CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ MORFE V. MUTUC, 22 SCRA 424

MORFE V. MUTUC,

22 SCRA 424

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

This Act (Rep. Act No. 3019) was enacted to deter public off icials and employees from committing acts of dishonesty and improve the tone of morality in public service. It was declared to be the state policy "in line with the principle that a public office is a public trust, to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto" (Sec. 1, Rep. Act No. 3019).

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 year.

This was challenged for being 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. The lower court in the decision appealed from sustained plaintiff, then as well as now, a judge of repute of a court of first instance. For it, such requirement of periodical submission of such sworn statement of assets and liabilities exceeds the permissible limit of the police power and is thus offensive to the due process clause.

ISSUE

Whether or not Section 7 of Rep. Act. No. 3019 is unconstitutional.

RULING

No.

 

The court held that to declare a law unconstitutional, the infringement of constitutional rights must be clear, categorical, and undeniable.

 

Here, the court held that in the absence of a factual foundation, or evidence to rebut the presumption of validity of a law, such presumption of validity must prevail (Ermita-Malate, etc. v. Mayor of Manila, L-24693, July 31, 19567). In the present case, where Section 7 of Republic A ct No. 30 19 is being vi ewe d by the l ow er constitutional, "insofar as it required periodical submittal of sworn statements of financial conditions, assets and liabilities of an official or employee of the government after he had once submitted such a sworn statement upon assuming office," there was likewise no factual foundation on which the nullification of said section of the statute could be based. The disclosure of information does not infringe the right of a person to privacy. There is no violation of the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure in the requirement of periodical submission of one's financial condition.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BALA V. MARTINEZ, 181 SCRA 459