G.R. No. L-20387 January 31, 1968
JESUS P. MORFE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMELITO R. MUTUC, as Executive Secretary, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Congress enacted the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) in 1960. Section 7 of this Act requires every public officer, within thirty days after assumption of office and “within the month of January of every other year thereafter,” as well as upon termination of position, to prepare and file a sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including income, sources, personal and family expenses, and income taxes paid. Plaintiff Jesus P. Morfe, a Judge of the Court of First Instance, filed the required statement upon assuming office but challenged the constitutionality of the provision requiring periodical submission thereafter. He filed an action for declaratory relief, arguing that the periodical filing requirement is oppressive and unconstitutional for violating due process, constituting an unlawful exercise of police power, and invading the constitutional right to privacy implicit in the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination. He also contended it was an insult to the personal integrity of public officials and unnecessary given existing tax laws. The defendants, the Executive Secretary and the Secretary of Justice, argued that by accepting public office, an official voluntarily assumes the obligation to disclose personal affairs continuously, and that the provision is a legitimate exercise of police power to ensure honest public service. The lower court granted plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and declared Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3019 unconstitutional insofar as it requires periodical submission of sworn statements after the initial filing upon assumption of office.

ISSUE

Whether or not Section 7 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act of 1960, requiring the periodical submission of sworn statements of assets and liabilities by public officers, is unconstitutional for violating due process, the right to privacy, and the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of the lower court and upheld the constitutionality of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3019. The Court held that:
1. The periodical submission requirement is a valid exercise of police power. The state has a compelling interest in promoting honesty and integrity in public service, and the requirement is a reasonable means to deter corruption by enabling the government to monitor whether a public officer accumulates assets grossly disproportionate to lawful income.
2. The requirement does not violate due process. It is a reasonable condition imposed upon the privilege of holding public office, which is a public trust. The obligation to disclose financial condition periodically is a legitimate burden incidental to public service.
3. The provision does not constitute an unlawful invasion of privacy. By accepting a public position, an official voluntarily subjects himself to public scrutiny, and his private life insofar as it affects his public duties cannot be deemed segregated. The right to privacy must yield to the paramount interest of the state in ensuring transparency and accountability in government.
4. The requirement does not violate the constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination. The sworn statement is a regulatory measure, not a criminal proceeding, and the compulsion involved is neither testimonial nor communicative in the sense prohibited by the self-incrimination clause. The government’s interest in preventing graft justifies the intrusion.
The presumption of constitutionality stands in the absence of a clear and convincing showing of its invalidity, which the plaintiff failed to establish. The law is a reasonable implementation of the principle that a public office is a public trust.