Republic of the Philippines

Ramon Magsaysay Technological University

Castillejos Campus
Graduate Studies

CRITICS & ANALYSIS OF REPUBLIC ACT 6713

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Subject
MBA ETHICS AND VALUES IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Submitted to

RENATOP.RUBA,Ph.D

by
Wilbert Canchela Venzon
December 19, 2015

Republic Act No. 6713

AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC

OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC
OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR EXEMPLARY
SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees."
This section is the coverage of the implementing RA 6713 wherein it dictates all officials and
employees in the government, elective and appointive, permanent or temporary, whether in the
career or non-career service, including military and police personnel, whether or not they receive
compensation, regardless of amount.

Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of
ethics in public service. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the
people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and
loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over
personal interest.

This section is the code of ethics each stakeholders state in Section 1 should possess. However
in the current state of our government as well as the previous one, these ethics are being
demoralized by government officials and other implementers by directly or indirectly having
financial and material interest in any transaction of the government.

Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. - (A) Every public official and
employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and
execution of official duties:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)

Commitment to public interest.

Professionalism.
Justness and sincerity.
Political neutrality.
Responsiveness to the public.
Nationalism and patriotism.
Commitment to democracy.
Simple living.

The 1987 Constitution proclaims:

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, and lead modest lives.

A public office is created in the interest and for the benefit of the public. The officers are the
servants of the people and not their rulers. The trust attached to a public office should be

exercised in behalf of the government or of the citizens and extends to all matters within the
range of the duties pertaining to the office.

To put it simply, government is created to make life easier for the people. Every act or omission,
therefore, on the part of government and public officers that make life difficult for the people is a
transgression and betrayal of the Constitutional and democratic mandate that public office is a
public trust. Every act and omission of graft and corruption is a betrayal of public trust.
Graft and corruption is the number one issue being thrown up to a public official because of the
previous and current events in our government system. Many politician and even in a small rank
were being charges by these case:
In Aquino administration GRAND CORRUPTION were being exposed as the case of Senator
Bong Revilla, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and many more. The current were the questionable
wealth and used of money of Vice President Jejomar Binay. These cases are only proof of
public officials misused of power and resources given to them by the public. They didnt make
our life easier instead they put the public in a dilemma and chaotic situation.
What corruption did is to violate human rights. A corrupt state creates a vicious circle in which
the State quickly loses its authority and ability to govern for the common good. Corruption
makes it possible for critics to be silenced, for justice to be subverted and for human rights
abuses to go unpunished. When corruption reigns, basic human rights and liberties come under
threat and social and economic contracts become unpredictable.
It is difficult to point out with sufficient particularity the over-all effects of corruption on the
Country and the Filipino people as a whole. But it is known, for instance, that road defects

caused by sub-standard construction can lead to accidents that can in turn lead to death, injuries
and damage to properties. A shortage of medicine and medical equipment deprives people,
particularly the poor, of access to sufficient medical benefits, and lack of funds deprive children
of poor families access to education and other public services.
Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees.
(a) Act promptly on letters and requests.
(b) Submit annual performance reports
(c) Process documents and papers expeditiously.
(d) Act immediately on the public's personal transactions.
(e) Make documents accessible to the public.

In a BUSINESS ARTICLE Public officials and employees duty to respond within 15 working
days explained by Toni Umali, Esq., he wrote his analysis on this section of RA 6713 and I
would like to use his article in the analysis of the said section. This is what he wrote;

VERY recently, a colleague from the National Union of Career Executive Service Officers
(Nuceso) Inc. an organization of all CESOs or third level public officials or the managerial
class in the group of career positions in the Philippine government appointed by the President
and created by law to form a continuing pool of well-selected and development-oriented career
administrators who shall provide competent and faithful service asked me a legal query as to
whether the fifteen working days within which to respond to requests requirement is
mandatory even in case of requests that requires actions that are not perfunctory in nature.

I said, to respond to requests, yes but not necessarily to complete the action or resolve
completely the issues involved particularly if the matter is non-routinary or the issues involved
are not simple or ordinary.

