Access to the SALNs, PDS, and CVs of members of the Judiciary is generally allowed pursuant to the right to information, but this right is not absolute and must be regulated to protect judicial independence and the security of judicial officers; thus, requests are subject to specific guidelines including proper filing, statement of legitimate purpose, limitations on the scope of documents released, potential requirement for En Banc approval (for appellate court Justices), and verification of the requester's identity and record.

The case arose from initial requests by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) in 2009 for the 2008 SALNs and PDS/CVs of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Justices to update their database on government officials. Following these initial requests, numerous similar petitions were filed by various media outlets, organizations, individuals, and even government offices (like the Ombudsman and Malacañang seeking comment on a bill) for SALNs and other personal documents of judiciary members covering different years, spurred by interests in transparency, governance reporting, academic research, impeachment proceedings, and general public information.

• Rowena Paraan (PCIJ) requested 2008 SALNs and PDS/CVs of Supreme Court Justices for database updating (July 30, 2009).
• Karol Ilagan (PCIJ) requested 2008 SALNs and PDS of Court of Appeals Justices for the same purpose (August 13, 2009).
• These requests were consolidated, and the Court created a special committee to review policy on such requests (August 18, 2009).
• Numerous subsequent requests were filed by various entities: Ombudsman (SALN/PDS of SB Justice Jurado), Phil. Public Transparency Reporting Project (lower court SALNs), Marvin Lim (SALNs of 13 SC Justices), Rawnna Crisostomo/GMA News (SALNs of 13 SC Justices), Bala Tamayo (2010 SALN of any SC Justice for academic study), Harvey Keh/Kaya Natin! (SALNs of specific SC Justices for website posting), Glenda Gloria/Newsbreak (SC Justices' SALNs for various years), Phillipe Manalang/Unlimited Productions (2010-2011 SALNs of specific SC Justices), Malou Mangahas/PCIJ (SALNs/PDS/CVs of SC Justices from appointment), Senate Impeachment Court (CJ Corona's SALNs 2002-2011), Nilo Baculo, Sr. (SC Justices' SALNs 2008-2011 for media use), Roxanne Escaro-Alegre/GMA News (SC Justices' SALNs for story), David Jude Sta. Ana/News 5 (2010-2011 SC Justices' SALNs for newscast reference), Michael Aguinaldo/Malacañang (comments on HB 5694 re: SALN centralization), Benise Balaoing/Rappler.com (2010 SALNs of SC and CA Justices), Maria Ressa/Rappler.com (current SALNs of SC, CA, SB Justices for 2013 election database), Mary Ann Señir/GMA News (2011 SALNs of SC Justices for public affairs programs), Edward Gabud/Solar Network (2011 SALNs of SC Justices), Gerry Lirio/TV5 (last 3 years' SALNs of SC Justices for post-impeachment report), Atty. Joselito Fangon/Ombudsman (CJ Corona's SALNs 2002-2011 and compensation cert.), Thea Marie Pias (any present SC Justice's SALN for academic requirement).
• The Court sought comments from the CA, SB, CTA, and various judges' associations regarding the disclosure policy.
• The consensus from the Judiciary members and associations favored disclosure but stressed it must be in accord with Court guidelines and protect judicial independence.

• The various requesting parties implicitly invoked the constitutional right of the people to information on matters of public concern (Art. III, Sec. 7).
• They relied on the constitutional and statutory mandate for public officials to submit SALNs and for such documents to be accessible to the public (Art. XI, Sec. 17; R.A. 6713).
• Their stated purposes generally related to promoting transparency, public accountability, journalistic reporting, academic research, and maintaining public databases on government officials.

• While not formally respondents, the members of the Judiciary whose documents were requested, through comments solicited by the Court, acknowledged the right to information.
• They uniformly argued that disclosure must be balanced with the constitutional principle of judicial independence.
• They raised concerns that unregulated disclosure could expose judges and justices to harassment, revenge, extortion, blackmail, kidnapping, or other risks due to the nature of their work and adverse decisions.
• They advocated for disclosure to be made according to guidelines set by the Supreme Court to prevent misuse and protect the integrity and safety of the Judiciary.

