Almonte Vs Vasquez

Almonte vs Vasquez
FACTS:
The function of the ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION BUREAU (EIIB) is to gather and
evaluate intelligence reports regarding illegal activities affecting national economy. Almonte (Petitioner)
was then Commissioner of the EIIB, while Perez was the Chief of the Budget and Fiscal Management
Division. Ombudsman received an anonymous letter alleging that funds representing savings from
unfilled positions in the EIIB had been illegally disbursed. The letter states that during the
implementation of EO 127, 190 personnel were dismissed. Before the EO, the EIIB had monthly savings
of 500k from unfilled plantilla positions plus the implementation of RA 6683, a total amount of 1.4
million was saved. However it was disbursed.
The EIIB has a syndicate headed by the Chief of Budget Division who is manipulating funds and also the
brain of “ghost agents”. The Commissioner has the biggest share. Graft Investigation Officer of the
Ombudsman’s Office, Jose Saño asked for authority to conduct a preliminary investigation and issued a
subpoena to Petitioners Almonte and Perez requiring them to submit their counter-affidavits. Saño also
issued a subpoena duces tecum (ordering the recipient to appear before the court and produce
documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial.) to the Chief of the EIIB’s Accounting
Division ordering him to bring “all documents relating to Personal Services Funds for the year 1988 and
all evidence, such as vouchers (salary) for the whole plantilla of EIIB for 1988.”
Petitioners claim that to produce these documents would lead to the knowledge of its operations,
movements and tactics, which would destroy the EIIB. Petitioners invoke governmental privilege.
ISSUE:
Whether or not “all documents relating to personal services funds for the year 1988 and all evidences,
such as vouchers (salary) for the whole plantilla of EIIB for 1988” are classified and, therefore, beyond
the reach of public respondent’s subpoena duces tecum.
RATIO:
No. Governmental privilege against disclosure is recognized with respect to state secrets bearing on
military, diplomatic and similar matters. This privilege is based upon public interest of such paramount
importance as in and of itself transcending the individual interests of a private citizen, even though, as a
consequence thereof, the plaintiff cannot enforce his legal rights. Governmental privilege may be
invoked when there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters
which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged.
Although where the claim of confidentiality does not rest on the need to protect military, diplomatic
or other national security secrets but on a general public interest in the confidentiality of his
conversations, courts have declined to find 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 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, such
as, but not limited to, economic sabotage, smuggling, tax evasion, dollar salting.” 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 a privilege resting on other considerations.
Nor has our attention been called to any law or regulation which considers personnel records of the EIIB
as classified information. To the contrary, COA Circular No. 88-293, which petitioners invoke to support
their contention that there is adequate safeguard against misuse of public funds, provides that the “only
item of expenditure which should be treated strictly confidential” is that which refers to the “purchase
of information and payment of rewards.”
Reasonable records should be maintained and kept for inspection of the Chairman, Commission on
Audit or his duly authorized representative. All other expenditures are to be considered unclassified
supported by invoices, receipts and other documents, and, therefore, subject to reasonable inquiry by
the Chairman or his duly authorized representative.
It should be noted that the regulation requires that “reasonable records” be kept justifying the
confidential or privileged character of the information relating to informers. There are no such
reasonable records in this case to substitute for the records claimed to be confidential. No express
statutory grant of privilege; only purchase of info & rewards are privileged under COA Circular No. 88-
293. EIIB has duty to account for use of public funds.
If, as petitioners claim, the subpoenaed records have been examined by the COA and found by it to be
regular in all respects, there is no reason why they cannot be shown to another agency of the
government which by constitutional mandate is required to look into any complaint concerning public
office.
On the other hand, the Ombudsman is investigating a complaint that several items in the EIIB were filled
by fictitious persons and that the allotments for these items in 1988 were used for illegal purposes. The
plantilla and other personnel records are relevant to his investigation. He and his Deputies are
designated by the Constitution “protectors of the people” and as such they are required it “to act
promptly on complaints in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the
Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporation. His need for the documents thus outweighs the claim of confidentiality of
petitioners.
Above all, even if the subpoenaed documents are treated as presumptively privileged, this decision
would only justify ordering their inspection in camera but not their nonproduction. However, as
concession to the nature of the functions of the EIIB and just to be sure no information of a confidential
character is disclosed, the examination of records in this case should be made in strict confidence by the
Ombudsman himself. Reference may be made to the documents in any decision or order which the
Ombudsman may render or issue but only to the extent that it will not reveal covert activities of the
agency. Above all, there must be a scrupulous protection of the documents delivered.
DOCTRINE:
Governmental privilege against disclosure is recognized with respect to state secrets bearing on
military, diplomatic and similar matters
Although where the claim of confidentiality does not rest on the need to protect military, diplomatic
or other national security secrets but on a general public interest in the confidentiality of his
conversations, courts have declined to find in the Constitution an absolute privilege of the President
against a subpoena considered essential to the enforcement of criminal laws.

Almonte Vs Vasquez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Almonte Vs Vasquez

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

Almonte Vs Vasquez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Almonte vs Vasquez

You might also like