Morfe v. Mutuc

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

MORFE v.

MUTUC it being an unlawful invasion of right to privacy, and an insult to the


G.R. No. L-20387           personal integrity and official dignity of public officials.
JANUARY 31, 1968
HELD: NO.
FACTS:
 The Supreme Court held that such provision of Anti-Graft and
 Congress in 1960 enacted the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Corrupt Practices Act is constitutional. It is within the State’s police
Act 1 to deter public officials and employees from committing acts power, and is not violative of due process and liberty. It is also not
of dishonesty and improve the tone of morality in public service. a violation of guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure,
 One of the specific provisions provides that every public officer, and is not against the non-incrimination clause. Furthermore, it is
either within thirty (30) days after its approval or after his not an insult to the personal integrity and official dignity of public
assumption of office "and within the month of January of every officials.
other year thereafter" and  "a true detailed and sworn statement of  The Anti-Graft Act of 1960 was precisely aimed at curtailing and
assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and minimizing the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining
sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family a standard of honesty in the public service. It is intended to further
expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next promote morality in public administration. A public office must
preceding calendar: . . was challenged for being violative of due indeed be a public trust.
process as an oppressive exercise of police power and as an  The State’s inherent police power enables it to prohibit all things
unlawful invasion of the constitutional right to privacy, implicit in hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. However, if
the ban against unreasonable search and seizure construed the police power extends to regulatory action affecting persons in
together with the prohibition against self-incrimination. public or private life, then anyone with an alleged grievance can
  The lower court in the decision appealed from sustained plaintiff, invoke the protection of due process which permits deprivation of
then as well as now, a judge of repute of a court of first instance.  property or liberty as long as such requirement is observed.
 Plaintiff, after asserting his belief "that it was a reasonable  If due process mandate is not disregarded, even a public official,
requirement for employment that a public officer make of record to protect the security of tenure which is analogous to property,
his assets and liabilities upon assumption of office and thereby can protect himself from an infringement of his liberty. However,
make it possible thereafter to determine whether, after assuming liberty, in the interest of public health, public order, or safety, of
his position in the public service, he accumulated assets grossly general welfare, in other words through the proper exercise of the
disproportionate to his reported incomes, the herein plaintiff police power, may be regulated.
[having] filed within the period of time fixed in the aforesaid  In here, the reasonableness of the law makes the prohibition valid
Administrative Order No. 334 the prescribed sworn statement of and within the ambit of police power.
financial condition, assets, income and liabilities, . . ."   maintained  It would be to dwell in the realm of abstractions and to ignore the
that the provision on the "periodical filing of sworn statement of harsh and compelling realities of public service with its ever-
financial condition, assets, income and liabilities after an officer or present temptation to heed the call of greed and avarice to
employee had once bared his financial condition, upon condemn as arbitrary and oppressive a requirement as that
assumption of office, is oppressive and unconstitutional." imposed upon public officials and employees to file such sworn
 The lower court hence, declared the provision in question as statement of assets and liabilities every two years after having
unconstitutional. done so upon assuming office. There was therefore no
unconstitutional exercise of police power.
ISSUE: Whether or not the required periodical submission of sworn  A periodical submission of sworn statement of assets and
statement of assets and liabilities is unconstitutional on the grounds of liabilities after assumption of office is within the power of the
government to impose, even if it will affect the public officer’s
liberty, for as long as due process is observed. In subjecting the
public officer to such a further compulsory revelation of his assets Under the Constitution, the challenged provision is allowable as long
and liabilities, including the statement of the amounts and sources as due process is observed.
of income, the amounts of personal and family expenses, and the The standard for due process is REASONABLENESS. Test: Official
amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year, action must not outrun the bounds of reason and result in sheer
there is no unconstitutional intrusion into what otherwise would be oppression.
a private sphere. “It would be to dwell in the realm of abstractions and to ignore the
harsh and compelling realities of public service with its ever-present
NOTES: temptation to heed the call of greed and avarice to condemn as
arbitrary and oppressive a requirement as that imposed upon public
On Presumption of validity officials and employees to file such sworn statement of assets and
liabilities every two years after having done so upon assuming office. 
Plaintiff asserted that the submission of SAL was a reasonable There was therefore no unconstitutional exercise of police power.”
requirement for employment so a public officer can make of record his
assets and liabilities upon assumption of office. Plaintiff did not On Right to privacy or Right to be left alone
present evidence to rebut the presumption of validity.
“It cannot be said that the challenged statutory provision calls for
“If the liberty involved were freedom of the mind or the person, the disclosure of information which infringes on the right of a person to
standard for the validity of governmental acts is much more rigorous privacy. It cannot be denied that the rational relationship such a
and exacting, but where the liberty curtailed affects the most rights of requirement possesses with the objective of a valid statute goes very
property, the permissible scope of regulatory measure is wider.” far in precluding assent to an objection of such character. This is not
(Ermita-Malate Hotel v. Mayor of Manila) to say that a public officer, by virtue of position he holds, is bereft of
constitutional protection; it is only to emphasize that in subjecting him
On the Exercise of Police power and the defense provided by the to such a further compulsory revelation of his assets and liabilities,
Due Process Clause including the statement of the amounts of personal and family
expenses, and the amount of income taxes paid for the next
“Inherent and plenary power in the state which enables it to prohibit all preceding calendar year, there is no unconstitutional intrusion into
things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society” (Justice what otherwise would be a private sphere.”
Malcolm)
On Unreasonable Search and Seizure
The power of sovereignty, the power to govern men and things within
the limits of its domain (Justice Taney, going beyond curtailment of The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and
rights) seizure does not give freedom from testimonial compulsion.

Anyone with an alleged grievance regarding the extension of police On Right against self-incrimination
power to regulatory action affecting persons in public or private life
can invoke the protection of due process. We are not aware of any constitutional provision designed to protect a
man’s conduct from judicial inquiry, or aid him in fleeing from justice.
It has been held that due process may be relied upon by public official On Insult to personal integrity and official dignity
to protect the security of tenure which in a limited sense is analogous
to property. Therefore he could also use due process to strike down Only congressional power or competence, not the wisdom of the
what he considers as an infringement of his liberty. action taken, may be the basis for declaring a statute invalid.

You might also like