CONCURRING OPINION
LEONEN, J.:
I concur with this Court's finding that petitioner Estrella Abid-Babano cannot be held liable for not disclosing her husband's exclusive properties in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, considering the regime of complete separation of property that governs their marriage.
Moreover, petitioner should not have been charged with violations of Republic Act No. 3019 and Republic Act No. 6713 without first having been given the opportunity to correct the alleged defects in her statement. Absent the observance of the review and compliance procedure mandated by law, public officers should not be held liable for inaccuracies in their statements.
The duty of public officers or employees to submit a statement of their assets, liabilities, and net worth is both constitutionally and statutorily. mandated. Article XI, Section 17 of the Constitution requires public officers or employees to submit their sworn statements upon their assumption of office:
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.
In addition, more frequent submissions are required under the law. Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, require annual submissions of a statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth. 1 A public officer or employee must also file a statement after his or her separation from service. 2
A statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth is an instrument that promotes accountability. Republic Act No. 6713 embodies the policy that public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people, in line with the longstanding principle that public office is a public trust. 3
Disclosures in the statement aim to guard the public against a public officer or employee's unexplained accumulation of wealth that is grossly disproportionate to his or her income or other sources of income. 4 As the statement contains a list of his or her assets, liabilities, net worth, and financial and business interests, it serves as a mechanism to keep the public servant always in check and answerable to the public for his or her financial wealth. After all, one only occupies public office based on public trust. Disclosures in the statement play a critical role in ensuring that the government remain free from corruption and that public officers and employees be truthful and faithful in discharging their duties. 5
Necessarily, the policy is achieved when there is a full disclosure of a public officer or employee's assets and liabilities. Assets that do not contribute to his or her wealth and net worth, therefore, need not be included, as in petitioner's case.
To stress the importance of the statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth, Republic Act No. 6713 and Republic Act No. 3019 provide the effects of failure to disclose the necessary information. A public officer or employee who violates the requirements under this law exposes him or herself to both administrative and criminal liability. 6
Nonetheless, the law does not automatically impose liability on erring public officers. Section 107 of Republic Act No. 6713 sets up a review and compliance procedure for all statement submissions. It gives public officers an opportunity to correct erroneous entries or to supply missing information in their statements.
Every government office or agency is, thus, required to create a Review and Compliance Committee that is tasked with receiving statement submissions and evaluating if they have been filed on time, completely, and in the proper form. The Committee then prepares lists of employees who: (a) filed their statements with complete data; (b) filed their statements but with incomplete data; (c) did not file their statements. 8
From these lists, the office or agency head has the ministerial duty to issue a compliance order to those employees who have incomplete data and those who did not file their statements. The head shall require these employees to correct or supply the desired information or to file their statements, as the case may be, within 30 days.9
This procedure is an important feature of Republic Act No. 6713. Correcting entries or supplying missing information in the statement absolves the public officer or employee of administrative liability. 10 The Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, as amended, provides that only after failure to comply within the 30-day period, as stated in the compliance order, will the public officer or employee be subject to disciplinary action. 11
This review and compliance procedure serves as a mechanism that affords the public officer or employee a final opportunity to comply with the requirements before any sanction is meted out. It seeks a fuller and more accurate disclosure of the necessary information. While the statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth is an instrument that ensures accountability, the review and compliance procedure works as a buffer that prevents the haphazard filing of actions against public officials and employees.
In Atty. Navarro v. Office of the Ombudsman, 12 this Court emphasized the importance of informing the public officer or employee of any defect in his or her statement. This procedure, as mandated by Republic Act No. 6713 and its Implementing Rules, allows him or her to take the necessary corrective action before being held administratively liable. In Atty. Navarro:
Although it is the duty of every public official/employee to properly accomplish his/her SALN, it is not too much to ask for the head of the appropriate department/office to have called his attention should there be any incorrectness in his SALN. The DOF, which has supervision over the BIR, could have directed Navarro to correct his SALN. This is in consonance with the above-quoted Review and Compliance Procedure under R.A. No. 6713, as well as its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), providing for the procedure for review of statements to determine whether they have been properly accomplished. To reiterate, it is provided in the IRR that in the event authorities determine that a SALN is not properly filed, they should inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.
