Right to information on matters of public concern vs Independence of the Judiciary.

It is the consensus of the Justices and the various judges associations that while the Constitution holds dear the right of the people to have access to matters of concern, the Constitution also holds sacred the independence of the Judiciary. The uniform position of the said Magistrates and various Judges' associations that disclosure of SALN of members of the Judiciary must be made in accord with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court and under such circumstances that would not undermine the independence of the Judiciary. Investigations conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman in a criminal case without prior referral of the criminal case to the Supreme Court is an encroachment of a constitutional duty that ran afoul to the doctrine of separation of powers. The Supreme Court is vested with exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel. Prescinding from this premise, the Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge or court employee, involves an administrative matter. The Ombudsman cannot dictate to, and bind the Court, to its findings that the case before it does or does not have administrative implications. To do so is to deprive the Court of the exercise of its administrative prerogatives and to arrogate unto itself a power not constitutionally sanctioned. This is a dangerous policy which impinges, as it does, on judicial independence.

Like all constitutional guarantees the right to information, with its companion right of access to official records, is not absolute. The constitution also provides that the people's right to know is limited to "matters of public concern" and is further subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. This could only mean that while no prohibition could stand against access to official records, such as SALN, the same is undoubtedly subject to regulation.