Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Morfe v. Mutuc Facts: Ruling:: Human Rights Law

    Uploaded by

    roigtc
    257 views2 pages
    1. A judge challenged the requirement for public officials to submit a sworn statement of assets and liabilities (SAL) every two years as a violation of due process and privacy rights. 2. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision, finding that the SAL requirement was a valid exercise of police power to ensure honest public service and did not violate due process as it was not unreasonable or oppressive. 3. The Court also found that the SAL did not infringe on privacy rights or constitute an unreasonable search, as public officials have reduced expectations of privacy due to their positions of public trust.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Morfe v. Mutuc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. A judge challenged the requirement for public officials to submit a sworn statement of assets and liabilities (SAL) every two years as a violation of due process and privacy rights. 2. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision, finding that the SAL requirement was a valid exercise of police power to ensure honest public service and did not violate due process as it was not unreasonable or oppressive. 3. The Court also found that the SAL did not infringe on privacy rights or constitute an unreasonable search, as public officials have reduced expectations of privacy due to their positions of public trust.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    257 views2 pages

    Morfe v. Mutuc Facts: Ruling:: Human Rights Law

    Uploaded by

    roigtc
    1. A judge challenged the requirement for public officials to submit a sworn statement of assets and liabilities (SAL) every two years as a violation of due process and privacy rights. 2. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision, finding that the SAL requirement was a valid exercise of police power to ensure honest public service and did not violate due process as it was not unreasonable or oppressive. 3. The Court also found that the SAL did not infringe on privacy rights or constitute an unreasonable search, as public officials have reduced expectations of privacy due to their positions of public trust.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Human Rights Law

    Morfe v. Mutuc 3. An insult to the personal integrity and official


    dignity of public officials.
    Facts:
    Ruling:
    The Law: Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act of
    1960 (RA No. 3019) Decision reversed.

    Every public officer within 30 days after its Rationale:


    approval or after his assumption of office “and within
    the month of January of every year thereafter”, as well 1. Presumption of validity
    as upon termination of his position, shall prepare and
    file with the head of the office to which he belongs, “a Plaintiff asserted that the submission of SAL was a
    true detailed and sworn statement of assets and reasonable requirement for employment so a public
    liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and officer can make of record his assets and liabilities
    sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and upon assumption of office. Plaintiff did not present
    family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid evidence to rebut the presumption of validity.
    for the next preceding calendar year”.
    “If the liberty involved were freedom of the mind or
    Plaintiff Morfe, a judge of a CFI, contends that the the person, the standard for the validity of
    periodical submission “within the month of January of governmental acts is much more rigorous and exacting,
    every other year thereafter” of their sworn statement of but where the liberty curtailed affects the most rights
    assets and liabilities (SAL) is violative of due process of property, the permissible scope of regulatory
    as an oppressive exercise of police power and as an measure is wider.” (Ermita-Malate Hotel v. Mayor of
    unlawful invasion of the constitutional right to privacy Manila)
    implicit on the ban against unreasonable search and
    seizure construed together with the prohibition against 2. Exercise of Police power and the defense
    self- incrimination. provided by the Due Process Clause

    Executive Secretary and DOJ Sec: “inherent and plenary power in the state which enables
    it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety
    Acceptance of public position = voluntary and welfare of society” (Justice Malcolm)
    assumption of obligation
    Thepowerofsovereignty,thepowertogovernmenandthin
    Merely seeks to adopt a reasonable measure of gswithinthelimitsofitsdomain (JusticeTaney, going
    insuring the interest of general welfare in honest and beyond curtailment of rights)
    clean public service and is therefore a legitimate
    exercise of police power. Anyone with an alleged grievance regarding the
    extension of police power to regulatory action
    CFI of Pangasinan held that the requirement exceeds affecting persons in public or private life can invoke
    the permissible limit of the police power and is thus the protection of due process.
    offensive to the due process clause
    It has been held that due process may be relied upon
    Issue/s: by public official to protect the security of tenure
    which in a limited sense is analogous to property.
    Whether the periodical submission of SAL for public Therefore he could also use due process to strike down
    officers is: what he considers as an infringement of his liberty.

    1. An oppressive exercise of police power; Under the Constitution, the challenged provision is
    allowable as long as due process is observed.
    2. Violative of due process and an unlawful invasion of
    the right to privacy implicit in the ban against The standard for due process is REASONABLENESS.
    unreasonable search and seizure construed together Test: Official action must not outrun the bounds of
    with the prohibition against self-incrimination; reason and result in sheer oppression.

    R.C. GATOC NOTES


    Human Rights Law

    “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.”

    3. Right to privacy / Right to be let 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.”

    4. Unreasonable Search and Seizure

    The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable


    search and seizure does not give freedom from
    testimonial compulsion.

    5. 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.

    6. Insult to personal integrity and official


    dignity

    Only congressional power or competence, not the


    wisdom of the action taken, mey be the basis for
    declaring a statute invalid.

    R.C. GATOC NOTES

    You might also like