I then explained the law further in the following manner:

Section 5 (a), (c) and (d) of Republic Act (RA) 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, provides:

SECTION 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees. In the performance of their duties, all
public officials and employees are under obligation to:

(a) Act promptly on letters and requests. All public officials and employees shall, within fifteen
(15) working days from receipt hereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of
communications sent by the public. The reply must contain the action taken on the request.

1.

c) Process documents and papers expeditiously. All official papers and documents must
be processed and completed within a reasonable time from the preparation thereof and must
contain, as far as practicable, not more than three (3) signatories therein. In the absence of
the authorised signatories, the official next-in-rank or officer-in-charge shall sign for and in
their behalf.

(d) Act immediately on the publics personal transactions. All public officials and employees
must attend to anyone who wants to avail himself of the services of their offices and must, at all
times, act promptly and expeditiously.

So let me summarize now the law and enumerate what Sections 1, 3 and 4 of Rule VI of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 6713 further provide, for us to easily understand the
specific requirements that should be performed by all public officials and employees in
responding to such requests.

First, as a general rule, when a request or petition, whether written or verbal, can be disposed of
promptly and expeditiously, the official and employee in charge to whom the same is presented
shall do so immediately, without discrimination, and in no case beyond fifteen (15) working days
from receipt of the request or petition. Second, in case of written requests, petitions or motions,
sent by means of letters, telegrams, or the like, and if such communication is WITHIN the
jurisdiction of the office or agency and the matter is merely ROUTINARY or the action desired
may be acted upon in the ordinary course of business of the department office or agency, the
official or employee in charge shall act on the same within 15 working days from receipt thereof
and must write a note or letter of acknowledgement specifying the date when the matter will be
disposed of and the name of the official or employee in charge thereof. Third, in case of written
requests, petitions or motions, sent by means of letters, telegrams, or the like, and if such
communication is WITHIN the jurisdiction of the office or agency and the matter is NONROUTINARY or the issues involved are not simple or ordinary, the official or employee in
charge shall act on the same within 15 working days from receipt thereof and must write a note
or letter of acknowledgement, informing the interested party, petitioner or correspondent of the
action to be taken or when such requests, petitions or motions can be acted upon.

Where there is a need to submit additional information, requirements, or documents, the note or
letter of acknowledgement shall so state, specifying a reasonable period of time within which

they should be submitted, and the name of the particular official or employee in charge thereof.
When all the documents or requirements have been submitted to the satisfaction of the
department or office or agency concerned, the particular official or employee in charge shall
inform the interested party, petitioner, or correspondent of the action to be taken and when such
action or disposition can be expected, barring unforeseen circumstances. Fourth, in case of
written requests, petitions or motions, sent by means of letters, telegrams, or the like, and if such
communication is OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the office or agency, the official or employee
must within15 working days from receipt thereof: (1) refer the letter, petition, telegram, or verbal
request to the proper department, office or agency; and (2) acknowledge the communication by
means of a note or letter, informing the interested party, petitioner, correspondent of the action
taken and attaching a copy of the letter of referral to the proper department, office or agency.

The department, office or agency to which the letter, petition, telegram or verbal request was
referred for appropriate action must take action in accordance with aforementioned depending
whether the matter is routinary or not. The decided cases of Atty. Raul Muyco v. Eva
Saratan (A.M. No. P-03-1761, April 2, 2004) andAntonio Arroyo v. Sancho Alcantara (A.M. No.
P-01-1518, November 14, 2001) may also help our readers on how our Supreme Court actually
interpreted the duty of a public employee to act on the letters and requests of the public within
15 working days from the time she receives them and to attend promptly and expeditiously to
anyone who wants to avail of the services of her office. Under the Revised Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service promulgated on November 8, 2011, violation of this
15 day to respond requirement is a light offense punishable by reprimand for the first offense;
suspension of one to 30 days for the second offense; and dismissal from service for the third
offense. xxx

