SC black hole in transparency drive Conclusion

In letters to the Supreme Court justices, the PCIJ said that because of the court’s policy against disclosure of statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) decided to do its own research into their business interests and financial connections of the justices by mining various public records.

The letters listed the specific companies in which the individual justices were still named as incorporators, stockholders or board members, according to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) records. To verify the list, the PCIJ gathered the latest available general information sheets and financial reports for the entities that are still operational.

Finally, the PCIJ sought the assistance of legal researchers to verify with the Lex Libris database of court cases whether any of the companies on the list had been or remains a litigant in any judicial matter or process pending before the High Court.

The good result: not one of the companies, suggesting that for now the justices are in the clear about real conflicts of interests vis-à-vis these companies.

Real, potential conflicts

In the letter to the justices, the PCIJ stated: “Our review of public records and databases has yielded findings that may present or suggest possible situations of real, apparent and potential conflicts of interest that may involve your good self.” Pending the disclosure of the SALNs of the justices, “the existence and relevance of these data in the public records remain an unsettled matter.”

Court insiders told the PCIJ that the letter was received differently by the Supreme Court justices. Some were rather amused by the PCIJ effort, while a few were discomfited by having to deal with direct questions about the state of their personal wealth.

As proof of its earnest effort to illustrate the value of SALNs, the PCIJ waited for the Supreme Court justices’ replies, within the 15-day period allowed in law for public officials to act on such inquiries.

Nine justices received letters from the PCIJ. Three did not, including two who had no companies listed in their names: Associate Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales and Eduardo Nachura. The third one, Associate Justice Presbiterio Velasco Jr., was listed as a member only of the Katipunan Mart Stall Owners Association Inc.

Three of the nine justices who received letters did not reply to the PCIJ: Associate Justices Arturo Brion, Jose Mendoza and Martin Villarama Jr.

Two of those who replied personally called up the PCIJ offices to respond within two days after the letters were sent: Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro and Antonio Carpio.

Justice Leonardo-de Castro called the next day she received the PCIJ letter and said: “Wala akong kinalaman dito sa mga companies na ito, I’ve not heard, ni hindi ko kilala, hindi ko alam kung ano business nito. Kapangalan ko lang siguro. [I have nothing to do with these companies, I’ve not heard of them, I don’t know them, I don’t know what their business is. Maybe it’s just someone with the same name as I have].”

Carpio, whose name was listed as either incorporator or stockholder or board member of at least 68 companies—including more than half with registration already revoked by the SEC—called the next day to request more time to do research on the specific companies on the list.

Carpio told the PCIJ: “These are mostly very old companies that incorporated. Give me time to check on these. I don’t have a problem here because I know most are very old corporations.” Because of his vigorous private law practice, Carpio said, “I think I incorporated more than 80. I probably should have incorporated hundreds [of companies].”

Despite reports to the contrary, Carpio added that if it were only up to him, “I’m in favor of the SALN being disclosed,” The High Court had precisely awaited the passage of the Freedom of Information Act by the Fourteenth Congress so the matter of the justices SALN could be settled as well, he said.

Debate continues

Meanwhile, court personnel said that the justices continue to debate the merits and demerits of disclosing their SALN but have not come up with a consensus.

The only consensus, they said, is that disclosure is required of all government institutions. Those opposed to disclosure supposedly argue in favor of protection for officers of the court from undue harassment by litigants and other parties, while those in favor said that the “sunshine policy” can provide that protection to all officers of the court while avoiding imputations of conflicts of interests against the justices.

One High Court official said the “anti’s” are wary of instances when litigants unhappy about a decision “make a project” out of the “offending” judge. “Their style,” said the official, “is to invite the judge to lunch or dinner, then offer bribe money, then threaten that they will expose the judge in the media, using his SALN as reference.”

Still, the issue of getting access to the SALNs of the justices resonates even more on account of yet another trend: the two tracks or types of appointees to the High Court.

The first are those who rose from the ranks in the judiciary—who are typically the less affluent or with a lot less business interests and financial connections to disclose. The second are those pulled out from private practice—who are typically more affluent and with a lot more business interests and financial connections to disclose.

Neither type has been free of unsavory rumors. And yet, according to High Court officers, today those for the disclosure of SALNs include the justices with fewer assets, and those against, the justices with more.

Over the decades, the Supreme Court has seen both types come and go. For instance, those who came from private law firms immediately before becoming justices include Jose Feria (Feria Lugtu & Lao), Camilo Quiazon (Quiazon Makalintal Law), Florentino Feliciano (Sycip Salazar & Feliciano), Pedro Yap (Salonga & Ordonez), Artemio Panganiban (Panganiban Bantug & Parlade), Adolfo Azcuna (Yorac Arroyo Azcuna Caedo Law), as well as Marcelo Fernan and Davide.

Despite its continued refusal to lift the veil of secrecy on the SALNs of court officials and personnel, the High Court in June 2004 passed what it called the “Code of Conduct for Court Personnel” stating that “in performing their duties and responsibilities court personnel serve as sentinels of justice and any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and the people’s confidence in it.”

Under “Canon 3” on “conflict of interest,” the Code said, “court personnel shall avoid conflicts of interest in performing official duties. Every court personnel is required to exercise utmost diligence in being aware of conflicts of interest, disclosing conflicts of interest to the designated authority, and terminating them as they arise.” With reports from Karol Anne Ilagan and JC Cordon –MALOU C. MANGAHAS PHILIPPINE CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM