aspect is involved therein. This rule should
hold true regardless of whether an administrative case based on the act
subject of the complaint before the Ombudsman is already pending with
the Court. For, aside from the fact that the Ombudsman would not know
of this matter unless he is informed of it, he should give due respect for
and recognition of the administrative authority of the Court, because in
determining whether an administrative matter is involved, the Court
passes upon not only administrative liabilities but also administrative
concerns, as is clearly conveyed in the case of Maceda v. Vasquez (221
SCRA 464[1993]).
The Ombudsman cannot dictate to, and bind the Court, to its findings that
the case before it does or does not have administrative implications. To do
so is to deprive the Court of the exercise of its administrative prerogatives
and to arrogate unto itself a power not constitutionally sanctioned. This is
a dangerous policy which impinges, as it does, on judicial independence.
Maceda is emphatic that by virtue of its constitutional power of
administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the
Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial
court clerk, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges and
court personnels compliance with all laws, and take the proper
administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof.
No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without
running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.
Corollary to the above pronouncements, Section 7, Article III of the
Constitution is relevant in the issue of public disclosure of SALN and other
documents of public officials, viz:
Sec. 7. 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.
Emphasizing the import and meaning of the foregoing constitutional
provision, the Court, in the landmark case of Valmonte v. Belmonte,
Jr.,[50] elucidated on the import of the right to information in this wise:
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 x x x.
x x x 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. (Emphases
supplied)
In Baldoza v. Dimaano,[51] the importance of the said right was
pragmatically explicated:
The incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recognition of the
fundamental role of free exchange of information in a democracy. There
can be no realistic perception by the public of the nations 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. As has been
aptly observed: Maintaining the flow of such information depends on
protection for both its acquisition and its dissemination since, if either
process is interrupted, the flow inevitably ceases. However, restrictions on
access to certain records may be imposed by law.
Thus, while public concern like public interest eludes exact definition and
has been said to embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public
may want to know, either because such matters directly affect their lives,
or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary
citizen,[52] the Constitution itself, under Section 17, Article XI, 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:
 unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their
households.

The two documents shall contain information on the following:

Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office
and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration (a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and
under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the current fair market value;
President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress,
the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other (b) personal property and acquisition cost;
constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag
(c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks,
rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner
bonds, and the like;
provided by law. [Emphasis supplied]
(d) liabilities, and;

(e) all business interests and financial connections.

The documents must be filed:

This Constitutional duty is echoed and particularized in a statutory creation
of Congress: Republic Act No. 6713, also known as "Code of Conduct and (a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office;
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees":[53]
(b) on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and

(c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service.
Section 8. 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. All public officials and employees required under this section to file the
aforestated documents shall also execute, within thirty (30) days from the
(A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. - All public
date of their assumption of office, the necessary authority in favor of the
officials and employees, except those who serve in an honorary capacity,
Ombudsman to obtain from all appropriate government agencies,
laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall file under oath their
including the Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents as may show
Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business
their assets, liabilities, net worth, and also their business interests and
Interests and Financial Connections and those of their spouses and
financial connections in previous years, including, if possible, the year
when they first assumed any office in the Government.
Husband and wife who are both public officials or employees may file the
required statements jointly or separately.
The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of
Business Interests and Financial Connections shall be filed by:
(1) Constitutional and national elective officials, with the national office of
the Ombudsman;
(2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the
House of Representatives, respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of Court of
the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator; and all national
executive officials with the Office of the President.
(3) Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy
Ombudsman in their respective regions;
(4) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain,
with the Office of the President, and those below said ranks, with the
Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; and
(5) All other public officials and employees, defined in Republic Act No.
3019, as amended, with the Civil Service Commission.
(B) Identification and disclosure of relatives. - It shall be the duty of every
public official or employee to identify and disclose, to the best of his
knowledge and information, his relatives in the Government in the form,
manner and frequency prescribed by the Civil Service Commission.
(Emphasis supplied)
Like all constitutional guarantees, however, 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
peoples right to know is limited to matters of public concern and is further
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Jurisprudence[54] 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.
This 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.
In this regard, Section 8 (c) and (d) of R.A. No. 6713 provides for the
limitation and prohibition on the regulated access to SALNs of government
officials and employees, viz:
(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. (a) such information, record or document must be kept secret in the
interest of national defense or security or the conduct of foreign affairs;
(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
(b) such disclosure would put the life and safety of an individual in
investigation.
imminent danger;
(D) Prohibited acts. - It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain or use
any statement filed under this Act for:
(c) the information, record or document sought falls within the concepts of
(a) any purpose contrary to morals or public policy; or
established privilege or recognized exceptions as may be provided by law
(b) any commercial purpose other than by news and communications or settled policy or jurisprudence;
media for dissemination to the general public.

