Pertinent laws on disclosure of the SALN (Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Networth)
Part One (sowee, because i wake up at the same hour regardless of everything — have been advised by the health consultant to be asleep by 11am; can’t always comply but i try, don’t ask why because you’ll get a bye-bye; ta-tah, i’ll finish this in the next post)
If a reporter asks for access to the SALN (to look at, or to view and to photocopy at his/her own expense) of a public official; and is refused, is there anyone liable for such refusal? Who would be liable?
The following are the pertinent provisions:
The Constitution:
“Art. XI, Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law” (Underscoring supplied. Article XI, Section 17, 1987 Constitution).
“(I)n the manner provided by law….” refers to the following requirements laid down by law:
Republic Act 6713, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees:
“Section 8. Statements and Disclosure. – Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.”
Republic Act 6713, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees:
The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act of the Philippines, as follows:
“Section 7. Statement of Assets and Liabilities. – Every public officer, within thirty days after assuming office and, thereafter, on or before the fifteenth 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 the corresponding Department Head, or in the case of a Head of Department or Chief of an independent office, with the Office of the President, a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a 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; xxx….”(Section 7, Republic Act 3019, as amended, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act of the Philippines, as amended by RA 3047, PD 677 and PD 1288, January 24, 1978)
[TO BE CONTINUED. zzzzzzz(pretending to sleep for the health consultant)]
Ok, here i go again. i said i wouldn’t give advice, but here it is:
It is always bad form to give an extended interview on a Cabinet post or appointment that one expects to get (the Cabinet-secretary-apparent practically confirmed that the government office had been promised to him, –like an exchange deal– by not dispelling the statement of the interviewee characterizing the government post as such — promised to him — that may be true, as it is bad form, and journalists are just gleeful enough that the President is surrounded by the likes of these people who give media men and women enough material for their special reports, columns, shows), before one gets that appointment or before the appointment papers had been signed. Anyone with any kind of familiarity with handling public perception knows this. Maybe he was trying to box out all those jockeying for the post — so… which is the worse form?
(the one-year ban on appointing defeated candidates to government posts ended yesterday.)
Why is it bad form? Because you are pre-empting the President. He has not made any public announcements, and the announcements should come from him or his Executive Secretary – because the appointment is his to make, not yours. And so therefore, when you pre-empt the President, you are in effect showing the public how powerful and influential you are and that, in the vernacular, hawak mo sa tenga ang Presidente, or literally translated: you’re holding the President by his earlobes.
Well, not everyone in the inner circle of the President is stupid. Perhaps because of his experience in diplomacy, Mar Roxas’ handling of his impending appointment deserves to be looked at as example. He just gives a curt “non-confirmation” of the anticipated post, referring to it, in jest, as rumor, and in the past downplaying his clout with self-deprecating humor (“waterboy lang ako”, “i’m just a waterboy”).
All the rest who are giving loud hints that the Cabinet portfolio is in the bag (in their bag) – should give the President an idea why his trust rating is going down, down, down
(i said i wouldn’t give advice — i had a really late lunch, baka gutom lang ito. And this is just about form and protocol, it’s not even about the essentially corrupt system of concentrating power in the hands of…. geez, that’s going to be a paradigmatic discussion…)
