MANILA,
FEBRUARY 7, 2012 (PHILSTAR) By
Christina Mendez - 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."
Chief News Editor: Sol
Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2012 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE
NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS
ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
phno-digest@yahoogroups.com
phno-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/