Acevedo Hernández, Ex parte
191 P.R. 410
| Supreme Court of Puerto Rico | 2014Background
- Journalist Ivette M. Sosa requested (Apr 17, 2013) copies of the last 5 years of financial disclosure reports filed by suspended Superior Court Judge Manuel Acevedo Hernández to investigate alleged conflicts of interest and gifts (including an alleged Cadillac) tied to police incident and other events.
- The Supreme Court Secretary notified the judge and initially authorized inspection (May 28, 2013); later Sosa sought permission to photograph/photocopy the same documents (June 4, 2014), prompting further comment from the Office of Legal Affairs of the Courts Administration (OAT) and the judge.
- The judge opposed photocopying, arguing disclosure would prejudice ongoing OAT administrative investigations and violate his due process and presumption of innocence; OAT argued access to financial reports is discretionary for the Supreme Court and that release would not impede its investigation.
- Applicable rules: Supreme Court Regulation implementing Canon X (now Canon 37) and Rule 9 allow public inspection and copying of judicial financial-disclosure reports when the requester shows legitimate interest and need to reveal possible violations; requests must identify requester and justify interest.
- The Court distinguished these custodial financial-disclosure reports (held by the Supreme Court Secretary) from OAT investigatory files, concluded Sosa established a legitimate, specific investigatory purpose, and authorized photocopying subject to payment of fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sosa may photocopy judicial financial-disclosure reports held by the Supreme Court | Sosa: public right to inspect and copy reports; she showed legitimate interest tied to specific alleged misconduct | Acevedo: photocopying would harm his due process and presumption of innocence and interfere with administrative/criminal investigations | Court: Photocopying authorized; documents are public and Sosa showed legitimate interest; fees required |
| Whether disclosure would imperil OAT or federal investigations | Sosa/OAT: prior media disclosures prompted investigations; release of reports will not impede OAT; transparency supports oversight | Acevedo: disclosure risks prejudicing administrative and federal criminal processes and his rights as an accused | Court: Release of reports custodially held by the Supreme Court does not interfere with OAT investigatory files; no showing of imminent, overriding harm |
| Whether the requested materials qualify as public documents | Sosa: reports filed with the judiciary are public under statutes/regulation and Canon X Rule 9 | Acevedo: implied confidentiality due to ongoing probes warrants restriction | Court: Reports are public documents subject to Rule 9; presumption is access unless strict scrutiny shows compelling interest to withhold |
| Whether Rule 9 requires limiting photocopying or types of requesters | Sosa: Rule 9 permits inspection and copying and imposes only basic ID/justification requirements | Acevedo: sought to use investigations and rights arguments to restrict copying | Court: Rule 9 allows copying and does not limit requester type; government agencies get free copies, others pay fees; requirements met by Sosa |
Key Cases Cited
- Picorelli López v. Depto. de Hacienda, 179 D.P.R. 720 (discusses procedural due process guarantees)
- Ortiz v. Dir. Adm. de los Tribunales, 152 D.P.R. 161 (establishes public-access principles for judicial records and limits on secrecy)
- Colón Cabrera v. Caribbean Petroleum, 170 D.P.R. 582 (recognizes right to public information as fundamental)
- Nieves v. Junta, 160 D.P.R. 97 (discusses balancing test and limits to access based on compelling state interests)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (sets threshold for a property or liberty interest to trigger due process protections)