• What are the appropriate guidelines and procedures for handling requests for copies of SALNs, PDS, and CVs of Justices, judges, and other personnel of the Judiciary?
• How should the Court balance the public's constitutional right to information regarding SALNs (as matters of public concern) against the need to safeguard the independence and security of the Judiciary and its members?

• The Supreme Court granted the various requests for SALNs, PDS, and CVs, but made their release subject to specific limitations and guidelines formulated in the resolution.
• The Court reaffirmed the constitutional right to information (Art. III, Sec. 7) and the duty of public officials to disclose their SALNs (Art. XI, Sec. 17; R.A. 6713), recognizing SALNs as matters of public concern.
• However, the Court emphasized that the right to information is not absolute and is subject to limitations provided by law and jurisprudence, including the need to protect judicial independence, prevent undue influence or harassment, and ensure the safety of judges and justices.
• The Court promulgated a set of guidelines requiring requests to be filed with the proper custodian (Clerk of Court for SC/CA/SB/CTA, Court Administrator for lower courts), limiting requests primarily to the latest SALN/PDS/CV unless specific justification is provided for older records, mandating disclosure of the specific purpose, requiring En Banc approval for requests concerning appellate court Justices, imposing additional requirements for media requesters (proof of affiliation/accreditation), and barring requests from those with a record of misusing previously furnished information.

• Right to Information (Art. III, Sec. 7, Constitution): Defined as the people's right of access to official records and documents on matters of public concern, subject to limitations provided by law. Applied here to affirm the public's right to access SALNs, but balanced against other constitutional values and statutory restrictions.
• Public Office is a Public Trust / Duty to Disclose SALN (Art. XI, Sec. 17, Constitution; R.A. No. 6713): Defined as the principle that public officials are accountable to the people and must submit SALNs, which shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law. Applied to establish the basis for the mandatory filing and general accessibility of SALNs of judiciary members.
• Judicial Independence: Defined implicitly as the principle ensuring judges can decide cases fairly and impartially, free from external pressure or threat. Applied here as a crucial counterweight to the right to information, justifying regulations on SALN access to protect judges from potential harassment, extortion, or dangers arising from their rulings.
• Separation of Powers: Defined as the principle dividing governmental powers among legislative, executive, and judicial branches, with each supreme within its own sphere. Invoked through citation of Maceda v. Vasquez and Caiobes v. Ombudsman to assert the Supreme Court's exclusive administrative supervision over courts and personnel, limiting the Ombudsman's power to investigate judges directly without SC referral, especially concerning matters that might have administrative implications.
• Administrative Supervision over Courts (Art. VIII, Sec. 6, Constitution): Defined as the Supreme Court's constitutional power and duty to oversee the operations of all courts and the conduct of their personnel. Applied as the basis for the Court's authority to regulate access to SALNs and other personnel documents held within the Judiciary and to issue guidelines governing such access.
• Limitations on the Right to Information: Defined through jurisprudence (Chavez v. PCGG) and statute (R.A. 6713) as exceptions to access, including national security, trade secrets, criminal matters, confidential information, diplomatic correspondence, cabinet deliberations, SC deliberations, personal privacy, and prohibitions against use for illegal/immoral or commercial purposes (except news media). Applied to justify the regulatory guidelines imposed on SALN requests.

