The headline-hogging impeachment hearings involving the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Renato Corona, drive home the point: No one is above the law, not even the highest official in the judiciary.
It is possible that the disclosure issue involving Chief Justice Corona’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN, now a buzzword) would not have reached this far had the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the previous Ombudsman performed their mandate on this particular matter relentlessly.
Aside from guaranteeing the right to access information, the State policy of full disclosure and the people’s right to participate in the decision-making process, the Constitution declares, “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice.”
The highest law of the land requires the submission under oath of the declaration of assets, liabilities and net worth, upon assumption of office, of public officers and employees and “as often thereafter as may be required by law,” with the qualification that the document should be “disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.”
Clearly, the Constitution requires utmost transparency and regularity from public officials and employees in the reporting of their financial condition and the document’s accessibility to the public. These practices, if fully enforced, could be a huge boost in the fight against corruption. Civil servants would be more careful. Unexplained wealth would not be an issue that would besiege a public official.
To stress its importance, Congress enacted not one but two laws requiring the submission of the SALN. These are R.A. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, enacted in 1960, and R.A. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,” approved in Feb. 20, 1989.
They are decades-old laws, but like so many others, including environmental legislation, they are obviously not given the importance they deserve. Else, why is the Philippines widely regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in Asia, if not the world?
R.A. 3019 and R.A. 6713 were intended to apply to all public servants. No exception. Yet despite the extensive report filed by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism on the failure of the members of the Supreme Court to release their SALN to the requesting parties, the CSC, tasked primarily responsible for the enforcement of RA 6713, and the previous Ombudsman chose not to act on the disclosure issue.
CSC has the power “to institute such administrative actions and disciplinary measures as may be warranted.”
Under R.A. 6770, the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman is given the power and the duty to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. While it has no disciplinary authority over the judiciary, it has the power “to investigate any serious misconduct in office allegedly committed by officials removable by impeachment, for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted.”
Pursuant to RA 6713, the public officers and employees are also required “to execute, within thirty (30) days from the date of their assumption of office, the necessary authority in favor of the Ombudsman to obtain from all appropriate government agencies, including the Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents as may show their assets, liabilities, net worth and also their business interests and financial connections in previous years, including, if possible, the year when they first assumed any office in the government.”
Undeniably, we are not lacking in laws that could be used as effective tools for accountability of public officers. But the laws are nothing if institutions do not enforce them or empowered citizens do not avail of the remedies provided for to attain the goals and promote the declared public policies.
Hopefully, after this impeachment trial is over, irrespective of the verdict, the new normal would be the mind-set of accountability persisting in the minds of all stakeholders, including public servants. No exception.
Instead of debating which of the prosecution or the defense team is prepared or fumbling, we can look at the impeachment as a phase that we have to go through, learn from and be richer in experience and wisdom.
May this painful but necessary process catapult us towards becoming the society that we want it to be: progressive and proud of its heritage, people and democratic institutions, yet humble enough to admit failings and weakness. Only through this realization can we begin to value our innate capacity for improvement, fortitude and yes, our collective strength in meeting the serious challenges of nation-building head-on, with utmost confidence.
* * *
Congratulations to the International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE), which has been chosen as the recipient of the International Association of Impact Assessment’s (IAIA) 2012 Global Environment Award.
INECE was selected due to its sustained promotion of compliance and enforcement of domestic and international environmental laws through networking, capacity building, and enforcement cooperation.
The Global Environment Award is presented annually to a leading individual or institution that has made a substantial contribution to the practice of environmental assessment, management or policy at a global scale.
On the 11th year the award has been given, INECE joins an elite group of past recipients: Maurice Strong, Jan Pronk, Mostafa Tolba, Margot Wallstrom, Gustave Speth, Wangari Maathai, Lawrence Susskind, Elizabeth Dowdeswell, the Carter Center and Nicholas Stern.
The award will be presented at IAIA’s annual conference in Porto, Portugal, which focuses on the theme of Energy Future: The Role of Impact Assessment and will be held from 27 May to 1 June 2012.
IAIA is the leading global network focused on best practices in pact assessment for informed decision making regarding policies, programs, plans and projects. IAIA was founded in 1980 and currently has 2,500 members from more than 120 nations around the globe. For more information on IAIA, see https://iaia.org/.