Moreover, the following provisions in the Implementing Rules and

(d) such information, record or document compromises drafts or decisions,
Regulations of R.A. No. 6713 provide:
orders, rulings, policy, decisions, memoranda, etc;

Rule IV
(e) it would disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

Transparency of Transactions and Access to Information

xxxx
Section 3. Every department, office or agency shall provide official
information, records or documents to any requesting public, except if:
(f) it would disclose investigatory records complied for law enforcement
purposes, or information which if written would be contained in such
records or information would (i) interfere with enforcement proceedings,
(ii) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (iii)
disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record
compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a
criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national
security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only
by the confidential source, or (iv) unjustifiably disclose investigative
techniques and procedures; or
(g) it would disclose information the premature disclosure of which would
(i) in the case of a department, office or agency which agency regulates
currencies, securities, commodities, of financial institutions, be likely to
lead to significant financial speculation in currencies, securities, or
commodities or significantly endanger the stability of any financial
institution, or (ii) in the case of any department, office or agency be likely
or significantly to frustrate implementation of a proposed official action,
except that subparagraph (f) (ii) shall not apply in any instance where the
department, office or agency has already disclosed to the public the
content or nature of its proposed action, or where the department, office
or agency is required by law to make such disclosure on its own initiative
prior to taking final official action on such proposal.
xxxx
Rule VI
Duties of Public Officials and Employees
Section 6. All public documents must be made accessible to, and readily
available for inspection by, the public during working hours, except those
provided in Section 3, Rule IV.
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.[55]
In this connection, Section 11 of the same law provides for the penalties in
case there should be a misuse of the SALN and the information contained
therein, viz:
Section 11. Penalties. - (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of
whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary,
holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of this
Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6)
months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal
depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by
the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a heavier
penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute.
Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five
thousand pesos (₱5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of
competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office.
(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall
be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee,
even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.
(c) Private individuals who participate in conspiracy as co-principals,
accomplices or accessories, with public officials or employees, in violation
of this Act, shall be subject to the same penal liabilities as the public
officials or employees and shall be tried jointly with them.
(d) The official or employee concerned may bring an action against any
person who obtains or uses a report for any purpose prohibited by Section
8 (d) of this Act. The Court in which such action is brought may assess
against such person a penalty in any amount not to exceed twenty-five
thousand pesos (₱25,000.00). If another sanction hereunder or under any
other law is heavier, the latter shall apply.
Considering the foregoing legal precepts vis--vis the various requests
made, the Court finds no cogent reason to deny the public access to the
SALN, PDS and CV of the Justices of the Court and other magistrates of the
Judiciary subject, of course, to the limitations and prohibitions provided in
R.A. No. 6713, its implementing rules and regulations, and in the guidelines
set forth in the decretal portion.
The Court notes the valid concerns of the other magistrates regarding the
possible illicit motives of some individuals in their requests for access to
such personal information and their publication. However, 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 requestors
responsibility and lookout. Any publication is made subject to the
consequences of the law.[56] 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.[57] 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.[58]
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to GRANT the requests contained in the
(1) Letter, dated July 30, 2009, of Rowena C. Paraan; (2) Letter, dated
August 13, 2009, of Karol M. Ilagan; (3) Letter, dated April 21, 2010, of the
Philippine Public Transparency Reporting Project; (4) Letter, filed on
August 24, 2011, by Marvin Lim; (5) Letter, dated August 26, 2011, of
Rawnna Crisostomo; (6) Letter, dated October 11, 2011, of Bala S. Tamayo;
(7) Letters, all dated December 19, 2011, of Harvey S. Keh; (8) Letter, dated
December 21, 2011, of Glenda M. Gloria; (9) Letters, all dated January 3,
2012, of Phillipe Manalang; (10) Letter, dated December 19, 2011, of
Malou Mangahas; (11) Letter, dated January 16, 2012, of Nilo Ka Nilo H.
Baculo; (12) Letter, dated January 25, 2012, of Roxanne Escaro-Alegre; (13)
Letter, dated January 27, 2012, of David Jude Sta. Ana; (14) Letter, dated
January 31, 2012, of Michael G. Aguinaldo; (15) undated Letter of Benise P.
Balaoing; (16) Letter, dated April 27, 2012, of Maria A. Ressa; (17) Letter,
dated May 2, 2012, of Mary Ann A. Seir; (18) Letter, dated May 4, 2012, of
Edward Gabud, Sr., Desk Editor of Solar Network, Inc.; (19) Letter, dated
May 30, 2012, of Gerry Lirio, Senior News Editor, TV5; (20) Letter, dated
May 31, 2002, of Atty. Joselito P. Fangon of the Office of the Ombudsman;
and (21) Letter, dated June 7, 2012, of Thea Marie S. Pias, insofar as 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 lower courts; and other members of the Judiciary, are concerned,
subject to the limitations and prohibitions provided in R.A. No. 6713, its
implementing rules and regulations, and the following guidelines:
1. All requests shall be filed with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax
Appeals; for the lower courts, with the Office of the Court Administrator;
and for attached agencies, with their respective heads of offices.
2. Requests shall cover only copies of the latest SALN, PDS and CV of the
members, officials and employees of the Judiciary, and may cover only
previous records if so specifically requested and considered as justified, as
determined by the officials mentioned in par. 1 above, under the terms of
these guidelines and the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No.
6713.
3. In the case of requests for copies of SALN of the Justices of the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of
Tax Appeals, the authority to disclose shall be made by the Court En Banc.
4. Every request shall explain the requesting partys specific purpose and
their individual interests sought to be served; shall state the commitment
that the request shall only be for the stated purpose; and shall be
submitted in a duly accomplished request form secured from the SC
website. The use of the information secured shall only be for the stated