In This section, this should make the life of the public easier. Therefore, every department, office
and agency shall consult the public they serve for the purpose of gathering feedback and
suggestions on the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of services they provide. They shall
establish mechanisms to ensure the conduct of public consultations and hearings.
Section 6. System of Incentives and Rewards
This section is important for every employee. We all wanted to be appreciated for a job well done
by means of financial reward (bonuses or performance incentive), plaque or positions in the
company or government. Who wouldnt be but the question is, are all public officials and
employees giving such things deserve of the said incentives and rewards?
The Aquino Administration introduced the Performance Based-Bonus or PBB as reward and
encourage exemplary performance among public servants in national government. The PBB, as
introduced in 2012, is on top of the following bonuses currently provided to government
employees:
i. Mid-Year and Year-End Bonuses are the government equivalent of the 13th Month Pay of
employees in the private sector. Like the 13th Month Pay, the total amount of the Mid-year and
Year-end Bonuses are equivalent to their one months salary, depending on their rank and salary
grade. The Mid-year and Year-end Bonuses are given no earlier than May 1 and November 15,
respectively.
ii. The Cash Gift is an across-the-board bonus of P5,000 given to each employee of the national
government. It is released in two tranches: at the middle and end of the year, together with the
Mid-year and Year-end Bonuses.

iii. The Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) Bonus, meanwhile, is provided to employees
of government agencies where there is an accredited employees union, and where the agency
and the union have entered into a Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA).
The CNA Bonus is funded by savings from the agencys maintenance expenditure items
identified in their CAN. An agency can raise these savings through cost cutting and productivity
measuresidentified in their CNA.
iv. The PEI is an existing across-the-board bonus, given equally to government employees.
Unlike the Mid-year and Year-End Bonuses and Cash Gifts, the amount given per employee is
not fixed. Instead, the amount depends on the level of savings incurred and authorized by the
national government to fund the PEI. Thus, the amount per employee has varied through the
years.
For me, giving incentives and rewards can improve the efficiency of all public sectors. It may
differ on the incentive scheme to be given or on their performance appraisal. It is also important
that the government would also pay attention to those who deserve to be given and those who are
not.

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions

I will base my critics on this case scenario. As you can see many public officials are being
involved in private practices, receiving gifts and such like thus the said real-life case is the
evident of malpractices of a public official and particular verdict given:

Conflict of interest
In the case of QUERY OF ATTY. KAREN M. SILVERIO-BUFFE, FORMER Clerk of Court
BRANCH 81, ROMBLON, ROMBLON ON THE PROHIBITION FROM ENGAGING IN THE
PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW, EN BANC, A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC , August 19, 2009, the
Philippine Supreme Court fined Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe in the amount of Ten Thousand
Pesos for professional misconduct under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, with a stern warning that a repetition of the violation and the
commission of other acts of professional misconduct shall be dealt with more severely by the
Court.

The case involves the proper interpretation of Section 7(b) (2) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713,
as amended (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees),
which places a limitation on public officials and employees during their incumbency, and those
already separated from government employment for a period of one (1) year after separation, in
engaging in the private practice of their profession, to wit:

SECTION 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. In addition to acts and omissions of public
officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall
constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:

x x x.

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. Public officials and employees
during their incumbency shall not:

x x x.

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or
law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions;
or

x x x.

These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after resignation,
retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above,
but the professional concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter
before the office he used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply.

Atty. Buffe previously worked as Clerk of Court VI of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
81 of Romblon. She resigned from her position effective February 1, 2008. Thereafter (and
within the one-year period of prohibition mentioned in the above-quoted provision), she engaged
in the private practice of law by appearing as private counsel in several cases before RTC-Branch

81 of Romblon.

When asked by the Court for comment, the Court Administrator stated that general intent of the
law was to uphold the time-honored principle of public office being a public trust. Section 4
thereof provides for the norms of conduct of public officials and employees, among others: (a)
commitment to public interest; (b) professionalism; and (c) justness and sincerity. Of particular
significance is the statement under professionalism that they public officials and employees
shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue
patronage. Thus, the prohibition was intended to avoid any impropriety or the appearance of
impropriety which might occur in any transaction between the retired government employee and
his former colleagues, subordinates or superiors brought about by familiarity, moral ascendancy
or undue influence, as the case may be.

