Duty (& a teeny-weeny note on “The Client”, impeachment trial)
Thanks, thanks, to “UnangHirit” (“First Hit” or “First Crack”) the morning show, GMA Channel 7 free TV, especially the producers of the segment of Arnold Clavio , “Talakayan” about 7:20-ish am everyday (weekdays) and the host himself, Arnold Clavio, for our live and lively discussion yesterday.
The fundamental principles in constitutional construction were discussed, and, in answer to questions, the following was reiterated: the words of the Constitution are construed in their plain, ordinary meaning; in particular, the provision requiring public officials and employees to declare their assets, liabilities, and net worth “in accordance with law” and to disclose them “in the manner provided by law” etc. etc.
Since the oral arguments are done, and the verdict would be released this afternoon, it might be moot and academic to repeat that discussion – there’s a fast turn of events on the subject matter.
(and what a pleasant surprise, the show has tokens for guests: a bag of goodies: a bottle of wine and all kinds of fruit-scented gels, scents, sprays, soaps, etc. thanks!)
[Also, sorry po uli sa mga hindi ko nadaluhan o napaunlakan nitong nakaraang dalawang linggo (apologies again to producers of shows where I had to beg off for interviews in the past two weeks) four invites. (Kasi, two weeks ago, I filled up my sked with required legal seminars, then, there were deadlines of certain requirements, then errands, etc etc ). Due to conflicts in schedule, or rather, conflicts of duties: duties to the legal profession, duties in admin work, duties as faculty — on one hand — and duties as a member of the academe to be available for discussions on matters within the competence of the faculty member to take up — on the other hand — i’ve had to beg off. (Members of the academe, I think, when invited, have the duty to participate in the public discussion of a subject matter that’s within their competence to elucidate on either as professors or as professionals).
Thanks again, everyone!
Just a teeny-weeny note to our colleagues in the profession involved in the impeachment trial. This part is entitled:
“The Client”
The end-game of the impeachment trial of the Chief Justice is an elephantine illustration of the old adage:
“A lawyer who lawyers for himself has a fool for a client.”
In the code of ethics of lawyers, there’s a provision that says:
a lawyer shall not let the client dictate the strategy of the case and the method of the trial.
But in this case, since the client made a spectacle on live TV, in open court, it was too late. (a defense spokesperson related how, in the hospital bed of the client, he had to convince him to go back to the impeachment court).
And so, in the oral arguments, one of the defense lawyers had to theorize anew the case:
the right to privacy versus the “right to information” which the defense said, and was saying for the first time, was the basis of the SALN law.
Novel.
And so, when the presiding officer asked “What is the injury if the respondent discloses the value of his dollar account in the SALN?”, the otherlawyer (the lead counsel), a criminal law professor, at first, thought it was a civil law question because of the word “injury”.
He proceeded to answer (because of the word “injury” in the question):
“If you mean, your Honor, the damage that would be caused ….” and the presiding officer cut him off: “No,no, no, not damages …”
The presiding officer repeated the question, “What is the injury that would be caused… etc”.
And the criminal law professor, again, because of the word “injury”, this time, thought it was a criminal law question, and answered “Well, the injury is, he might be exposed to kidnapping, extortion, etc.”
Alas.
It wasn’t a civil law question.
It wasn’t a criminal law question.
It was a constitutional law question.
Are there any rights that are being violated?
What interests are being balanced here?
What is the interest of the State in enforcing this law and, does this far outweigh any imagined hurt to an individual?
That’s the place any legal team would have gotten to if the client did not keep changing the theory of the case. At the last minute.
“Characterize the problem first”, as my public international law professor used to say.
When the client on his own, without care or counsel, changes the theory of the case at the end game, the legal team has to adjust.
The client who lawyers for himself …. has a legal team with members shaking their heads in private. Talagang ganyan ang buhay.
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)]