purpose.
5. In the case of requesting individuals other than members of the
media, their interests should go beyond pure or mere curiosity.
6. In the case of the members of the media, the request shall
additionally be supported by proof under oath of their media affiliation
and by a similar certification of the accreditation of their respective
organizations as legitimate media practitioners.
7. The requesting party, whether as individuals or as members of the
media, must have no derogatory record of having misused any requested
information previously furnished to them.
The requesting parties shall complete their requests in accordance with
these guidelines. The custodians of these documents[59] (the respective
Clerks of Court of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan,
and Court of Tax Appeals for the Justices; and the Court Administrator for
the Judges of various trial courts) shall preliminarily determine if the
requests are not covered by the limitations and prohibitions provided in
R.A. No. 6713 and its implementing rules and regulations, and in
accordance with the aforecited guidelines. Thereafter, the Clerk of Court
shall refer the matter pertaining to Justices to the Court En Banc for final
determination.
GOV. LUIS RAYMUND F. VILLAFUERTE, JR., AND THE PROVINCE OF
CAMARINES SUR, Petitioners, v. HON. JESSE M. ROBREDO, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Respondent.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition1 under Rule 65 of the 1997
Revised Rules of Court filed by former Governor Luis Raymund F.
Villafuerte, Jr. (Villafuerte) and the Province of Camarines Sur (petitioners),
seeking to annul and set aside the following issuances of the late
Honorable Jesse M. Robredo (respondent), in his capacity as then
Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG),
to wit:
(a)
Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 2010-83 dated August 31, 2010,
pertaining to the full disclosure of local budget and finances, and bids and
public offerings;2
(b)
MC No. 2010-138 dated December 2, 2010, pertaining to the use of the
20% component of the annual internal revenue allotment shares;3 and
(c)
MC No. 2011-08 dated January 13, 2011, pertaining to the strict adherence
to Section 90 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10147 or the General
Appropriations Act of 2011.4
The petitioners seek the nullification of the foregoing issuances on the
ground of unconstitutionality and for having been issued with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The Facts
In 1995, the Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an examination and
audit on the manner the local government units (LGUs) utilized their
Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for the calendar years 1993-1994. The
examination yielded an official report, showing that a substantial portion
of the 20% development fund of some LGUs was not actually utilized for
development projects but was diverted to expenses properly chargeable
against the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE), in stark
violation of Section 287 of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991 (LGC). Thus, on December 14, 1995, the DILG
issued MC No. 95-216,5 enumerating the policies and guidelines on the
utilization of the development fund component of the IRA. It likewise
carried a reminder to LGUs of the strict mandate to ensure that public
funds, like the 20% development fund, “shall be spent judiciously and only
for the very purpose or purposes for which such funds are intended.”6
On September 20, 2005, then DILG Secretary Angelo T. Reyes and
Department of Budget and Management Secretary Romulo L. Neri issued
Joint MC No. 1, series of 2005,7 pertaining to the guidelines on the
appropriation and utilization of the 20% of the IRA for development
projects, which aims to enhance accountability of the LGUs in undertaking
development projects. The said memorandum circular underscored that
the 20% of the IRA intended for development projects should be utilized
for social development, economic development and environmental
management.8
On August 31, 2010, the respondent, in his capacity as DILG Secretary,
issued the assailed MC No. 2010-83,9 entitled “Full Disclosure of Local
Budget and Finances, and Bids and Public Offerings,” which aims to
promote good governance through enhanced transparency and
accountability of LGUs. The pertinent portion of the issuance reads:
Legal and Administrative Authority
Section 352 of the Local Government Code of 1991 requires the posting
within 30 days from the end of each fiscal year in at least three (3) publicly
accessible and conspicuous places in the local government unit a summary
of all revenues collected and funds received including the appropriations
and disbursements of such funds during the preceding fiscal year.
On the other hand, Republic Act No. 9184, known as the Government
Procurement Reform Act, calls for the posting of the Invitation to Bid,
Notice of Award, Notice to Proceed and Approved Contract in the
procuring entity’s premises, in newspapers of general circulation, the
Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS) and the
website of the procuring entity.
The declared policy of the State to promote good local governance also
calls for the posting of budgets, expenditures, contracts and loans, and
procurement plans of local government units in conspicuous places within
public buildings in the locality, in the web, and in print media of
community or general circulation.
Furthermore, the President, in his first State of the Nation Address,
directed all government agencies and entities to bring to an end luxurious
spending and misappropriation of public funds and to expunge
mendacious and erroneous projects, and adhere to the zero-based
approach budgetary principle.
Responsibility of the Local Chief Executive
All Provincial Governors, City Mayors and Municipal Mayors, are directed
to faithfully comply with the abovecited [sic] provisions of laws, and
existing national policy, by posting in conspicuous places within public
buildings in the locality, or in print media of community or general
circulation, and in their websites, the following:
CY 2010 Annual Budget, information detail to the level of particulars of
personal services, maintenance and other operating expenses and capital
outlay per individual offices (Source Document - Local Budget Preparation
Form No. 3, titled, Program Appropriation and Obligation by Object of
Expenditure, limited to PS, MOOE and CO. For sample form, please visit
www.naga.gov.ph);
Quarterly Statement of Cash Flows, information detail to the level of
particulars of cash flows from operating activities (e.g. cash inflows, total
cash inflows, total cash outflows), cash flows from investing activities (e.g.
cash outflows), net increase in cash and cash at the beginning of the period
(Source Document - Statement of Cash Flows Form);
CY 2009 Statement of Receipts and Expenditures, information detail to the
level of particulars of beginning cash balance, receipts or income on local
sources (e.g., tax revenue, non-tax revenue), external sources, and receipts
from loans and borrowings, surplus of prior years, expenditures on general
services, economic services, social services and debt services, and total
expenditures (Source Document - Local Budget Preparation Form No. 2,
titled, Statement of Receipts and Expenditures);
CY 2010 Trust Fund (PDAF) Utilization, information detail to the level of
particulars of object expenditures (Source Document - Local Budget
Preparation Form No. 3, titled, Program Appropriation and Obligation by
Object of Expenditure, limited to PDAF Utilization);
