8/2/2019 Saln Paper

1/2

Mark Paul T. Lomod

Property

The talk furnished us with an interesting question, Can justice be bought? Or is it only weak

men who succumb to filthy lucre? To be honest, I am greatly tempted to write a paper on ethics,

specifically on justice as a cardinal virtue, but then again, this paper is limited in its scope.

Suffice to say, the talk delivered more than what one can normally expect from short

academic talks- after all, who among us have not be glued to the live broadcasts of the Chief Justices

impeachment trial? From its origins in England, to the British influences in the American system, the

impeachment process is certainly not a novel idea. In principle, it was meant, as most of us could

probably guess, as a limitation on the power of the highest ranking officials, but more than this, it is a

guarantee for the people that those they have placed into power actually perform what is expected of

them. On the other side of the fence, it is an effective tool to ensure that the people whom the voters

have placed into power are not overly hindered by annoying suits left and right by disgruntled

enemies, political or otherwise. The concept is ingenious, but the processes can be taxing and mired

by endless bureaucratic red tape.

The great issue in the impeachment trials now touch upon the controversial Statement of

Assets and Liabilities of the Chief Justice, which, according to law, is required to be filed by him

honestly and correctly. If he did both of these things, there wouldnt be an issue now. Unfortunately, it

seems that he has been somewhat remiss in his obligation to the government in declaring his

properties in the interest of transparency and good governance. Basically, he made it look like he has

less than what he actually had. At least thats what the prosecution claims, until the Chief Justice is

finally convicted of anything by the Senator Judges.

I wont give a detailed report on the talk, but merely draw a general outline of the

proceedings.

Simply, Atty. Sunga began by tracing the legal roots of the SALN from R.A. 3019 (The Anti-

Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). He discussed who are covered by the obligation, as well as when the

SALN is supposed to be filed and how often. Suffice to say, not everyone has to submit it, but the

Chief Justice is certainly required in his position, as provided for in the Constitution. Atty. Sunga even

mentioned the violations which one can incur: R.A. 3019 Section 9b, 183 RPC Perjury and R.A. 171

Falsification. He even touched upon the distinction between the mere performance of the obligation

of filing, or whether disclosure involves an even more stringent standard of revelation about ones

finances and assets. Apparently, there are strict procedures which govern the obligation- from having

to file on time or risk violating the law, or omitting to include certain items and assets and end up

violating some law, i.e. falsification. Indeed, it is a serious obligation and one not enforced merely out

of procedural curiosities. It is aimed at ferreting out corrupt practices and lifestyles.

8/2/2019 Saln Paper

2/2

Dean Diokno laments the defeat of the laws intent when many merely interpret the

obligation laid down by the law so narrowly that even the goal of transparency is hindered, if not out

rightly defeated. If the mandatory report were aimed at making the documents available to the general

public, but all these little rules and procedures bog the media and everyone down from even laying a

hand upon a single scrap of paper, of what use is the law enforcing the obligations when the submitted

documents merely sit in some drawer gathering dust?; so much so that the Dean equated it with a

violation of the Constitution. Indeed, it is not merely the curious public or the media which are

hassled, what about courts and investigating personnel who need access to these documents for the

sake of a trial or legal issue?

As the Dean mentioned, the quality of the prosecution in the impeachment proceedings have

been seriously hampered by their lack of access to the SALN. The myriad of authorizations needed,

the various little protocols and procedures here and there seem aimed at simply exasperating

legitimate investigation. Hence, we also arrive at the dilemma of balancing between the publics right

to know, that of transparency and the freedom to information juxtaposed to the right of people to be

free from undue harassment when unscrupulous 3rd

parties may get a hold of their SALN documents.

Indeed, the fear of abuse will always be there, but we must also remember the original intent

for the obligation, in the first place. The fear of a possible even occurring can never supersede the

necessities of the present.