Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

107 Scout de Guia St, Criselda Bldg II, Quezon City, Philippines Tel. Nos. (632) 410-4763, 431-9204 Fax Nos. (632) 410-4768 to 69 Email pcij@pcij.org Web www.pcij.org, www.pcij.org/blog, www.i-site. ph

________________________________________________________________________ 24 July 2012 Supreme Court of the Philippines En Banc Padre Faura, Manila Through: Subject: Dear Honorable Justices, We acknowledge receipt of the decision of the Supreme Court en banc in A.M. No. 09-8-6 and A.M. No. 09-8-08 dated 13 June 2012 granting the requests of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), among others, for copies of the Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), Personal Data Sheets (PDS), and Curriculum Vitae (CV) of members of the judiciary, subject to the limitations and prohibitions provided in R.A. No. 6713, its implementing rules and regulations, and the 7point guidelines set forth in the decretal part of the decision. With respect to the guidelines, we believe that a few modifications based on decisions of the Court, deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, R.A. 6713, and sound administrative practice would further enable the peoples right to information and promote the State policy of full public disclosure under Section 7 Article III and Section 28 Article II of the 1987 Constitution. First, the guidelines should include the presumption in favor of the right to information. Thus, a request for SALN/PDS/CV should be granted in case of doubt, and the burden of proving the validity of a denial rests on the judiciary. As aptly held in Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission: . . . In case of denial of access, the government agency has the burden of showing that the information requested is not of public concern, or, if it is of public concern, that the same has been exempted by law from the operation of the guarantee. To hold otherwise will serve to dilute the constitutional right. As aptly observed, ". . . the government is in an HON. ANTONIO T. CARPIO Acting Chief Justice Guidelines to be observed for requests of SALNs

advantageous position to marshall and interpret arguments against release . . ." (87 Harvard Law Review 1511 [1974]).1 While it may be argued that this decision is deemed part of the guidelines pursuant to Article 8 of the New Civil Code,2 a culture of transparency has yet to take firm root in Philippine government. Hence, it does no harm for the Court to take the lead in this matter by using all means at its disposal, including the reiteration of the presumption, to impress upon and remind public officials charged with handling a request for SALN/PDS/CV of their solemn duty to the people, and to educate the people themselves on their fundamental rights. Second, the guidelines should include reasonable time periods for the grant or denial of a request. Absent such, the right to information could easily and effectively be frustrated through mere administrative inaction. Third, the guidelines should include an orderly and speedy procedure for appeal or review of a denial of a request. Fourth, the guidelines should dispense with the unwarranted distinction between the latest SALN/PDS/CV and prior ones. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission show that the 1987 Constitution sought to institutionalize a new form of accountability in government in order to: (1) deter conflicts of interest;3 (2) prevent graft and corruption;4 and (3) allow the public to determine whether the highest officials of the land are living within their means.5 If the Constitutional intent is to be achieved, there can be no valid distinction between the latest SALN/PDS/CV and prior ones because the full significance of the information contained in each can only be appreciated when analyzed in relation to the whole. Consistent with this, R.A. 6713 requires public officials to submit their SALNs after
G.R. No. 72119, 29 May 1987; emphasis supplied. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. 3 MR. OPLE: This is a mandate on the State to be accountable by following a policy of full public disclosure. For example, information concerning loans contracted by the government ought to be made available. Public officials should follow this policy by submitting their statements of assets and liabilities and making them available for public scrutiny, not merely storing them in the archives, which is what happens most of the time. It means that when one is a Member of Congress the head of his own law office, who sponsors a bill which can aggrandize his own clients, ought to say so or at least forbear the opportunity to sponsor this bill himself. Therefore, this establishes a kind of ethical principle for public officials as well so that this can be a great deterrent to conflicts of interest in government, Mr. Presiding Officer. (Records of the Constitutional Commission no. 91, 24 September 1986; emphasis supplied) 4 MR. DAVIDE: If the idea really is to impress upon the public officer or employee the particular duty of disclosing his assets and liabilities upon the assumption to office, then that should apply to all, not just to the public officer but to all employees because graft and corruption can be committed not only by those in the upper bracket in public service but even by those in the lower bracket. As a matter of fact, Madam President, insofar as graft and corruption is concerned, we cannot distinguish a separate hierarchy for those in the upper bracket and for those in the lower bracket. Both of them are equally liable to disclose their assets and liabilities. And besides, when a public officer discloses his assets and liabilities, we know already what his net worth is. So there is no need for a disclosure of net worth because it can easily be determined from the statement of assets and liabilities. (Records of the Constitutional Commission no. 41, 28 July 28 1986; emphasis supplied) 5 And the last item, Madam President, if I may, concerns the matter suggested by the Honorable Tadeo which is modest living. Since we are allowing, in this report, that even citizens can file a complaint, we should give the citizens or even the government a basis to determine whether or not a person is living beyond his means. I do not know if there is a provision in other articles on this matter. If there is none, maybe we should suggest that at least these impeachable officers should present or file or submit their statement of assets and liabilities upon assumption of office so that we would be guided. Although my personal view is that even if a person has P50 million, it would not justify him to use Rolls Royce, considering the economic conditions of our people today. (Records of the Constitutional Commission no. 40, 26 July 1986; emphasis supplied)
2

assumption of office, every year thereafter, and after separation from service. Thus, the PCIJ requests covered, among others, SALNs of selected members of the judiciary from the time of their assumption to public office. The duty to disclose and afford access to SALNs is clearly embodied in Section 17 Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 8-C of RA 6713. Despite this, the procedures and practices by those government agencies that are official custodians of SALNs, such as the Office of the Ombudsman, the House of Representatives, the Civil Service Commission, and the Supreme Court itself, leave much to be desired. Like it or not, the Supreme Court is expected to set the norm and the highest standards on this matter. Pursuant to its power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, it has both a legal and moral duty to set the bar high and be that shining beacon to illuminate the path for the other branches of government to follow, to the end that a culture of transparency as envisioned by the 1987 Constitution takes firm root. As Blas Ople, one of the Framers of the Constitution, said during the deliberations on the SALN: [I]n a society, it is understood that we have to lead by example and those who have this burden more than the others are the holders of the greatest power. Upon the foregoing, the PCIJ respectfully requests the Honorable Court to modify the 7-point guidelines to further enable the peoples right to information and promote the State policy of full public disclosure under Section 3 Article III and Section 28 Article II of the 1987 Constitution. Thank you for your kind consideration. Very truly yours,

Malou Mangahas Executive Director Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

Solomon Lumba Counsel for PCIJ

Nepomuceno Malaluan Counsel for PCIJ Copy furnished: Judicial and Bar Council Civil Service Commission Office of the Ombudsman