Almonte Vs Vasquez

COMMISSIONER JOSE T. ALMONTE, VILLAMOR C.
PEREZ, NERIO ROGADO, and ELISA RIVERA,

petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ and CONCERNED CITIZENS, respondents.
Facts:
This is a case wherein respondent Ombudsman, requires petitioners Nerio Rogado and Elisa Rivera, as
chief accountant and record custodian, respectively, of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation
Bureau (EIIB) to produce "all documents relating to Personal Services Funds for the year 1988" and all
evidence such as vouchers from enforcing his orders.
Petitioner Almonte was formerly Commissioner of the EIIB, while Perez is Chief of the EIIB's Budget and
Fiscal Management Division. The subpoena duces tecum was issued by the Ombudsman in connection
with his investigation of an anonymous letter alleging that funds representing savings from unfilled
positions in the EIIB had been illegally disbursed. The letter, purporting to have been written by an
employee of the EIIB and a concerned citizen, was addressed to the Secretary of Finance, with copies
furnished several government offices, including the Office of the Ombudsman.
In his comment on the letter-complaint, petitioner Almonte denied all the allegations written on the
anonymous letter. Petitioners move to quash the subpoena and the subpoena duces tecum but was
denied.
Disclosure of the documents in question is resisted with the claim of privilege of an agency of the
government on the ground that "knowledge of EIIB's documents relative to its Personal Services Funds
and its plantilla . . . will necessarily [lead to] knowledge of its operations, movements, targets, strategies,
and tactics and the whole of its being" and this could "destroy the EIIB."
Issue:
Whether petitioners can be ordered to produce documents relating to personal services and salary
vouchers of EIIB employees on the plea that such documents are classified without violating their equal
protection of laws.
Held:
YES. At common law a governmental privilege against disclosure is recognized with respect to state
secrets bearing on military, diplomatic and similar matters and in addition, privilege to withhold the
identity of persons who furnish information of violation of laws. In the case at bar, there is no claim that
military or diplomatic secrets will be disclosed by the production of records pertaining to the personnel
of the EIIB. Indeed, EIIB's function is the gathering and evaluation of intelligence reports and information
regarding "illegal activities affecting the national economy, such as, but not limited to, economic
sabotage, smuggling, tax evasion, dollar salting." Consequently, while in cases which involve state
secrets it may be sufficient to determine from the circumstances of the case that there is reasonable
danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters without compelling production, no
similar excuse can be made for a privilege resting on other considerations.
The Ombudsman is investigating a complaint that several items in the EIIB were filled by fictitious
persons and that the allotments for these items in 1988 were used for illegal purposes. The plantilla and
other personnel records are relevant to his investigation as the designated “protectors of the people” of
the Constitution.
Nor is there violation of petitioners' right to the equal protection of the laws. Petitioners complain that
"in all forum and tribunals . . . the aggrieved parties . . . can only hale respondents via their verified
complaints or sworn statements with their identities fully disclosed," while in proceedings before the
Office of the Ombudsman anonymous letters suffice to start an investigation. In the first place, there can
be no objection to this procedure because it is provided in the Constitution itself. In the second place, it
is apparent that in permitting the filing of complaints "in any form and in a manner," the framers of the
Constitution took into account the well-known reticence of the people which keep them from
complaining against official wrongdoings. As this Court had occasion to point out, the Office of the
Ombudsman is different from the other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of the government
because those subject to its jurisdiction are public officials who, through official pressure and influence,
can quash, delay or dismiss investigations held against them. On the other hand complainants are more
often than not poor and simple folk who cannot afford to hire lawyers.
Finally, it is contended that the issuance of the subpoena duces tecum would violate petitioners' right
against self-incrimination. It is enough to state that the documents required to be produced in this case
are public records and those to whom the subpoena duces tecum is directed are government officials in
whose possession or custody the documents are. Moreover, if, as petitioners claim the disbursement by
the EII of funds for personal service has already been cleared by the COA, there is no reason why they
should object to the examination of the documents by respondent Ombudsman.

Almonte Vs Vasquez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Almonte Vs Vasquez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Almonte Vs Vasquez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMMISSIONER JOSE T. ALMONTE, VILLAMOR C.

PEREZ, NERIO ROGADO, and ELISA RIVERA,

HONORABLE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ and CONCERNED CITIZENS, respondents.

You might also like