Venerable Sen. Arturo M. Tolentino authored Republic Act No. 3019 in 1960, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Its Section 7 requires all government personnel to file every year “a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year.” Solicitor General Jose Calida correctly stated in his quo warranto petition that the cited clause remains in effect.
I agree but disagree that noncompliance with it is a measure of integrity to the extent of raising it to an impeachable level.
I have a copy of the President’s SAL (statement of assets and liabilities) filed last year but it is noncompliant as to what the solicitor general looks for, on income, expenses and taxes.
I have asked my students over the years to show me proof of compliance by those in government. I have raised the ante by a vow of 90 percent passing. No one has submitted such proof.
I cannot believe that all those in government are therefore lacking in integrity and should be removed from office. The noncompliance does not comprise an impeachable offense. Else, all impeachable and other officials may have to be removed from office.
In the annual reporting published in the media — which I expect to see early this May, for 2017 — I have yet to see anyone disclosing income, expenses and taxes as required by Section 7 of RA 3019, which remains a good law.
In 1989, we added net worth; thus, SAL became SALN.
If the solicitor general or anyone can show me proof of compliance with Section 7 of the 1960 Tolentino Law, I promised my students I’ll eat it.
Government should take more seriously the review and compliance procedure (Section 10) in RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials and Employees), which also makes, in its Section 12, the Civil Service Commission — not the Ombudsman — the lead agency in a primarily administrative undertaking, to be criminalized only in case of repetition and failure to correct any lapse.
One indeed can walk with only a P1 fine under RA 6713, for a nonimpeachable offense that is not so enormous as to affect the core of government functions.
R.A.V. SAGUISAG, Palanan, Makati City