CY 2010 Special Education Fund Utilization, information detail to the level
of particulars of object expenditures (Source Document - Local Budget
Preparation Form No. 3, titled, Program Appropriation and Obligation by
Object of Expenditure, limited to Special Education Fund);
CY 2010 20% Component of the IRA Utilization, information detail to the
level of particulars of objects of expenditure on social development,
economic development and environmental management (Source
Document - Local Budget Preparation Form No. 3, titled, Program
Appropriation and Obligation by Object of Expenditure, limited to 20%
Component of the Internal Revenue Allotment);
CY 2010 Gender and Development Fund Utilization, information detail to
the level of particulars of object expenditures (Source Document - Local
Budget Preparation Form No. 3, titled, Program Appropriation and
Obligation by Object of Expenditure, limited to Gender and Development
Fund);
CY 2010 Statement of Debt Service, information detail to the level of name
of creditor, purpose of loan, date contracted, term, principal amount,
previous payment made on the principal and interest, amount due for the
budget year and balance of the principal (Source Document - Local Budget
Preparation Form No. 6, titled, Statement of Debt Service);
CY 2010 Annual Procurement Plan or Procurement List, information detail
to the level of name of project, individual item or article and specification
or description of goods and services, procurement method, procuring
office or fund source, unit price or estimated cost or approved budget for
the contract and procurement schedule (Source Document - LGU Form No.
02, Makati City. For sample form, please visit www.makati.gov.ph.)[;]
Items to Bid, information detail to the level of individual Invitation to Bid,
containing information as prescribed in Section 21.1 of Republic Act No.
9184, or The Government Procurement Reform Act, to be updated
quarterly (Source Document - Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid,
as prescribed in Section 21.1 of R.A. No. 9184. For sample form, please visit
www.naga.gov.ph);
Bid Results on Civil Works, and Goods and Services, information detail to
the level of project reference number, name and location of project, name
(company and proprietor) and address of winning bidder, bid amount,
approved budget for the contract, bidding date, and contract duration, to
be updated quarterly (Source Document – Infrastructure Projects/Goods
and Services Bid-Out (2010), Naga City. For sample form, please visit
www.naga.gov.ph); and
Abstract of Bids as Calculated, information detail to the level of project
name, location, implementing office, approved budget for the contract,
quantity and items subject for bidding, and bids of competing bidders, to
be updated quarterly (Source Document - Standard Form No. SF-GOOD-40,
Revised May 24, 2004, Naga City. For sample form, please visit
www.naga.gov.ph).
The foregoing circular also states that non-compliance will be meted
sanctions in accordance with pertinent laws, rules and regulations.10
On December 2, 2010, the respondent issued MC No. 2010-138,11
reiterating that 20% component of the IRA shall be utilized for desirable
social, economic and environmental outcomes essential to the attainment
of the constitutional objective of a quality of life for all. It also listed the
following enumeration of expenses for which the fund must not be
utilized, viz:
Administrative expenses such as cash gifts, bonuses, food allowance,
medical assistance, uniforms, supplies, meetings, communication, water
and light, petroleum products, and the like;
Salaries, wages or overtime pay;
Travelling expenses, whether domestic or foreign;
Registration or participation fees in training, seminars, conferences or
conventions;
Construction, repair or refinishing of administrative offices;
Purchase of administrative office furniture, fixtures, equipment or
appliances; and
Purchase, maintenance or repair of motor vehicles or motorcycles, except
ambulances.12
On January 13, 2011, the respondent issued MC No. 2011-08,13 directing
for the strict adherence to Section 90 of R.A. No. 10147 or the General
Appropriations Act of 2011. The pertinent portion of the issuance reads as
follows:
Legal and Administrative Authority
· Section 90 of Republic Act No. 10147 (General Appropriations Act) FY
2011 re “Use and Disbursement of Internal Revenue Allotment of LGUs”,
*sic+ stipulates: The amount appropriated for the LGU’s share in the
Internal Revenue Allotment shall be used in accordance with Sections 17
(g) and 287 of R.A. No 7160. The annual budgets of LGUs shall be prepared
in accordance with the forms, procedures, and schedules prescribed by the
Department of Budget and Management and those jointly issued with the
Commission on Audit. Strict compliance with Sections 288 and 354 of R.A.
No. 7160 and DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2010-83, entitled “Full
Disclosure of Local Budget and Finances, and Bids and Public offering” is
hereby mandated; PROVIDED, That in addition to the publication or
posting requirement under Section 352 of R.A. No. 7160 in three (3)
publicly accessible and conspicuous places in the local government unit,
the LGUs shall also post the detailed information on the use and
disbursement, and status of programs and projects in the LGUS websites.
Failure to comply with these requirements shall subject the responsible
officials to disciplinary actions in accordance with existing laws. x x x14
xxxx
Sanctions
Non-compliance with the foregoing shall be dealt with in accordance with
pertinent laws, rules and regulations. In particular, attention is invited to
the provision of the Local Government Code of 1991, quoted as
follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Section 60. Grounds for Disciplinary Actions - An elective local official may
be disciplined, suspended, or removed from office on: (c) Dishonesty,
oppression, misconduct in office, gross negligence, or dereliction of duty . x
x x15 (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)
On February 21, 2011, Villafuerte, then Governor of Camarines Sur, joined
by the Provincial Government of Camarines Sur, filed the instant petition
for certiorari, seeking to nullify the assailed issuances of the respondent
for being unconstitutional and having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion.
On June 2, 2011, the respondent filed his Comment on the petition.16
Then, on June 22, 2011, the petitioners filed their Reply (With Urgent
Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or
Temporary Restraining Order).17 In the Resolution18 dated October 11,
2011, the Court gave due course to the petition and directed the parties to
file their respective memorandum. In compliance therewith, the
respondent and the petitioners filed their Memorandum on January 19,
201219 and on February 8, 201220 respectively.
The petitioners raised the following issues:
Issues
I
THE HON. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN HE ISSUED THE ASSAILED MEMORANDUM
CIRCULARS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF LOCAL AUTONOMY AND
FISCAL AUTONOMY ENSHRINED IN THE 1987 CONSTITUTION AND THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991[.]
II
THE HON. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN HE INVALIDLY ASSUMED LEGISLATIVE
POWERS IN PROMULGATING THE ASSAILED MEMORANDUM CIRCULARS
WHICH WENT BEYOND THE CLEAR AND MANIFEST INTENT OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991[.]21
Ruling of the Court
The present petition revolves around the main issue: Whether or not the
assailed memorandum circulars violate the principles of local and fiscal
autonomy enshrined in the Constitution and the LGC.
The present petition is ripe for

