Black hole in drive for transparency

Second of three parts

Republic Act (RA) 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, enacted on February 20, 1989, is crystal about the inclusion of justices and judges among those who should file, and publicly disclose their statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs).
According to the law, the SALN and the Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections shall be filed by:

• Constitutional and national elective officials, with the national office of the Ombudsman; Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of  the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively;

• Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator;

• All national executive officials with the Office of the President;

• Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions;

• Officers of the Armed Forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the Office of the President, and those below said ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions;

• And all other public officials and employees, defined in Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, with the Civil Service Commission.

In addition, the law affirms that these documents should be amade accessible to the public. “Any and all statements filed under this Act, shall be made available for inspection at reasonable hours . . . Such statements shall be made available for copying or reproduction after 10 working days from the time they are filed as required by law.”

Apart from billing requesting parties for the cost of reproduction, mailing and certification of SALN copies, RA 6713 stipulates further that, “any statement filed under this Act shall be available to the public for a period of 10 years after receipt of the statement. After such period, the statement may be destroyed unless needed in an ongoing investigation.”

The disclosure of SALNs is a typical request journalists make of public officials. Apart from RA 6713, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, or RA 3019 and even more important, Section 17 Article XI and Section 28 Article II of the 1987 Constitution require it.

The Constitution declares: “Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.”

Balancing perils

The SALN is “very important” as a reference and tracker document, according to University of the Philippines professor Karina Constantino-David, who had also served as chairman of the Civil Service Commission under both former Presidents Joseph Estrada and Gloria Arroyo.

First, it serves as a benchmark of the state of affluence or penury of a person, before he or she commences work in the government service, she said. Once on board, the SALN serves as a source document of whether or not the official has enriched himself or herself beyond lawful means, and of actual and potential conflicts of interest situations he or she faces.

“The rest of the bureaucracy is dismayed by the Supreme Court’s decisions exempting the courts from the same rule as everybody else is put under,” David told the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) in an interview.

At the same time, she noted that because “information is very powerful,” the data enrolled in SALNs “can be used for good or bad purposes.”

David added that the High Court seems to be performing a difficult balancing act “between the perils of nondisclosure and the perils of disclosure.”

Even court insiders admit that the nondisclosure could be helping the less honorable members of the bench get away with their crooked ways.

To this day, the High Tribunal periodically receives complaints regarding offers of some judges to issue temporary restraining orders or injunctions for as much as P500,000 to P700,000 a pop. Entrapment efforts by the Supreme Court from years ago have yielded a modest catch—not more than five judges caught red-handed.

In the High Court’s internal investigation of bench officers involved in so-called crooked deals, the SALN serves as a reference in truth, court personnel themselves said. Non-disclosure also means that any suspicion about members of the court—including the so-called “gods of Padre Faura”—would only fester.

Flight to darkness

In fact, the High Tribunal policy to recede in the dark, especially where SALNs are concerned, began with Andres Narvasa, who served as chief justice from December 8, 1991 to November 30, 1998.

The Narvasa court had been marred by reports, including a number authored by the PCIJ, alleging multiple instances of bribery and corruption involving some justices. “The best Supreme Court that money can buy,” legal circles had described the tribunal at the time.

The exposes triggered the early retirement of an associate justice even as the Narvasa court also summoned lawyers it suspected to be among the PCIJ’s unnamed sources to an inquiry board composed of justices at Padre Faura.

Those who succeeded Narvasa—Hilario Davide Jr. (who served from November 30, 1998 to December 20, 2005) and Reynato Puno (who served from December 20, 2005 to May 17, 2010)—followed the practice of secrecy with regard to the SALN.

Recently, the PCIJ learned that a pleading seeking the reversal of the policy has not moved past discourse level among the justices. The pleading was submitted to the High Court en banc eight months ago.
A Supreme Court personnel said though, “It’s a case of continuing deliberations. There have been small steps forward, and the court is just ironing out some kinks.”

On agenda now

The insider said that the matter has been enrolled on the agenda of the High Court en banc since three weeks ago, prompted in part by letters to the individual justices that the PCIJ sent earlier inquiring about corporate assets still listed in their names, according to records of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). –Malou C. Mangahas, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

To be continued