IN A DECISION rendered in April but published only last week, the Supreme Court overturned some of its own previous rulings regarding statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) required annually of government officers and employees.
In the case of “Carlos vs. Department of Finance” (promulgated April 18, 2023), the High Court, voting en banc, said that government officials or employees are not liable for violating the law requiring SALN without having previously been informed of their errors or omissions and given the chance to comply.
***
Supreme Court decisions are normally issued by divisions composed of five justices.
The en banc, or a full court of 15 members, decides cases where the issues presented are of sufficient importance to merit its attention or where a doctrine or principle laid down by previous decisions may be modified or reversed.
This case of Carlos clarifies several issues surrounding the filing of SALN.
***
Section 10 of Republic Act 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, provides for an agency mechanism to review and possibly correct errors in the SALN.
An erring government employee cannot be held responsible when the agency itself fails to implement the review and compliance procedure outlined in the law.
The head of office who does not implement this internal review mechanism can be held liable for neglect of duty.
***
Previous Supreme Court decisions are contradictory.
A 2007 decision ruled that review and compliance is internal to the agency and does not bind external parties like the Office of the Ombudsman. The review mechanism is not relevant where it is the Ombudsman who is investigating violations of the code of ethical standards or the anti-graft law. The Ombudsman can proceed to file cases even in the absence of a prior internal review.
This decision was affirmed in another decision rendered in 2009. The Supreme Court at the time said that the procedure is merely an internal office matter. Failure by the agency to observe the procedure will not prevent the Ombudsman from investigating or prosecuting cases arising from SALN irregularities. Otherwise, the Ombudsman’s constitutionally guaranteed independence will be impaired.
***
In sum, the Supreme Court had previously ruled that the review and compliance procedure provided in the law itself is not a pre-requisite to the filing of charges relative to false declarations in the SALN.
The rationale is that the Ombudsman’s power to prosecute SALN discrepancies stands independent of the power of the head of office to ensure compliance with the SALN requirement.
***
Thankfully, this recent decision written for the court by Justice Marvic Leonen has harmonized the Ombudsman’s power to investigate and prosecute with the mandatory character of the review mechanism enacted by Congress.
“Republic Act 6713 and its implementing rules are straightforward and mandatory. Without compliance with them, a violation cannot arise. If there is no violation, there is no liability for the Ombudsman to act on,” said the decision.
The Carlos decision is welcome given how the SALN requirement may at times be wielded to target tenured officials./PN
