IN our last article, we explained the laws and rules applicable to the administrative (and criminal) offense of “[f]ailure to file sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth [SALN], and disclosure of business interest and financial connections including those of their spouses and unmarried children under 18 years of age living in their households.”
Let’s discuss in more detail the relevant facts and legal principles of the case we mentioned in our SALN article to further elaborate the importance of the law mandating the filing of SALN by all public officials and employees. In the case of The Ombudsman, Fact-finding and Intelligence Bureau, Office of the Ombudsman, and Preliminary Investigation and Administrative Adjudication Bureau v. Nestor S. Valeroso, GR 167828, April 2, 2007, it was alleged in a complaint among others that respondent, then occupying the position of director II at the Bureau of Internal Revenue, failed to disclose his ownership of several properties, as well as certain business interests of his wife, in his sworn SALN from 1995 to 2002, in violation of Republic Act (RA) 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
Finding the existence of a strong indicia of guilt on the part (of Valeroso) for administrative offense of dishonesty, and an unexplained increase in his net worth, the Ombudsman, in an Order dated June 10, 2004, placed respondent under preventive suspension for a period of six months without pay. On June 17, 2004, respondent Valeroso filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, seeking to nullify the preventive suspension order against him. The CA, finding that grave abuse of discretion tainted the issuance of the preventive suspension order in question, granted respondent’s petition and accordingly annulled and set aside the said order5 of preventive suspension. Petitioner then went to the Supreme Court (SC) on the basic issue of whether the CA had erred in finding that grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of the subject preventive suspension order. The SC ruled for petitioner Ombudsman. It ruled that: “[c] learly, as the nondisclosure in his SALN of his assets and business interest was understood by respondent himself, such non-disclosure essentially embraced or comprehended concealment of unexplained wealth.”
The SC then quoted the complementing provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019, as amended) which read: “Section 7. Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Every public officer, within 30 days after assuming office, and thereafter, on or before the 15th day of April following the close of every calendar year, as well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office of corresponding department head, or in the case of a head department or chief of an independent office, with the Office of the President, a true, detailed and sworn statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year: Provided, that public officers assuming office less than two months before the end of the calendar year, may file their first statement on or before the 15th day of April following the close of said calendar year.
Section 8. Prima Facie Evidence of and Dismissal Due to Unexplained Wealth. If in accordance with the provisions of RA 1375, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and dependents of such public official may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits in the name of or manifestly excessive expenditures incurred by the public official, his spouse or any of their dependents, including but not limited to activities in any club or association or any ostentatious display of wealth, including frequent travel abroad of a nonofficial character by any public official when such activities entail expenses evidently out of proportion to legitimate income, shall, likewise, be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. The circumstances hereinabove mentioned shall constitute valid ground for the administrative suspension of the public official concerned for an indefinite period until the investigation of the unexplained wealth is completed.”
The SC then emphasized the importance of these provisions: “Section 8 above, speaks of unlawful acquisition of wealth, the evil sought to be suppressed and avoided, and Section 7, which mandates full disclosure of wealth in the SALN, is a means of preventing said evil and is aimed particularly at curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. ‘Unexplained’ matter normally results from ‘non-disclosure’ or concealment of vital facts. SALN, which all public officials and employees are mandated to file, are the means to achieve the policy of accountability of all public officers and employees in the government. By the SALN, the public are able to monitor movement in the fortune of a public official; it is a valid check and balance mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth.”
On the legality of the preventive suspension imposed by the Ombudsman, the SC explained: “Respondent cannot claim any right against, or damage or injury that he is bound to suffer from, the issuance of the preventive suspension order in question, in the light of the unbending rule that there is no such thing as a vested right or an estate in an office, or even an absolute right to hold it.9 Public Office is not property but a ‘public trust or agency.’ While due process may be relied upon by public officials to protect their security of tenure which, in a limited sense, is analogous to property, such fundamental right to security of tenure cannot be invoked against a preventive suspension order which is a preventive measure, not imposed as a penalty.”
This column should not be taken as a legal advice applicable to any case, as each case is unique and should be construed in light of the attending circumstances surrounding such particular case.
Lawyer Toni Umali is the current assistant secretary for Legal and Legislative Affairs of the Department of Education (DepEd). He is licensed to practice law not only in the Philippines, but also in the state of California and some federal courts in the US after passing the California State Bar Examinations in 2004. He has served as a legal consultant to several legislators and local chief executives. As education assistant secretary, he was instrumental in the passage of the K to 12 law and the issuance of its implementing rules and regulations. He is also the alternate spokesman of the DepEd.
1 comment
What a great article. I hope our public officials are reminded of this.