The Supreme Court (SC) has declared that while the right of access and information to a public official’s statement of assets, liabilities and networth (SALN) is provided for in the Constitution and in the law, “the same is not an absolute vested right.”

In a resolution released last June 30, the SC said that the right to official records such as SALN “is absolutely subject to regulation.”

“The power to regulate the access by the public to these documents stems from the inherent power of the custodian to control its very office to the end that damage to, or loss of, the records may be avoided; that undue interference with the duties of the custodian of the books and documents and other employees may be prevented; and that the right of other persons entitled to make inspection may be insured,” the SC said.

“Thus, a custodian such as the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) is not bound under every circumstance to allow or to grant the request of disclosure of a public official's SALN to the public,” it said.

With its ruling, the SC dismissed the petition filed by Louis " Barok" C. Biraogo who challenged the memorandum issued by Ombudsman Samuel R. Martires, who, in 2020, imposed strict guidelines for the issuance of copies of SALNs, to other persons aside from those who filed them and in compliance with a court order.

Biraogo would have wanted to secure from the OMB a copy of the SALN of Vice President Ma. Leonor “Leni” Robredo.

He told the OMB he needed a copy in connection with his study on VP Robredo’s use of a mansion in Quezon City which is allegedly paid for using taxpayers’ money.

When his request was not granted, Biraogo filed a petition with the SC challenging Martires’ Memorandum No. 1 issued on Sept. 1, 2020.

Under Martires’ memorandum, a copy of a public official’s SALN may given if “he/she is the declarant or the duly authorized representative of the declarant; the request is upon lawful order of the court in relation to a pending case; and the request is made by this Office’s Field Investigation Office/Bureau/Unit (FIO/FIB/FIU) for the purpose of conducting fact-finding investigation.”

The memorandum also states that “in all other instances, no SALN will be furnished to the requester unless he/she presents a notarized letter of authority from the declarant allowing the release of the requested SALN.”

The SC said Biraogo’s petition could be dismissed outright for failure to follow the hierarchy of courts. It said the petitions should have been before the trial courts since it does not involve pure questions of law and it is not a trier of facts.

Also, the SC said Biraogo failed to present an actual controversy in his petition to justify the court’s intervention. “The Court, however, does not have unrestrained authority to rule on just any and every claim of constitutional violation,” it said.

“With the status of petitioner's request before the Office of the Ombudsman being an unsettled and debatable fact, the present Petition evidently does not involve pure questions of law,” it pointed out.

On regulation in the release of SALN, the SC said: “A custodian is not prohibited by the Constitution to regulate such disclosure. Its duty therefore, under the Constitution and applicable laws, is far from being merely ministerial.”

“The Court, in fact, as custodian of the SALNs of justices and judges, has itself laid down some guidelines to be observed for requests made to gain access to these SALNs,” it said.

It pointed out that it “has likewise, on occasions, denied requests due to a ‘plainly discernible, improper motive’ or one that ‘smack of a fishing expedition.’”