Almonte VS Vasquez
Almonte VS Vasquez
Almonte VS Vasquez
Facts: This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to annul the
subpoena duces tecum and orders issued by respondent Ombudsman,
requiring the chief accountant and record custodian of the Economic
Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) to produce “all documents relating
to Personal Services Funds for the year 1988 and all evidence, such as
vouchers for the whole plantilla of EIIN for 1988” and to enjoin him from
enforcing his orders. The subpoena duces tecum was issued by the
Ombudsman in connection with his investigation of an anonymous letter
alleging that funds representing savings from unfilled positions in the EIIB has
been illegally disbursed, petitioners move to quash the subpoena duces tecum
on the following issues:
1. whether petitioners can be ordered to produce documents relating to
personal services and salary vouchers of EIIB employees on the plea that
such documents are “classified”,
2. whether petitioner’s right to the equal protection of laws have been violated.
Petitioners complain that in all forum and tribunal the aggrieved parties
can only hale respondents via their verified complaints and sworn
statements with their identities fully disclosed, while in proceedings before
the Office of the Ombudsman anonymous letters suffice to start an
investigation;
3. that the subpoena duces tecum is violative of the petitioners right against
self-incrimination.
Held: Where the claim of confidentiality does not vest on the need to protect
military, diplomatic or other national security secrets but on a general public
interest in the confidentiality of his conversation, courts have declined to find it
in the constitution an absolute privilege of the President against a subpoena
considered essential to the enforcement of criminal laws.
In the case at bar, there is no claim that the military or diplomatic secrets
will be disclosed by the production of records pertaining to the personnel of the
EIIB. Indeed, EIIB’s function is the gathering and evaluation of intelligence
reports and information regarding illegal activities affecting the national
economy. Consequently, while in cases which involve state secrets, it may be
sufficient to determine from the circumstances of the case that there is
reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters
without compelling production, no similar excuse can be made for privilege
resting on other consideration. Likewise, no law or regulation was shown which
considers personnel records of EIIB as classified information.
The Constitution expressly enjoins the Ombudsman to act on any
complaint file in any form or manner concerning official acts or omissions (Sec.
12, Art. XI). Rather than referring to the form of complaints, the phrase “ in an
appropriate case in Art XI Sec 12 means any case concerning official act or
omission which is alleged to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient”. The
phrase “subject to such limitations as may be provided by law” refers to such
limitations as may be provided by Congress or in the absence thereof to such
limitations as may be imposed by the courts. There is a violation of petitioners
right to equal protection of laws since in the first place the procedure for the
proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman is provided for in the
Constitution itself. Second, it is apparent that in permitting the filing of
complaints “in any form and in any manner” the framers of the Constitution
took into account the well known reticence of the people which keep them from
complaining against official wrongdoing. The Office of the Ombudsman is
different from the other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of the
government because those subject to its jurisdiction are public officials who
through official pressure and influence can quash, delay or dismiss
investigations held against them.