judicial review. The Court disagrees.

At the outset, the respondent is questioning the propriety of the exercise In La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos,25 the Court
of the Court’s power of judicial review over the instant case. He argues characterized an actual case or controversy, viz:
that the petition is premature since there is yet any actual controversy that
is ripe for judicial determination. He points out the lack of allegation in the
petition that the assailed issuances had been fully implemented and that
An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is
the petitioners had already exhausted administrative remedies under
appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest
Section 25 of the Revised Administrative Code before filing the same in
the decision of the court would amount to an advisory opinion. The power
court.22
does not extend to hypothetical questions since any attempt at abstraction
could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile
conclusions unrelated to actualities.26 (Citations omitted)
It is well-settled that the Court’s exercise of the power of judicial review
requires the concurrence of the following elements: (1) there must be an
actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the
The existence of an actual controversy in the instant case cannot be
person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity
overemphasized. At the time of filing of the instant petition, the
of the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal
respondent had already implemented the assailed memorandum circulars.
and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
In fact, on May 26, 2011, Villafuerte received Audit Observation
sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of
Memorandum (AOM) No. 2011-009 dated May 10, 201127 from the Office
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the
of the Provincial Auditor of Camarines Sur, requiring him to comment on
issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.23
the observation of the audit team, which states:

The respondent claims that there is yet any actual case or controversy that
The Province failed to post the transactions and documents required under
calls for the exercise of judicial review. He contends that the mere
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Memorandum
expectation of an administrative sanction does not give rise to a justiciable
Circular No. 2010-83, thereby violating the mandate of full disclosure of
controversy especially, in this case, that the petitioners have yet to exhaust
Local Budget and Finances, and Bids and Public Offering.
administrative remedies available.24
xxxx
The local officials concerned are reminded of the sanctions mentioned in
the circular which is quoted hereunder, thus:
“Noncompliance with the foregoing shall be dealt with in accordance with
pertinent laws, rules and regulations. In particular, attention is invited to
the provision of Local Government Code of 1991, quoted as
follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Section 60. Grounds for Disciplinary Actions – An elective local official may
be disciplined, suspended or removed from office on: (c) Dishonesty,
oppression, misconduct in office, gross negligence or dereliction of
duty.”28
The issuance of AOM No. 2011-009 to Villafuerte is a clear indication that
the assailed issuances of the respondent are already in the full course of
implementation. The audit memorandum specifically mentioned of
Villafuerte’s alleged non-compliance with MC No. 2010-83 regarding the
posting requirements stated in the circular and reiterated the sanctions
that may be imposed for the omission. The fact that Villafuerte is being
required to comment on the contents of AOM No. 2011-009 signifies that
the process of investigation for his alleged violation has already begun.
Ultimately, the investigation is expected to end in a resolution on whether
a violation has indeed been committed, together with the appropriate
sanctions that come with it. Clearly, Villafuerte’s apprehension is real and
well-founded as he stands to be sanctioned for non-compliance with the
issuances.
There is likewise no merit in the respondent’s claim that the petitioners’
failure to exhaust administrative remedies warrants the dismissal of the
petition. It bears emphasizing that the assailed issuances were issued
pursuant to the rule-making or quasi-legislative power of the DILG. This
pertains to “the power to make rules and regulations which results in
delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute.”29
Not to be confused with the quasi-legislative or rule-making power of an
administrative agency is its quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory
power. This is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which
the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the
standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the
same law.30 In challenging the validity of an administrative issuance
carried out pursuant to the agency’s rule-making power, the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies does not stand as a bar in promptly
resorting to the filing of a case in court. This was made clear by the Court
in Smart Communications, Inc. (SMART) v. National Telecommunications
Commission (NTC),31 where it was ruled, thus:
In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued
by an administrative agency, a party need not exhaust administrative
remedies before going to court. This principle applies only where the act of
the administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-
judicial function, and not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-
making or quasi-legislative power. x x x.32
Considering the foregoing clarification, there is thus no bar for the Court to
resolve the substantive issues raised in the petition.
The assailed memorandum circulars It is also pursuant to the mandate of the Constitution of enhancing local
autonomy that the LGC was enacted. Section 2 thereof was a reiteration of
do not transgress the local and fiscal the state policy. It reads, thus:

