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.