2/6/2021 OneNote

(25) Morfe vs. Mutuc, 130 Phil. 415 (1968)

Thursday, February 4, 2021 1:35 PM

Case Name   Morfe vs. Mutuc, 130 Phil. 415 (1968) 

Topic   Unenumerated Rights 
Date   January 31, 1968 
Ponente   J. Fernando 
Case summary   The Congress enacted the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act to deter public officials
and employees from committing acts of dishonesty and improve the tone of morality in
public service. The provision which prescribes the the periodical submission “within the
month of January of every other year thereafter of sworn statement of assets and
liabilities 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
on the ban against unreasonable search and seizure construed together with the
prohibition against self-incrimination. Petitioner claims that there was no need for the
provision as the income tax law and tax census law also require statements which can
serve to determine whether a public officer or employee has enriched himself out of
proportion to his reported income. Executive secretary Mutuc, however, argued that
when the government official accepts a public position, he is deemed to have voluntarily
assumed 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.
Ruling   The decision of the lower court declaring the periodical submission of sworn statements
of assets and liabilities unconstitutional was reversed.

1.. What is the factual background of the case?

The Congress enacted the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act to deter public officials
and employees from committing acts of dishonesty and improve the tone of morality
in public service. The provision which prescribes the the periodical submission
“within the month of January of every other year thereafter of sworn statement of
assets and liabilities 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 on the ban against unreasonable search and seizure
construed together with the prohibition against self-incrimination. Petitioner claims
that there was no need for the provision as the income tax law and tax census law also
require statements which can serve to determine whether a public officer or
employee has enriched himself out of proportion to his reported income. Executive
secretary Mutuc, however, argued that when the government official accepts a public
position, he is deemed to have voluntarily assumed 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.

2. What is the law/measure/act being challenged?

The periodical submission “within the month of January of every other year
thereafter” of such sworn statement of assets and liabilities after an officer or
employee had once bared his financial condition upon assumption of once 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.

3. What was it (/m/a) seeking to achieve/address?

The said provision merely seeks to adopt a reasonable measure of insuring the
interest of general welfare in honest and clean public service and is therefore a

https://feueduph-my.sharepoint.com/personal/2020008181_feu_edu_ph/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc={cec8d525-0798-434e-ac19-07a8c38fafeb}&action=edit&… 1/3
2/6/2021 OneNote
legitimate exercise of the police power. It is intended to further promote morality in
public administration.

4. What was the fundamental state power involved (if any)?

The fundamental state power involved is the Police power. In this case, since 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.

5. Was there compliance with requisites of judicial review?

Yes. All requisites of judicial review were met. Case clearly involved an issue
concerning constitutional rights.

6. What was the ruling of the court?

The decision of the lower court declaring the periodical submission of sworn
statements of assets and liabilities unconstitutional was reversed.

7. What was the constitutional law doctrine/principle involved?

RIGHT TO PRIVACY
“The Grisworld case (American case) provides that there’s a relationship lying within
the zone of privacy created by several fundamental guarantees. The constitutional
right to privacy has come into its own”

The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition independently of its identification

with liberty; in itself, it is fully deserving of constitutional protection.

In the case at hand, the challenged statutory provision does not call for disclosure of
information which infringes on the right of a person to privacy. In subjecting him to
such a further compulsory revelation of his SALN, there is no unconstitutional
intrusion into what would otherwise be a private sphere.

8. What do you think is the most important passage and why?

“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 to file such sworn statement of assets
and liabilities”

The passage is important because it provides that the periodical submission

requirement of SALN is neither arbitrary nor oppressive in the sense that it is one of
the safeguards that national government can impose to the public officials/employees
to prevent corruption and grave abuse of their government powers. It also means that
the said requirement is reasonable within the concept of valid exercise of police
power.

9. Which modality of constitutional argumentation did the Justices use?

The modality of constitutional argumentation used is prudential in a way that the
Court does not deny the fact that even the public official has certain rights to freedom
the government must respect. However, they still ruled on the general welfare and
interest of the people within the ambit of the valid exercise of police power. The
compelling realities of public service that the temptation to heed the call of greed and
avarice is present and that as long as the requirements imposed on these public
officials are compliant with the due process clause then it is constitutional.
https://feueduph-my.sharepoint.com/personal/2020008181_feu_edu_ph/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc={cec8d525-0798-434e-ac19-07a8c38fafeb}&action=edit&… 2/3
2/6/2021 OneNote

https://feueduph-my.sharepoint.com/personal/2020008181_feu_edu_ph/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc={cec8d525-0798-434e-ac19-07a8c38fafeb}&action=edit&… 3/3