MANILA, Philippines - How can a government official be held accountable for negligence or dishonesty in public office or negligence in the entries in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN)? What is betrayal of public trust?
Are these impeachable offenses?
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, presiding officer in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, has ordered the defense and prosecution to define public trust and betrayal of public trust.
Dishonesty became a buzzword after prosecutors of the House of Representative asserted that Corona had demonstrated dishonesty in his non-declaration of some properties in his SALN.
The prosecution said such dishonesty constitutes betrayal of public trust, an impeachable offense under the Constitution.
However, retired Supreme Court Justice Serafin Cuevas, the lead defense counsel, said Corona’s apparent failure to declare some of his properties, if for the sake of argument he did fail do to so as the prosecution had alleged, the act does not warrant dismissal from office. It calls merely for “corrective action” under certain provisions of the SALN Law, and some in cases that the Civil Service Commission had promulgated, he added.
Tranquil Salvador III, a defense spokesman, said the basic question is the accuracy in the details of Corona’s SALN.
“That’s the basic defense,” he said. “Is it accurate? Yes, it is accurate.”
Salvador asked if any inaccuracy in Corona’s SALN should be seen as an impeachable offense or merely violative of some administrative procedure.
“It all goes back to their (House prosecution’s) credibility in the presentation of evidence,” he said.
Under Article 2 of the verified impeachment complaint, Corona committed culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayal of public trust when he failed to disclose to the public his SALN as required under the Constitution.
Article 3 accuses Corona of committing culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayed public trust for lack of integrity, impartiality and propriety. Corona is facing eight articles of impeachment.
Betrayal of public trust was added as among the grounds for impeachment under the 1987 Constitution, particularly Section 2 of the XI, Accountability of Public Officers.
Under the 1973 Constitution, only five grounds for impeachment were listed: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, other high crimes, and graft and corruption.
In the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, Sen. Francis Escudero said no jurisprudence – here and abroad – exists on the issue of betrayal of public trust in relation to impeachment.
Gutierrez resigned before the Senate started the trial.
The STAR culled at least three jurisprudence dealing with acts of dishonesty and negligence in the submission of SALN, as well as the issue of public trust.
The issues are the basis of the prosecution in pinning down Corona in Article 2, which deals with public disclosure of some of his properties and bank accounts (as part of his assets) in his SALNs prior to 2010.
In the case of Narita Rabe v Delsa M. Flores, the Supreme Court (SC) had ruled that Flores, an interpreter III of the Regional Trial Court branch IV of Panabo, Davao, was dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
It was also in the Flores case where the SC stressed that “public office is a public trust.”
“It is well to stress once again the constitutional declaration that a ‘(p)ublic office is a public trust’,” read the SC decision.
“Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”
In an en banc decision in the same case, the SC said no position exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual than in the judiciary.
“We have repeatedly held that although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual than in the judiciary,” read the SC decision.
“Personnel in the judiciary should conduct themselves in such a manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion, and free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, not only in the discharge of their official duties but also in their everyday life. They are strictly mandated to maintain good moral character at all times and to observe irreproachable behavior so as not to outrage public decency.”
In March 23, 2011, the SC ruled in the case of the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) and Office of the President (OP) and former public works undersecretary Salvador Pleyto that Pleyto was guilty of “simple negligence” for failure to disclose in his SALN for 1999 to 2011 the business interests and financial connections of his wife.
Pleyto violated Republic Act 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, the SC added.
The SC reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and partially granted the petition of PAGC and the OP to affirm their finding that Pleyto violated RA 6713.
Instead of dismissal, the SC imposed on Pleyto the penalty of forfeiture of the equivalent of six months’ salary from his retirement benefits for simple negligence.
“An act done in good faith, which constitutes only an error of judgment and for no ulterior motives and/or purposes, does not qualify as gross misconduct, and is merely simple negligence,” read the decision on PGAC vs Pleyto.
“Petitioner’s negligence, though, is only simple and not gross, in the absence of bad faith or the intent to mislead or deceive on his part, and in consideration of the fact that his SALNs actually disclose the full extent of his assets and the fact that he and his wife had other business interests.”
In contrast to simple negligence, “gross misconduct and dishonesty are serious charges which warrant the removal or dismissal from service of the erring public officer or employee,” the SC said in the Pleyto case.
The SC said apart from removal from office, gross misconduct also carries with it accessory penalties, like cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service.
“Hence, a finding that a public officer or employee is administratively liable for such charges must be supported by substantial evidence,” read the SC decision.
Oath of honesty and integrity
In another decision, the SC said: “A public servant must display at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity” since the Constitution mandates the principle that a public office is a public trust.
In a decision dated Jan. 31, 2011, the SC found one Nieto Racho guilty of dishonesty and ordered his dismissal from service in relation to his failure to include in his SALN alleged bank accounts, which were not commensurate to his income as a government official.
Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza penned the decision, which Chief Justice Corona had himself certified.
A portion of the SC decision in Racho said: “(D)ishonesty begins when an individual intentionally makes a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in order to secure his examination, registration, appointment or promotion.
“It is understood to imply the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.
“It is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one’s ability to perform his duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee.”
The SC said the discrepancies in the statement of Racho’s assets are not the results of mere carelessness.
“On the contrary, there is substantial evidence pointing to a conclusion that Racho is guilty of dishonesty because of his unmistakable intent to cover up the true source of his questioned bank deposits,” read the SC decision.
The SC said in the Racho case that mere misdeclaration of the SALN does not automatically amount to dishonesty.
“Only when the accumulated wealth becomes manifestly disproportionate to the employee’s income or other sources of income and the public officer/employee fails to properly account or explain his other sources of income, does he become susceptible to dishonesty,” read the SC decision.
“When a public officer takes an oath or office, he or she binds himself or herself to faithfully perform the duties of the office and use reasonable skill and diligence, and to act primarily for the benefit of the public.
“Thus, in the discharge of duties, a public officer is to use that prudence, caution and attention which careful persons use in the management of their affairs.
“The Court has consistently reminded our public servants that public service demands utmost integrity and discipline. A public servant must display at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity, for no less than the Constitution mandates the principle that a public office is a public trust; and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people and serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.”