REPUBLIC ACT NO.

3019 AND
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6713

R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-graft and

Corrupt Practices Act)

R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct

and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees)
ORDER OF PRESENTATION
1. Salient points of Republic Act No. 3019
a. Corrupt Practices
b. Prohibition on Certain Relatives
c. Prohibition on Members of Congress
d. SALN
e. Penalties
f. Prescription of Offense
g. Termination of Office
h. Suspension and Loss of Benefits
i. Exception

2. Salient points of Republic Act No. 6713

a. Norms and Conduct of Public Officials
b. Duties of Public Officials and Employees
c. Prohibited Acts and Transactions
d. SALN
e. Penalties
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019

(Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act)

WHAT ARE CONSIDERED CORRUPT PRACTICES?

 Persuading,inducing or influencing
another public officer [Section 3 (a)]
Baviera vs. Zoleta (G.R. No. 169098, October 12, 2006)
Baviera vs. Zoleta (G.R. No. 169098, October 12, 2006)
Facts:
This is a case where in a public official Ma. Merceditas N Gutierrez was charged for
Violation of RA 3019 by persuading or influencing other public official (DATUMANONG) for
some benefits by verbally allowing a foreign national Mr. RAMAN to travel abroad with
Hold Departure Order.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of persuading, inducing or influencing another public
officer.
Ruling:
 The Court held that there was no violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, there was
no actual or real damage suffered by any party, including the government as Mr.
Raman immediately returned to the Philippines, the truth of which was not rebutted
by the herein complainant in his Reply-Affidavit. Thus, the herein complainant also did
not suffer undue injury as an element required by the law. By the same token, the
essential ingredient of manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence required for the commission of such offense has not been proven in the
instant case.
 The respondent has satisfactorily explicated that as Acting Secretary of Justice, she has the
power and authority to perform such act. In fact, she could have even lifted the Hold
Departure Order since there is no ground for its continued enforcement but did not do so in
deference to Secretary DATUMANONG who consequently lifted such order. As correctly
pointed out by the respondent, it was as if the Secretary ratified her act of allowing Mr.
RAMAN to travel abroad despite the Hold Departure Order against the latter and there is
no question that she can do or perform such act being the Acting Secretary at that time.
WHAT ARE CONSIDERED CORRUPT PRACTICES?

Requesting or receiving any gift:

Wherein the public officer has a duty to

intervene [Section 3 (b)]

Wherein any Government permit or

license is to be secured or obtained
[Section 3 (c)]
 WHAT ARE CONSIDERED CORRUPT PRACTICES?

Accepting employment in a private

enterprise [Section 3 (d)]

Causing any undue injury to the

Government or any party [Section 3 (e)]
Coloma vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 205561, September 24, 2014)
Coloma vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 205561, September 24, 2014)
Facts:
Coloma was the Director of the Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA)at the time of the
alleged violation of R.A. No. 3019. On November 19, 1999, he was designated as Special Assistant
and Action Officer to the Director, Logistics and Installation Services (LIS) of the Philippine Public
Safety College (PPSC). Then PPSC President Ernesto B. Gimenez (Gimenez) assigned Coloma to
assist in the search for a suitable construction site of the Philippine National Police Regional
Training Site 9 Annex in Bongao, Tawi-Tawi (RTS 9).
After inspection the constructed site which was claimed by Coloma to be 100% complete was only
90% complete and was turned to be over priced.
Issue: Whether or not Coloma is culpable for Violation of RA 3019 (Causing Undue Injury to the
Government).
Ruling:
The Court has held that there are two ways by which a public official violates Section 3(e) of R.A.
No. 3019 in the performance of his functions, namely: (1) by causing undue injury to any party,
including the Government; or (2) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit,
advantage or preference. The accused may be charged under either mode or both. The disjunctive
term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. In other
words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction. Further,the term "undue injury" in the
context of Section 3(e) of the R.A. No. 3019 punishing the act of "causing undue injury to any party,"
has a meaning akin to that civil law concept of "actual damage." Actual damage, in the context of
these definitions, is akin to that in civil law.
As explained by the Sandiganbayan, the undue injury caused by Coloma to the government is based
on two grounds: 1) as a co-signatory in the current accounts created for the payment of creditors,
Coloma reserved to himself control over the deposits to and withdrawals therefrom, and 2) the cost
of the RTS 9 as declared by Coloma in his report was significantly higher than the actual cost
computed after inspection.
WHAT ARE CONSIDERED CORRUPT PRACTICES?

 Neglecting or refusing to act within a

reasonable time [Section 3(f)]
Republic Act No. 9485 (Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007)

 Entering contract manifestly and grossly

disadvantageous to the Government
[Section 3(g)]
 WHAT ARE CONSIDERED CORRUPT PRACTICES?

Prohibited financial or pecuniary interest

[Section 3(h)]

Interestedin any transaction requiring

the approval of a board of which he is a
member
[Section 3(i)]
WHAT ARE CONSIDERED CORRUPT PRACTICES?