autonomy granted to LGUs.

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. – (a) It is hereby declared the policy of the

State that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy
The petitioners argue that the assailed issuances of the respondent
genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their
interfere with the local and fiscal autonomy of LGUs embodied in the
fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more
Constitution and the LGC. In particular, they claim that MC No. 2010-138
effective partners in the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the
transgressed these constitutionally-protected liberties when it restricted
State shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local
the meaning of “development” and enumerated activities which the local
government structure instituted through a system of decentralization
government must finance from the 20% development fund component of
whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority,
the IRA and provided sanctions for local authorities who shall use the said
responsibilities, and resources. The process of decentralization shall
component of the fund for the excluded purposes stated therein.33 They
proceed from the national government to the local government units.
argue that the respondent cannot substitute his own discretion with that
of the local legislative council in enacting its annual budget and specifying
the development projects that the 20% component of its IRA should
fund.34 Verily, local autonomy means a more responsive and accountable local
government structure instituted through a system of decentralization.36 In
Limbona v. Mangelin,37 the Court elaborated on the concept of
decentralization, thus:
The argument fails to persuade.

[A]utonomy is either decentralization of administration or decentralization

The Constitution has expressly adopted the policy of ensuring the
of power. There is decentralization of administration when the central
autonomy of LGUs.35 To highlight its significance, the entire Article X of
government delegates administrative powers to political subdivisions in
the Constitution was devoted to laying down the bedrock upon which this
order to broaden the base of government power and in the process to
policy is anchored.
make local governments “more responsive and accountable,” and “ensure
their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more
effective partners in the pursuit of national development and social
progress.” At the same time, it relieves the central government of the
burden of managing local affairs and enables it to concentrate on national
concerns. x x x.
Decentralization of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication of
political power in the favor of local governments [sic] units declared to be
autonomous. In that case, the autonomous government is free to chart its
own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from central
authorities. x x x.38 (Citations omitted)
To safeguard the state policy on local autonomy, the Constitution confines
the power of the President over LGUs to mere supervision.39 “The
President exercises ‘general supervision’ over them, but only to ‘ensure
that local affairs are administered according to law.’ He has no control over
their acts in the sense that he can substitute their judgments with his
own.”40 Thus, Section 4, Article X of the Constitution, states:
Section 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general
supervision over local governments. Provinces with respect to component
cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with respect to
component barangays, shall ensure that the acts of their component units
are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.
In Province of Negros Occidental v. Commissioners, Commission on
Audit,41 the Court distinguished general supervision from executive
control in the following manner:
The President’s power of general supervision means the power of a
superior officer to see to it that subordinates perform their functions
according to law. This is distinguished from the President’s power of
control which is the power to alter or modify or set aside what a
subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgment of the President over that of the subordinate
officer. The power of control gives the President the power to revise or
reverse the acts or decisions of a subordinate officer involving the exercise
of discretion.42 (Citations omitted)
It is the petitioners’ contention that the respondent went beyond the
confines of his supervisory powers, as alter ego of the President, when he
issued MC No. 2010-138. They argue that the mandatory nature of the
circular, with the threat of imposition of sanctions for non-compliance,
evinces a clear desire to exercise control over LGUs.43
The Court, however, perceives otherwise.
A reading of MC No. 2010-138 shows that it is a mere reiteration of an
existing provision in the LGC. It was plainly intended to remind LGUs to
faithfully observe the directive stated in Section 287 of the LGC to utilize
the 20% portion of the IRA for development projects. It was, at best, an
advisory to LGUs to examine themselves if they have been complying with
the law. It must be recalled that the assailed circular was issued in
response to the report of the COA that a substantial portion of the 20%
development fund of some LGUs was not actually utilized for development
projects but was diverted to expenses more properly categorized as
MOOE, in violation of Section 287 of the LGC. This intention was
highlighted in the very first paragraph of MC No. 2010-138, which reads:

Section 287 of the Local Government Code mandates every local
government to appropriate in its annual budget no less than 20% of its
annual revenue allotment for development projects. In common
understanding, development means the realization of desirable social,
economic and environmental outcomes essential in the attainment of the
constitutional objective of a desired quality of life for all.44 (Underscoring
in the original)
That the term development was characterized as the “realization of
desirable social, economic and environmental outcome” does not operate
as a restriction of the term so as to exclude some other activities that may
bring about the same result. The definition was a plain characterization of
the concept of development as it is commonly understood. The statement
of a general definition was only necessary to illustrate among LGUs the
nature of expenses that are properly chargeable against the development
fund component of the IRA. It is expected to guide them and aid them in
rethinking their ways so that they may be able to rectify lapses in
judgment, should there be any, or it may simply stand as a reaffirmation of
an already proper administration of expenses.
The same clarification may be said of the enumeration of expenses in MC
No. 2010-138. To begin with, it is erroneous to call them exclusions
because such a term signifies compulsory disallowance of a particular item
or activity. This is not the contemplation of the enumeration. Again, it is
helpful to retrace the very reason for the issuance of the assailed circular
for a better understanding. The petitioners should be reminded that the
issuance of MC No. 2010-138 was brought about by the report of the COA
that the development fund was not being utilized accordingly. To curb the
alleged misuse of the development fund, the respondent deemed it proper
to remind LGUs of the nature and purpose of the provision for the IRA
through MC No. 2010-138. To illustrate his point, he included the
contested enumeration of the items for which the development fund must
generally not be used. The enumerated items comprised the expenses
which the COA perceived to have been improperly earmarked or charged
against the development fund based on the audit it conducted.
Contrary to the petitioners’ posturing, however, the enumeration was not
meant to restrict the discretion of the LGUs in the utilization of their funds.
It was meant to enlighten LGUs as to the nature of the development fund
by delineating it from other types of expenses. It was incorporated in the
assailed circular in order to guide them in the proper disposition of the IRA
and avert further misuse of the fund by citing current practices which
seemed to be incompatible with the purpose of the fund. Even then, LGUs
remain at liberty to map out their respective development plans solely on
the basis of their own judgment and utilize their IRAs accordingly, with the
only restriction that 20% thereof be expended for development projects.
They may even spend their IRAs for some of the enumerated items should
they partake of indirect costs of undertaking development projects. In such
case, however, the concerned LGU must ascertain that applicable rules and
regulations on budgetary allocation have been observed lest it be inviting
an administrative probe.
The petitioners likewise misread the issuance by claiming that the
provision of sanctions therein is a clear indication of the President’s
interference in the fiscal autonomy of LGUs. The relevant portion of the
assailed issuance reads, thus:

All local authorities are further reminded that utilizing the 20% component
of the Internal Revenue Allotment, whether willfully or through
negligence, for any purpose beyond those expressly prescribed by law or
public policy shall be subject to the sanctions provided under the Local
Government Code and under such other applicable laws.45
Significantly, the issuance itself did not provide for sanctions. It did not
particularly establish a new set of acts or omissions which are deemed
violations and provide the corresponding penalties therefor. It simply
stated a reminder to LGUs that there are existing rules to consider in the
disbursement of the 20% development fund and that non-compliance
therewith may render them liable to sanctions which are provided in the
LGC and other applicable laws. Nonetheless, this warning for possible
imposition of sanctions did not alter the advisory nature of the issuance.
At any rate, LGUs must be reminded that the local autonomy granted to
them does not completely severe them from the national government or
turn them into impenetrable states. Autonomy does not make local
governments sovereign within the state.46 In Ganzon v. Court of
Appeals,47 the Court reiterated:
Autonomy, however, is not meant to end the relation of partnership and
interdependence between the central administration and local
government units, or otherwise, to usher in a regime of federalism. The
Charter has not taken such a radical step. Local governments, under the
Constitution, are subject to regulation, however limited, and for no other
purpose than precisely, albeit paradoxically, to enhance self-
government.48
Thus, notwithstanding the local fiscal autonomy being enjoyed by LGUs,
they are still under the supervision of the President and maybe held
accountable for malfeasance or violations of existing laws. “Supervision is
not incompatible with discipline. And the power to discipline and ensure
that the laws be faithfully executed must be construed to authorize the
President to order an investigation of the act or conduct of local officials
when in his opinion the good of the public service so requires.”49
Clearly then, the President’s power of supervision is not antithetical to
investigation and imposition of sanctions. In Hon. Joson v. Exec. Sec.
Torres,50 the Court pointed out, thus:
“Independently of any statutory provision authorizing the President to
conduct an investigation of the nature involved in this proceeding, and in
view of the nature and character of the executive authority with which the
President of the Philippines is invested, the constitutional grant to him of
power to exercise general supervision over all local governments and to
take care that the laws be faithfully executed must be construed to
authorize him to order an investigation of the act or conduct of the
petitioner herein. Supervision is not a meaningless thing. It is an active
power. It is certainly not without limitation, but it at least implies authority
to inquire into facts and conditions in order to render the power real and
effective. x x x.”51 (Emphasis ours and italics in the original)
As in MC No. 2010-138, the Court finds nothing in two other questioned
issuances of the respondent, i.e., MC Nos. 2010-83 and 2011-08, that can
be construed as infringing on the fiscal autonomy of LGUs. The petitioners
claim that the requirement to post other documents in the mentioned
issuances went beyond the letter and spirit of Section 352 of the LGC and
R.A. No. 9184, otherwise known as the Government Procurement Reform
Act, by requiring that budgets, expenditures, contracts and loans, and
procurement plans of LGUs be publicly posted as well.52
Pertinently, Section 352 of the LGC reads:
Section 352. Posting of the Summary of Income and Expenditures. – Local
treasurers, accountants, budget officers, and other accountable officers
shall, within thirty (30) days from the end of the fiscal year, post in at least
three (3) publicly accessible and conspicuous places in the local
government unit a summary of all revenues collected and funds received
including the appropriations and disbursements of such funds during the
preceding fiscal year.
R.A. No. 9184, on the other hand, requires the posting of the invitation to
bid, notice of award, notice to proceed, and approved contract in the
procuring entity’s premises, in newspapers of general circulation, and the
website of the procuring entity.53
It is well to remember that fiscal autonomy does not leave LGUs with
unbridled discretion in the disbursement of public funds. They remain
accountable to their constituency. For, public office was created for the
benefit of the people and not the person who holds office.
The Court strongly enunciated in ABAKADA GURO Party List (formerly
AASJS), et al. v. Hon. Purisima, et al.,54 thus:
Public office is a public trust. It must be discharged by its holder not for his
own personal gain but for the benefit of the public for whom he holds it in
trust. By demanding accountability and service with responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, efficiency, patriotism and justice, all government officials
and employees have the duty to be responsive to the needs of the people
they are called upon to serve.55
Thus, the Constitution strongly summoned the State to adopt and
implement a policy of full disclosure of all transactions involving public
interest and provide the people with the right to access public
information.56 Section 352 of the LGC is a response to this call for
transparency. It is a mechanism of transparency and accountability of local
government officials and is in fact incorporated under Chapter IV of the
LGC which deals with “Expenditures, Disbursements, Accounting and
Accountability.”
In the same manner, R.A. No. 9184 established a system of transparency in
the procurement process and in the implementation of procurement
contracts in government agencies.57 It is the public monitoring of the
procurement process and the implementation of awarded contracts with
the end in view of guaranteeing that these contracts are awarded pursuant
to the provisions of the law and its implementing rules and regulations,
and that all these contracts are performed strictly according to
specifications.58
The assailed issuances of the respondent, MC Nos. 2010-83 and 2011-08,
are but implementation of this avowed policy of the State to make public
officials accountable to the people. They are amalgamations of existing
laws, rules and regulation designed to give teeth to the constitutional
mandate of transparency and accountability.
Secondly, it appears that even Section 352 of the LGC that is being invoked
by the petitioners does not exclude the requirement for the posting of the
additional documents stated in MC Nos. 2010-83 and 2011-08. Apparently,
the mentioned provision requires the publication of “a summary of
revenues collected and funds received, including the appropriations and
disbursements of such funds.” The additional requirement for the posting
of budgets, expenditures, contracts and loans, and procurement plans are
well-within the contemplation of Section 352 of the LGC considering they
are documents necessary for an accurate presentation of a summary of
appropriations and disbursements that an LGU is required to publish.