When asked by the Court for comment, the Office of the Chief Attorney (OCAT) took the view
that the law generally prohibits incumbent public officials and employees from engaging in the
practice of law, which is declared therein a prohibited and unlawful act, which accords with the
constitutional policy on accountability of public officers stated in Article XI of the Constitution.
The policy requires public officials and employees to devote full time public service so that in
case of conflict between personal and public interest, the latter should take precedence over the
former.

With respect to lawyers in the judiciary, the OCAT pointed to Section 5, Canon 3 of the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel, which is the rule that deals with outside employment by an

incumbent judicial employee and which limits such outside employment to one that does not
require the practice of law. The prohibition to practice law with respect to any matter where
they have intervened while in the government service is reiterated in Rule 6.03, Canon 6 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which governs the conduct of lawyers in the government
service.

The Court required the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the province of
Romblon to verify if Atty. Buffe had appeared as counsel during her incumbency as clerk of
court and after her resignation in February 2008, and submit to the Court a report on his
verification. In compliance therewith, the Executive Judge reported that Atty. Buffe had made
appearances in at least four civil cases pending before the trial court.

The Court resolved that Atty. Buffes admitted appearances, before the very same branch she had
served and immediately after her resignation, was a violation that it could not close its eyes to
and that she could not run away from under the cover of the letter-query she had filed and her
petition for declaratory relief. The Court noted that at the time she filed her letter-query (on
March 4, 2008), Atty. Buffe had already appeared before Branch 81 in at least three (3) cases.
The terms of Section 7 (b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 did not deter her in any way and her misgivings
about the fairness of the law cannot excuse any resulting violation she had committed. In other
words, she took the risk of appearing before her own Branch and should suffer the consequences
of the risk she took.

The Court held that Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713 generally provides for the prohibited acts and

transactions of public officials and employees. Subsection (b)(2) prohibits them from engaging in
the private practice of their profession during their incumbency. As an exception, a public official
or employee can engage in the practice of his or her profession under the following conditions:
first, the private practice is authorized by the Constitution or by the law; and second, the practice
will not conflict, or tend to conflict, with his or her official functions.

The Section 7 prohibitions continue to apply for a period of one year after the public official or
employees resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except for the private
practice of profession under subsection (b)(2), which can already be undertaken even within the
one-year prohibition period. As an exception to this exception, the one-year prohibited period
applies with respect to any matter before the office the public officer or employee used to work
with.

The Section 7 prohibitions are predicated on the principle that public office is a public trust; and
serve to remove any impropriety, real or imagined, which may occur in government transactions
between a former government official or employee and his or her former colleagues,
subordinates or superiors. The prohibitions also promote the observance and the efficient use of
every moment of the prescribed office hours to serve the public.

Parenthetically, in the case of court employees, Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 is not the only
prohibition to contend with; Section 5, Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel also
applies. The latter provision provides the definitive rule on the outside employment that an
incumbent court official or court employee may undertake in addition to his official duties:

Outside employment may be allowed by the head of office provided it complies with all of the
following requirements:

(a) The outside employment is not with a person or entity that practices law before the courts or
conducts business with the Judiciary;
(b) The outside employment can be performed outside of normal working hours and is not
incompatible with the performance of the court personnels duties and responsibilities;
(c) That outside employment does not require the practice of law; Provided, however, that court
personnel may render services as professor, lecturer, or resource person in law schools, review
or continuing education centers or similar institutions;
(d) The outside employment does not require or induce the court personnel to disclose
confidential information acquired while performing officials duties;
(e) The outside employment shall not be with the legislative or executive branch of government,
unless specifically authorized by the Supreme Court.

