When Sen. Ralph Recto asked the defense if there was a constitutional provision requiring a public official to declare all three values of a property, namely fair market, assessed and acquisition values, former Justice Serafin Cuevas, lead defense counsel, said there was no definite provision.
Article XI, Sec. 17 of the 1987 Constitution states that a public officer or employee shall xxx submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. Further, Article IX states that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) xxx is tasked to institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability.
In relation to these constitutional provisions, Sec. 4(B) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713) provides that the CSC is tasked to adopt positive measures to promote observance of these standards. It further provides under Sec. 8 (A)(a) that the SALN shall contain information on real property, improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and (not or) current fair market value.
In the Bugarin case, the Supreme Court ruled that in ascertaining the value of the respondent’s properties, it is the acquisition cost that should be made as basis since it is the actual amount of money shelled out by the respondent in acquiring them and it is the acquisition cost that must be charged against the respondent’s lawful income and funds. In the Pleyto case, the Supreme Court ruled that the relevant valuation would be the acquisition cost. Any appreciation (or depreciation) in the value of the real properties after their acquisition until the present has no bearing. In the Valeroso case, the Supreme Court restated the rationale for the SALN—it is aimed particularly at curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service.
“Public office is a public trust” has been the guiding principle of our Constitution (Sec. 1). One of the grounds for impeachment is betrayal of public trust which should not be categorized separately as an independent ground for impeachment but should be considered as constitutive of all or any of the violations covered by the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) and RA 6713. I submit that any violation of any laws of the Philippines therefore constitutes betrayal of public trust.
In his Inquirer column titled “Betrayal of public trust” (Inquirer, 3/26/12), Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, posed the question: “Is error in accomplishing the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), xxx so commonly committed even by high-ranking officials an impeachable offense?” The answer is no because that is not an impeachable offense.
The question that should be asked is: “By failing to declare a true and detailed SALN, did the public official betray our trust?” The answer is an emphatic “Yes!” No amount of equivocation can erase the clear and categorical messages contained in Article XI, Sections 1 and 17 of the Philippine Constitution.
—ROMEO M. ESCAREAL,
retired justice of the Sandiganbayan,
Makati City