• "The independence of the Judiciary is constitutionally as important as the right to information which is subject to the limitations provided by law." (Citing Re: Alejandrino)
• "Denied access to information on the inner workings of government, the citizenry can become prey to the whims and caprices of those to whom the power had been delegated. The postulate of public office is a public trust, institutionalized in the Constitution to protect the people from abuse of governmental power, would certainly be mere empty words if access to such information of public concern is denied x x x." (Citing Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr.)
• "x x x The right to information goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional policies of full public disclosure and honesty in the public service. It is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental decision-making as well as in checking abuse in government." (Citing Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr.)
• "Like all constitutional guarantees, however, the right to information... is not absolute."
• "While the Court expressed its willingness to have the Clerk of Court furnish copies of the SALN of any of its members, it however, noted that requests for SALNs must be made under circumstances that must not endanger, diminish or destroy the independence, and objectivity of the members of the Judiciary in the performance of their judicial functions, or expose them to revenge for adverse decisions, kidnapping, extortion, blackmail or other untoward incidents." (Summarizing Re: Alejandrino)

• Re: Request of Jose M. Alejandrino (Resolution dated May 2, 1989): Cited as the initial case where the Court laid down guidelines for SALN requests concerning Judiciary members, emphasizing the need to protect judicial independence and objectivity from improper motives or potential harm. Followed and expanded upon in the current resolution.
• Re: Request for Certified True Copies of the Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (A.M. No. 92-9-851-RTC, September 22, 1992): Cited for denying a request deemed a "fishing expedition" and authorizing the Court Administrator to act on SALN requests for lower court personnel, provided it's via court subpoena or signed by the Ombudsman himself, conforming to Alejandrino guidelines.
• Request for Certified True Copies of the Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth of former Judge Luis D. Dictado (Α.Μ. No. 92-9-851-RTC, November 11, 1993): Cited for extending the OCA's authority to release SALNs (under conditions) to include retired members of the Judiciary.
• Maceda v. Vasquez (221 SCRA 464 (1993)): Cited to establish the doctrine that the Ombudsman must refer criminal complaints against judges involving administrative matters to the Supreme Court due to the Court's exclusive administrative supervision, highlighting separation of powers and judicial independence.
• Caiobes v. Ombudsman (413 Phil. 717 (2001)): Cited as amplifying the Maceda doctrine, requiring the Ombudsman to refer all cases against judges and court personnel to the SC first to determine any administrative aspect, regardless of whether an administrative case is already pending. Referenced in the context of denying the Ombudsman's subpoena for Justice Jurado's SALN.
• Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr. (252 Phil. 264 (1989)): Cited as a landmark case explaining the importance of the right to information in a republican system for checking governmental abuse and ensuring public trust.
• Baldoza v. Dimaano (163 Phil. 15 (1976)): Cited for explaining the role of free information exchange in democracy and enabling citizens to cope with societal exigencies, while acknowledging permissible restrictions.
• Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission (234 Phil. 521 (1987)): Cited for the definition of "public concern" as embracing a broad spectrum of subjects the public may want to know about.
• Chavez v. PCGG (360 Phil. 133 (1998)): Cited for enumerating established limitations on the right to information (e.g., national security, trade secrets, confidential information, SC deliberations).
• Subido v. Ozaeta (80 Phil. 383 (1948)): Cited regarding the inherent power of the Court (as custodian) to regulate access to its records to prevent damage, interference, and ensure fairness to other users.
• Hilado v. Judge Amor A. Reyes (496 Phil. 55 (2005)): Cited regarding the duty of public officers to serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, linking to the concept of public trust.

• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 7: Right of the people to information on matters of public concern.
• 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 6: Supreme Court's administrative supervision over all courts and personnel.
• 1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 17: Duty of public officers to submit SALN, to be disclosed to the public as provided by law.
• Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), Section 8: Statements and Disclosure (Duty to file SALN, Public's right to know, Filing procedures, Repositories, Accessibility, Prohibited acts).
• Republic Act No. 6713, Section 11: Penalties for violation of the Act.
• Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 6713, Rule IV, Section 3: Exceptions to the mandatory provision of official information (e.g., national security, privacy, privileged information).
• Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 6713, Rule VI, Section 6: Accessibility of public documents during working hours, subject to exceptions in Rule IV, Sec 3.
• Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act): Referenced indirectly via R.A. 6713's definition of public officials covered.