Where a conflict of interest exists, may reasonably appear to exist, or where the outside
employment reflects adversely on the integrity of the Judiciary, the court personnel shall not
accept outside employment. [Emphasis supplied]

In both the above discussed aspect of R.A. No. 6713 and the quoted Canon 3, the practice of law
is covered; the practice of law is a practice of profession, while Canon 3 specifically mentions

any outside employment requiring the practice of law. The practice of law is defined as any
activity, in and out of court, that requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession; to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service,
which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill. The objective
is to avoid any conflict of interest on the part of the employee who may wittingly or unwittingly
use confidential information acquired from his employment, or use his or her familiarity with
court personnel still with the previous office.

After separation from the service, Section 5, Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court
Personnel ceases to apply as it applies specifically to incumbents, but Section 7 and its
subsection (b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 continue to apply to the extent discussed above. Atty. Buffes
situation falls under Section 7.

To repeat, the Court held that a clerk of court can already engage in the practice of law
immediately after her separation from the service and without any period limitation that applies
to other prohibitions under Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713. The clerk of courts limitation is that she
cannot practice her profession within one year before the office where he or she used to work
with. In a comparison between a resigned, retired or separated official or employee, on the one
hand, and an incumbent official or employee, on the other, the former has the advantage because
the limitation is only with respect to the office he or she used to work with and only for a period
of one year. The incumbent cannot practice at all, save only where specifically allowed by the
Constitution and the law and only in areas where no conflict of interests exists.

A worrisome aspect of Atty. Buffes approach to Section 7 (b) (2) is her awareness of the law and
her readiness to risk its violation because of the unfairness she perceived in the law, the Court
stated. It found it disturbing that she first violated the law before making any inquiry. She also
justified her position by referring to the practice of other government lawyers known to her who,
after separation from their judicial employment, immediately engaged in the private practice of
law and appeared as private counsels before the RTC branches where they were previously
employed. The Court found this a cavalier attitude on Atty. Buffes part and, to its mind, only
emphasized her own willful or intentional disregard of Section 7 (b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713.

By acting in a manner that R.A. No. 6713 brands as unlawful, Atty. Buffe contravened Rule
1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:

CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES
xxx
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

The Court stated that unlawful conduct under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 does not necessarily require
the element of criminality, although the Rule is broad enough to include it. Likewise, the
presence of evil intent on the part of the lawyer is not essential to bring his or her act or omission
within the terms of Rule 1.01, when it specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful

conduct.

The Court held that Atty. Buffe had failed to live up to her lawyers oath and thereby violated
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when she blatantly and unlawfully practised
law within the prohibited period by appearing before the RTC Branch she had just left. Canon 7
states:

CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY
OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED
BAR. [Emphasis supplied]

By her open disregard of R.A. No. 6713, she thereby followed the footsteps of the models she
cited and wanted to replicate the former court officials who immediately waded into practice in
the very same court they came from. She, like they, disgraced the dignity of the legal profession
by openly disobeying and disrespecting the law. By her irresponsible conduct, she also eroded
public confidence in the law and in lawyers. Her offense is not in any way mitigated by her
transparent attempt to cover up her transgressions by writing the Court a letter-query, which she
followed up with unmeritorious petitions for declaratory relief, all of them dealing with the same
Section 7 (b) (2) issue, in the hope perhaps that at some point she would find a ruling favorable
to her cause. These are acts whose implications do not promote public confidence in the integrity
of the legal profession.

Considering Atty. Buffes ready admission of violating Section 7(b) (2), the principle of res ipsa
loquitur finds application, making her administratively liable for violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon
1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In several cases, the Court has
disciplined lawyers without further inquiry or resort to any formal investigation where the facts
on record sufficiently provided the basis for the determination of their administrative liability.

