Morfe V Mutuc

G.R. No.
L-20387 January 31, 1968
JESUS P. MORFE, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
AMELITO R. MUTUC, as Executive Secretary, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
Facts:
One of the specific provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act of 1960 is that every public
officer, either within thirty (30) days after its approval or after his assumption of office “and within the
month of January of every other year thereafter”, as well as upon the termination of his position, shall
prepare and file with the head of the office to which he belongs, “a true detailed and sworn statement of
assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his
personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar: . . .”
In relation to Morfe’s alleged accumulation of assets grossly disproportionate to his reported incomes
after his assumption to office, plaintiff Morfe alleged that the periodical submission of such sworn
statement of assets is violative of due process as an oppressive exercise of police power and as an
unlawful invasion of the constitutional right to privacy, implicit in the ban against unreasonable search
and seizure construed together with the prohibition against self-incrimination..
On the otherhand, the defendants Secretary of Justice and Executive Secretary contended that it was a
legitimate exercise of police power, and that Morfe, having accepted a public position, voluntarily
assumed the obligation to give information about his personal affair, not only at the time of his
assumption of office but during the time he continues to discharge public trust.
Lower court: Law is unconstitutional.
Issue:
Whether or not the required periodical submission of sworn statement of assets and liabilities is
unconstitutional on the grounds of it being an unlawful invasion of right to privacy, and an insult to the
personal integrity and official dignity of public officials.
Held:
No. SC said that such provision of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is constitutional. It is within the
State’s police power, and is not violative of due process and liberty. It is also not a violation of guarantee
against unreasonable search and seizure, and is not against the non-incrimination clause. Furthermore, it
is not an insult to the personal integrity and official dignity of public officials.
The Anti-Graft Act of 1960 was precisely aimed at curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official
corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. It is intended to further promote
morality in public administration. A public office must indeed be a public trust.
The State’s inherent police power enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and
welfare of society. However, if the police power extends to regulatory action affecting persons in public
or private life, then anyone with an alleged grievance can invoke the protection of due process which
permits deprivation of property or liberty as long as such requirement is observed.
If due process mandate is not disregarded, even a public official, to protect the security of tenure which
is analogous to property, can protect himself from an infringement of his liberty. However, liberty, in the
interest of public health, public order, or safety, of general welfare, in other words through the proper
exercise of the police power, may be regulated.
In here, the reasonableness of the law makes the prohibition valid and within the ambit of police power.
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 temptation to heed the call of greed and avarice to condemn as
arbitrary and oppressive a requirement as that imposed upon public officials and employees to file such
sworn statement of assets and liabilities every two years after having done so upon assuming office.
There was therefore no unconstitutional exercise of police power.
A periodical submission of sworn statement of assets and 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
and liabilities, including the statement of the amounts and sources of income, the amounts of personal
and family expenses, and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year, there is
no unconstitutional intrusion into what otherwise would be a private sphere.
Other Notes:
Presumption of validity
Plaintiff asserted that the submission of SAL was a reasonable requirement for employment so a public
officer can make of record his assets and liabilities upon assumption of office. Plaintiff did not present
evidence to rebut the presumption of validity.
“If the liberty involved were freedom of the mind or the person, the standard for the validity of
governmental acts is much more rigorous and exacting, but where the liberty curtailed affects the most
rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory measure is wider.” (Ermita-Malate Hotel v. Mayor
of Manila)
Exercise of Police power and the defense provided by the Due Process Clause
“Inherent and plenary power in the state which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort,
safety and welfare of society” (Justice Malcolm)
The power of sovereignty, the power to govern men and things within the limits of its domain (Justice
Taney, going beyond curtailment of rights)
Anyone with an alleged grievance regarding the extension of police power to regulatory action affecting
persons in public or private life can invoke the protection of due process.
It has been held that due process may be relied upon by public official 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
what he considers as an infringement of his liberty.
Under the Constitution, the challenged provision is allowable as long as due process is observed.
The standard for due process is REASONABLENESS. Test: Official action must not outrun the bounds of
reason and result in sheer oppression.
“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 temptation to heed the call of greed and avarice to condemn as
arbitrary and oppressive a requirement as that imposed upon public officials and employees to file such
sworn statement of assets and liabilities every two years after having done so upon assuming office.
There was therefore no unconstitutional exercise of police power.”
Right to privacy or Right to be left alone
“It cannot be said that the challenged statutory provision calls for disclosure of information which
infringes on the right of a person to privacy. It cannot be denied that the rational relationship such a
requirement possesses with the objective of a valid statute goes very far in precluding assent to an
objection of such character. This is not 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 to such a further compulsory
revelation of his assets and liabilities, including the statement of the amounts of personal and family
expenses, and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year, there is no
unconstitutional intrusion into what otherwise would be a private sphere.”
Unreasonable Search and Seizure
The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure does not give freedom from
testimonial compulsion.
Right against self-incrimination
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.
Insult to personal integrity and official dignity
Only congressional power or competence, not the wisdom of the action taken, may be the basis for
declaring a statute invalid.

Morfe V Mutuc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Morfe V Mutuc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Morfe V Mutuc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-20387 January 31, 1968

JESUS P. MORFE, plaintiff-appellee,

AMELITO R. MUTUC, as Executive Secretary, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

Lower court: Law is unconstitutional.

Right to privacy or Right to be left alone

Right against self-incrimination

Insult to personal integrity and official dignity

You might also like