Finally, the Court believes that the supervisory powers of the President are
A scrutiny of the contents of the mentioned issuances shows that they do
broad enough to embrace the power to require the publication of certain
not, in any manner, violate the fiscal autonomy of LGUs. To be clear,
documents as a mechanism of transparency. In Pimentel, Jr. v. Hon.
“*f+iscal autonomy means that local governments have the power to create
Aguirre,60 the Court reminded that local fiscal autonomy does not rule out
their own sources of revenue in addition to their equitable share in the
any manner of national government intervention by way of supervision, in
national taxes released by the national government, as well as the power
order to ensure that local programs, fiscal and otherwise, are consistent
to allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities. It
with national goals. The President, by constitutional fiat, is the head of the
extends to the preparation of their budgets, and local officials in turn have
economic and planning agency of the government, primarily responsible
to work within the constraints thereof.”59
for formulating and implementing continuing, coordinated and integrated
social and economic policies, plans and programs for the entire country.61

It is inconceivable, however, how the publication of budgets, expenditures,

contracts and loans and procurement plans of LGUs required in the
Moreover, the Constitution, which was drafted after long years of
assailed issuances could have infringed on the local fiscal autonomy of
dictatorship and abuse of power, is now replete with numerous provisions
LGUs. Firstly, the issuances do not interfere with the discretion of the LGUs
directing the adoption of measures to uphold transparency and
in the specification of their priority projects and the allocation of their
accountability in government, with a view of protecting the nation from
budgets. The posting requirements are mere transparency measures which
repeating its atrocious past. In particular, the Constitution commands the
do not at all hurt the manner by which LGUs decide the utilization and
strict adherence to full disclosure of information on all matters relating to
allocation of their funds.
official transactions and those involving public interest. Pertinently, Section
28, Article II and Section 7, Article III of the Constitution, provide:
 process of election. His stay in office remains a privilege which may be
withdrawn by the people should he betray his oath of office. Thus, he must
Article II not frown upon accountability checks which aim to show how well he is
performing his delegated power. For, it is through these mechanisms of
Declaration of Principles and State Policies Principles
transparency and accountability that he is able to prove to his constituency
that he is worthy of the continued privilege.

Section 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State

adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the petition is
transactions involving public interest.
DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Article III
SO ORDERED.
Bill of Rights

Section 7. 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.

In the instant case, the assailed issuances were issued pursuant to the
policy of promoting good governance through transparency, accountability
and participation. The action of the respondent is certainly within the
constitutional bounds of his power as alter ego of the President.

It is needless to say that the power to govern is a delegated authority from

the people who hailed the public official to office through the democratic