 Granting any license or permit to

person not qualified [Section 3(j)]

 Divulging confidential information

[Section 3(k)]
 A private individual can be
liable if he:

a. Takes advantage of such

family or close personal
relation; and

b. Knowingly cause a public

official to commit any of the
offenses defined in Section 3.
(Section 4)
PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN RELATIVES

Who? A: Spouse or Relative by consanguinity or

affinity, within the third civil degree

Of whom? A:President, Vice-President,

President of the Senate
Speaker of the House of Rep

To what? A: Intervene, directly or indirectly,

in any business, transaction, contract or
application with the Government. (Section 5)
 PROHIBITION ON MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Personal pecuniary interest in business

enterprise benefited by any law
authored by him. (Section 6)
All government employees must file
their Statement of Assets and
Liabilities (SALN)
(Section 7)
 PENALTIES

(a) Violations of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6-

1) 1-10 years imprisonment;
2) Perpetual disqualification from public office; and
3) Confiscation/forfeiture of any prohibited interest
and unexplained wealth.

(b) Violation of Section 7 (SALN)

1) Fine Php 100-1000; or
2) Imprisonment not exceeding one year; or
3) Both. (Section 9)
 PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES

10 years from the commission of the

violation or discovery thereof.
(Section 11)

Republic vs. Cojuangco (G.R. No. 139930, June 26, 2012)

Republic vs. Cojuangco (G.R. No. 139930, June 26, 2012)
Facts:
This case, involves another attempt of the government to recover ill-gotten wealth acquired during the Marcos era,
resolves the issue of prescription.
On March 1, 1990 The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic
Act (R.A.) 3019 against respondents, the 1979 members of the UCPB board of directors, before the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG). The OSG alleged that UCPB’s investment in UNICOM was manifestly
and grossly disadvantageous to the government since UNICOM had a capitalization of only ₱5 million and it had no
track record of operation. In the process of conversion to voting common shares, the government’s ₱495 million
investment was reduced by ₱95 million which was credited to UNICOM’s incorporators. The PCGG subsequently
referred the complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-0-90-2810 in line with the ruling in Cojuangco, Jr.
v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, which disqualified the PCGG from conducting the preliminary
investigation in the case.
Issue: The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not respondents’ alleged violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 already
prescribed..
Rulings:
Notably, Section 11 of R.A. 3019 now provides that the offenses committed under that law prescribes in 15 years.
Prior to its amendment by Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 195 on March 16, 1982, however, the prescriptive period for
offenses punishable under R.A. 3019 was only 10 years. Since the acts complained of were committed before the
enactment of B.P. 195, the prescriptive period for such acts is 10 years as provided in Section 11 of R.A. 3019, as
originally enacted.
Now R.A. 3019 being a special law, the 10-year prescriptive period should be computed in accordance with Section 2
of Act 3326, which provides:
Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law,
and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial
proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
The above-mentioned section provides two rules for determining when the prescriptive period shall begin to run:
first, from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, if such commission is known; and second, from its
discovery, if not then known, and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
Thus, the action has been prescribed, the case should had been filed on or before February 8, 1990, 10 years after
the discovery of the offense on February 8, 1980.
TERMINATION OF OFFICE

Public officer shall not be

allowed to resign or retire
pending an investigation or
prosecution of any offense
under R.A. No. 3019 or a
Bribery case under the RPC.
(Section 12)
SUSPENSION AND LOSS OF BENEFITS

If convicted
-public officer shall lose all retirement or
gratuity benefits under any law

If acquitted
-entitled to reinstatement, salaries and
benefits which he failed to receive during
suspension. (Section 13)
 EXCEPTION

Unsolicited gifts of small or

insignificant value given as a
mere ordinary token of gratitude
or friendship according to local
customs or usage (Section 14)
 Republic Act No. 6713

The "Code of Conduct and Ethical

Standards for Public Officials and
Employees"
 NORMS OF CONDUCT OF PUBLIC
OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES
(a) Commitment to public interest;
(b) Professionalism;
(c) Justness and sincerity;
(d) Political neutrality;
(e) Responsiveness to the public;
(f) Nationalism and patriotism;
(g) Commitment to democracy; and
(h) Simple living. (Section 4)
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. (Section 5)
PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS

(a) Financial and material interest

(b) Outside employment

(1) In private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by
their office;
(2) Private practice of profession; or
(3) Recommend another in a private enterprise which has a
regular or pending official transaction with their office.
PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS

(c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential

information.
(1) To further private interests or give undue
advantage to anyone; or
(2) To prejudice the public interest.

(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. (Section 7)

 STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES
AND NET WORTH

Public officials and employees are obliged

to submit under oath their SALN. (Section 8)
PENALTIES
Fine not exceeding the equivalent
of six (6) months' salary or
suspension not exceeding one (1)
year, or removal depending on the
gravity of the offense.
PENALTIES
If the violation is punishable by a
heavier penalty under another law, he shall
be prosecuted under the latter statute.

For violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9

-Imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years,
or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos
(P5,000), or both, and, if proper,
disqualification to hold public office.
PENALTIES

(b) Any violation proven in

an administrative proceeding
shall be sufficient cause for
removal or dismissal, even if
no criminal prosecution is
instituted
PENALTIES
(c) Private individuals who
participate in conspiracy shall
be subject to the same penal
liabilities as the public officials
or employees. (Section 11)
Thank you and Good day!