The Court disbarred a lawyer without need of any further investigation after considering his
actions based on records showing his unethical misconduct; the misconduct not only cast
dishonor on the image of both the Bench and the Bar, but was also inimical to public interest and
welfare. In this regard, the Court took judicial notice of several cases handled by the errant
lawyer and his cohorts that revealed their modus operandi in circumventing the payment of the
proper judicial fees for the astronomical sums they claimed in their cases. The Court held that
those cases sufficiently provided the basis for the determination of respondents' administrative
liability, without need for further inquiry into the matter under the principle of res ipsa loquitur.
The Court has ruled in many cases that on the basis of this principle, no evidentiary hearing is
required before the respondent may be disciplined for professional misconduct already
established by the facts on record. The Court has punished a lawyer for grave professional
misconduct solely based on his answer to a show-cause order for contempt and without going
into a trial-type hearing. It had ruled then that due process is satisfied as long as the opportunity
to be heard is given to the person to be disciplined. In a case, the respondent was disciplined and
punished by the Court for contempt for his slurs regarding the Courts alleged partiality,
incompetence and lack of integrity on the basis of his answer in a show-cause order for

contempt. The Court took note that the respondent did not deny making the negative imputations
against the Court through the media and even acknowledged the correctness of his degrading
statements.

The power to punish for contempt of court does not exhaust the scope of disciplinary authority of
the Court over lawyers. The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is but
corollary to the Court's exclusive power of admission to the Bar. A lawyer is not merely a
professional but also an officer of the court and as such, he is called upon to share in the task and
responsibility of dispensing justice and resolving disputes in society. Any act on his part which
visibly tends to obstruct, pervert, or impede and degrade the administration of justice constitutes
both professional misconduct calling for the exercise of disciplinary action against him, and
contumacious conduct warranting application of the contempt power.

The absence of any formal charge against and/or formal investigation of an errant lawyer do not
preclude the Court from immediately exercising its disciplining authority, as long as the errant
lawyer or judge has been given the opportunity to be heard. As stated earlier, Atty. Buffe had
been afforded the opportunity to be heard on the present matter through her letter-query and
Manifestation filed before this Court.

In this case, the Court could not discern any mitigating factors to apply, save OCATs
observation that Atty Buffes letter-query may really reflect a misapprehension of the parameters
of the prohibition on the practice of the law profession under Section 7 (b) (2) of R.A. No. 6713.
Ignorance of the law, however, is no excuse, particularly on a matter as sensitive as practice of

the legal profession soon after ones separation from the service.

The Court stated that Atty. Buffe had no qualms about the simultaneous use of various fora in
expressing her misgivings about the perceived unfairness of Section 7 of R.A. 6713. She
formally lodged a query with the Office of the Court Administrator, and soon after filed her
successive petitions for declaratory relief. Effectively, she exposed these fora to the possibility of
embarrassment and confusion through their possibly differing views on the issue she posed.
Although this was not strictly the forum-shopping that the Rules of Court prohibit, what she had
done was something that the Court could not help but consider with disfavor because of the
potential damage and embarrassment to the Judiciary that it could have spawned. This was a
point against Atty. Buffe that cancelled out the leniency the Court might have exercised because
of the OCATs observation about her ignorance of and misgivings on the extent of the
prohibition after separation from the service.
Posted by Philippine Laws and Cases - Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.

Section 8. Statements and Disclosure.

Declaring the SALN of each public officials from highest position to lowest is important for us
public known of what they have before they entered into any govenrment seat and what they
have after the said position are being acquired. This will also protect the public money through
our taxes.

One of the best example of this section 8 was the case of former chief justice Renato Corona
where he was found guilty and impeach on his position. Also, many senators and even the
present vice president Jejomar Binay were being accused of graft and corruption and other
related laws for not declaring all their assets in the public and acquiring huge amount of money,
properties and the like. This only entails that many public officials preferably those who are in
the highest position usually misused the said position given to them by the public.
Thus, Power without accountability is anathema to the Constitution. Accountability is so crucial
to democracy such that the Constitution has devoted an entire article to Accountability of Public
Officers (Article XI), and has devised the impeachment mechanism as a way to hold high
officers accountable to the sovereign people.
Corona and other public officials is not immune from accountability. For all his self-serving,
grandiose and arrogant claims, his impeachment is not an attack on the independence of the
Judiciary, or the rule of law, or the system of checks and balances. Coronas impeachment is
purely a response to the peoples clamor to hold him accountable for his sins and offenses, and
purge the Highest Court of a morally unfit officer who has betrayed their trust.
Section 9. Divestment.
One of the best examples of this is the C5 Road issue of Manny Villar where conflict of interest
was being issued and brought out by the public. Many politicians have a road repair projects or
construction building projects and me as one of many who believe that those projects involved
corruption and conflict of interest. Why? Because many of the said officials and the one who
managing those projects has a kickback as what we term in every transaction thus instead of
using high quality materials it became substandard in the end. And many of these projects,
corruption were not exposed.