….
The Court is mindful of the duty of public officials and employees to disclose their assets, liabilities and net worth accurately and truthfully. In keeping up with the constantly changing and fervent society and for the purpose of eliminating corruption in the government, the new SALN is stricter, especially with regard to the details of real properties, to address the pressing issue of transparency among those in the government service. Although due regard is given to those charged with the duty of filtering malicious elements in the government service, it must still be stressed that such duty must be exercised with great caution as grave consequences result therefrom. Thus, some leeway should be accorded the public officials. They must be given the opportunity to explain any prima facie appearance of discrepancy. To repeat, where his explanation is adequate, convincing and verifiable, his assets cannot be considered unexplained wealth or illegally obtained. 13 (Emphasis in the original)
Thus, to be more aligned with the purpose and text of the law, the proper procedure should be: if the Review and Compliance Committee finds that a statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth was not submitted on time, was incomplete, or was not in proper form, the public officer or employee must be given the opportunity to take corrective action. 14 Only after this can the authorities determine whether there is unexplained wealth. Without undergoing this procedure, the public officer should not be held administratively liable. 15
In this case, despite the requirement under the law, the records do not show that petitioner's case underwent the review and compliance procedure to allow her to supply the alleged incomplete data in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth. Instead, the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, merely acting on an anonymous complaint and after finding a prima facie case, formally charged her with violations of Republic Act No. 3019 and Republic Act No. 6713. 16
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the Petition.
Footnotes
1 Republic Act No. 6713 (l 989), sec. 8(A); Republic Act No. 3019 (1960), sec. 7.
2 Republic Act No. 6713 (1989), sec. 8(A); Republic Act No. 30 I 9 (1960), sec. 7.
3 CONST., art. XI, sec. I.
4 J. Leonen, Dissenting Opinion in Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64003> [Per J. Tijam, En Banc].
5 Id.
6 Republic Act No. 6713 (1989), secs. 11-12; Republic Act No. 3019 (1960), sec. 9(b).
7 Republic Act No. 6713 (1989), sec. 10 provides:
SECTION 10. Review and Compliance Procedure. - (a) The designated Committees of both Houses of the Congress shall establish procedures for the review of statements to determine whether said statements which have been submitted on time, are complete, and are in proper form. In the event a determination is made that a statement is not so filed, the appropriate Committee shall so inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.
(b) In order to carry out their responsibilities under this Act, the designated Committees of both Houses of Congress shall have the power within their respective jurisdictions, to render any opinion interpreting this Act, in writing, to persons covered by this Act, subject in each instance to the approval by affirmative vote of the majority of the particular House concerned.
The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and any other individual involved in a similar factual situation, and who, after issuance of the opinion acts in good faith in accordance with it shall not be subject to any sanction provided in this Act.
(c) The heads of other offices shall perform the duties stated in subsections (a) and (b) hereof insofar as their respective offices are concerned, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, in the case of the Executive Department and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in the case of the Judicial Department.
8 CSC Resolution No. 13-00455 (2013).
9 CSC Resolution No. 13-00174 (2013), sec. 3.
10 Republic Act No. 6713 (1989), sec. 10.
11 Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, Rule VIII (1989), sec. 4, as amended by CSC Resolution No. 06-0231 (2006) and CSC Resolution No. 13-00174 (2013).
12 793 Phil. 453 (2016) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
13 Id. at 476-478.
14 J. Leonen, Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in San Diego v. Fact-Finding Investigation Committee, G.R. No. 214081, April 10, 2019, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65165> [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
15 Id.
16 Ponencia, p. 2.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
