SC: BIR chief’s request for justices’ SALN has no sufficient basis

INQUIRER FILE PHOTO / NIÑO JESUS ORBETA

MANILA, Philippines—We’re not hiding anything.

The Supreme Court had this to say on Thursday in response to the complaint of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner Kim Henares about her two failed attempts to obtain copies of the statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) of the high court’s magistrates.

Theodore Te, the high court’s spokesperson, said on Thursday, that the court has granted several SALN requests from different sectors, including the media, civil society and students.

“Please note that the Supreme Court has never said they are exempt from the SALN requirement nor that they are creating a new rule for themselves. That members of the media and civil society, including law students, have been able to obtain copies of various SALNs of the Justices is proof enough that the SC Justices are not hiding anything,” Te said in a statement sent to reporters Thursday afternoon.

He said the court’s denial of the commissioner’s request “must be contextualized, based on the reasons she has given in her request.”

Henares had said Wednesday that the Supreme Court magistrates were “creating an exception for themselves” in denying her request for the SALNs of sitting justices from 2003 to 2012 as part of a tax investigation and a probe into how a certain Ma’am Arlene has been fixing cases in the judiciary for moneyed clients.

The Supreme Court, in a June 17 en banc resolution, rejected the tax Commissioner’s request “for lack of sufficient basis.”

She said the cross check was an “off-shoot” of the impeachment trial against ousted Chief Justice Renato Corona, who was removed from the high court for failure to make honest declarations in his SALN, among others. The former chief magistrate is currently facing tax evasion charges.

Henares has yet to decide whether to make a third request, but she vowed to “take other measures” to complete the BIR investigation.

The denial of Henares’ request came to light as President Aquino slammed the Supreme Court over its ruling that struck down the Palace’s Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as unconstitutional. Henares said the request had nothing to do with the issue.

Te said “the denial of the CIR’s (Commissioner of Internal Revenue) request must be contextualised, based on the reasons she has given in her request.”

On Thursday afternoon, Te’s office released copies of Henares’ two requests to the media.

The first request dated Dec. 9, 2013 was an unnotarized request addressed to Supreme Court Clerk of Court Enriqueta Vidal.

The copy released to the media was missing page 2 of the standard request form, where the requesting party is required to write the reason for the request. The application also did not include the required photocopy of a government issued identification card.

Henares refiled the application on Feb. 10, 2014, this time notarized and clearly stating the intent of her request: “For tax investigation purposes pursuant to Section 5(B) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 and in relation to the Ma’am Arlene Controversy in the Judiciary.”

The cited revenue code section gives the BIR Commissioner this power:

“To Obtain on a regular basis from any person other than the person whose internal revenue tax liability is subject to audit or investigation, or from any office or officer of the national and local governments, government agencies and instrumentalities, including the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and government-owned or -controlled corporations, any information such as, but not limited to, costs and volume of production, receipts or sales and gross incomes of taxpayers, and the names, addresses, and financial statements of corporations, mutual fund companies, insurance companies, regional operating headquarters of multinational companies, joint accounts, associations, joint ventures of consortia and registered partnerships, and their members.”

Both requests also contained a disclosure that the BIR “may have pending cases with some of the divisions of the Court of Appeals,” which is under the high court.

RELATED STORIES

BIR slams SC refusal to yield SALN of justices

Browbeating the Supreme Court

Lawyers defend SC from Aquino’s tirades