JENIFER DE LUNA ATTY.

HERBERT NAVARRO
JD-3 FUNDAMENTALS THESIS WRITING PROFESSOR

Research Essay
The Constitutionality of the Ombudsman Regulation Pertaining to Acquisition of
SALN

To safeguard the interest of the public against graft and corruption, the
submission of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth upon assumption of
duty or thereafter every year of all public officials and employees, whether regular or
under probationary status, is mandated under the Constitution. The said document must
contain the affiant’s real and personal property, all other assets like investment as well
as the liabilities including those of their spouse and their unmarried children below 18
years of age living with them. It also includes disclosure of relative’s identity working in
the government.

The Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth is a gauge of one’s

integrity and honesty. It is a document that determines whether a person befits to be of
public service or needless to say is the person trustworthy enough to hold a public
office. Since SALN is a public document, it is and must be accessible to the public.

But in the recent memorandum circular no. 1 series of 2020 released by the
Ombudsman, it officially restricted public access to officials’ Statement of Assets,
Liabilities and Net Worth. Under the circular, the said document may only be
accessed by the official or the duly authorized representative, a requester acting on a
court order and by the Office of the Ombudsman for the purpose of conducting fact-
finding investigation. This conveys that public can no longer access the said document
without the approval or willingness on the part of the official. However, in the old
Ombudsman guidelines, people requesting SALNs from the Ombudsman just need to
properly fill out the prescribed form and submit identification documents to the
authorized staff. In this situation we can notice that the new Ombudsman regulation
pertaining on the access of SALN is more restrictive than the old regulation, as the new
regulation limits the person who can request copy of the said document.

As anticipated, the controversial circular captured the attention of a lot of people

particularly those in the legal field and received negative reactions which is quite
understandable given the present situation. It defies the provision in the Constitution
which states that a public office is a public trust. Transparency to public document is
now limited or can no longer be guaranteed especially for the ordinary individuals. The
law is clear that SALN of public official or employees must be open to the public as long
as they don’t commit acts prohibited by law.

Aside from provisions in Article 11 of the highest law of the land, also
supporting SALN public disclosure is the Constitution’s Article 3, Section 7,
which states: “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.”
 The importance of such Constitutional provision was explained by the
Supreme Court in a 1989 landmark case (Valmonte v. Belmonte Jr.) when it
said:

“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. 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.”

And in a 2012 ruling, the Supreme Court also explained: ( In Baldoza v.

Dimaano )

“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 nation’s 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, 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.”

It is explicit that the new guideline of the Ombudsman violates the above
stated provisions in the Constitution. Further, it is clear in Section 8 of RA 6713 and
in its Implementing Rules and Regulations pertaining to “Accessibility of documents”
that: “Any and all statements filed under this Act shall be made available for
inspection at reasonable hours” and “Such statements shall be made available for
copying or reproduction after ten days working days from the time they are filed as
required by law.”

The new circular translucently contravenes RA 6713, particularly on

“inspection” and “reproduction or taking picture” of SALNs. I find this audacious
because any memo or even an executive order cannot outweigh a law passed by
Congress. The primary reason in issuing this circular which is to prevent it to be used
as a weapon to the public official is not valid reason to deny public access to such
important document which could provide the public impression or idea on the character
of the public officials. There are other ways to address this issue but the paramount
concern should be for the welfare and best interest of the public.

Public access to officials’ Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth is

imperative, aside that it is mandated by law it also helps scrutinize whether they
deserve the trust given to serve the public. Absence of it, the public will have difficulty in
evaluating the integrity or character of those who are in position. Moreover, SALN
ought to be a very effective tool to minimize or regulate the rampant corruption in the
government that burdens the public.