Our government is a government of laws and not of men. It is important to practice

professionalism, justness and sincerity in every transactions and worked we are doing. Aside
from conflict of interest; nepotism and political neutrality comes out as another issue on this
section. We can notice this during election and after election. Many public officials favor the
relative of who is in the position. One of the best example is when the relatives of our dearest
mayor was hospitalized, doctor and nurses became attentive in James Hospital and assisted the
said relatives immediately but when my son was sick and went to emergency room, no doctors
available and need to wait for long period of time before someone will assist you.
Thus, simple living and not beyond their means is important in every public officials, however,
can you see anyone who is in the high position live in a simplicity? If ever there is, I will praise
them and vote for them. It is also important that they need to priority the public before serving
their self. Filipino first policy as what President Carlos P. Garcia embodied in the 1987
constitution.
Section 10. Review and Compliance Procedure.
Having a team to monitor the actions of every public official is important. Their role in the
government is crucial and important because they need to balance their work against code of
ethics especially Section 4 and other section relating to norms a public official should have.
At present, many officials and employee were being charge of graft and corruption, money
laundering and suspended because of committing crime against this law. We could see its impact
in the government as well as to the people especially those charges that is being known to
anybody because of the social media. The only thing I can say is for its strict compliance and
monitoring so that the said Tuwid na Daan will really feel by the public.
Section 11. Penalties

Everyone who commit mistake should be punished especially those who are taking the money of
the public for their self interest. Many people is in dire circumstances however our dearest
officials are just using our taxes on their own.
In addition to what is written in this section is in the:

The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines

BOOK TWO
CRIMES AND PENALTIES
Section Two. Bribery
Art. 210. Direct bribery. Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a
crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer,
promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another,
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not
less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the
penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.
If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not
constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penalty provided in
the preceding paragraph; and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer
the penalties of prision correccional, in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the
value of such gift.

If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain
from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision
correccional in its maximum period and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less
than three times the value of such gift.
In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the
penalty of special temporary disqualification.
The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to assessors,
arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any other persons performing public
duties. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).
Art. 211. Indirect bribery. The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, and public censure shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall accept gifts
offered to him by reason of his office. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10,
1985).
Art. 212. Corruption of public officials. The same penalties imposed upon the officer
corrupted, except those of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon any person
who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as described in the
preceding articles.
The said crime and penalties should be implemented and strictly monitored by a committee
designated to check the lifestyle of each public officials.
Section 12. Promulgation of Rules and Regulations, Administration and Enforcement of this Act.

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, and lead modest lives.

The Civil Service Commission should be strict in monitoring and complying this law. They
should be a separate entity from other public offices for them not to be bribe and do their job
accordingly.
In implementing this law, many public officials were being charges through different crimes they
committed against public trust, money and etc. I salute who is doing the strict monitoring as well
as to the public whom exposes their crime especially those who are in higher post which taking
millions from our taxes.
Section 13. Provisions for More Stringent Standards.
Section 14. Appropriations.
Section 15. Separability Clause.
Section 16. Repealing Clause.
Section 17. Effectivity
These 5 sections indicate the standardization, application and implementation of RA 6713. We
are just hoping that the government abides the said laws so that they can serve the public
accordingly. Imagine if there is no corruption in the government and all the necessary privileges
will be given to the people do you think we can be like Europe or US whom people received the
right education, health care, good service, good infrastructure and etc. Well, for now we are

imagining this scenario and hoping that the TUWID NA DAAN that our president Aquino is
imposing and campaigning should be made.