Home     Forum     Immigration USA     Forex Rate     RP President     Archives     Contact Us      RSS

Click here to view previous day's headlines

he ongoing impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona has brought to light what appears to be a faulty, if not patently unconstitutional 1992 En Banc resolution of the Philippine Supreme Court that effectively ended any public disclosure of the Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) of any Justice or Judge. Chief Justice Andres Narvasa’s court in their ruling—A.M. No. 92-9-851-RTC, dated September 22, 1992—resolved that henceforth all “All requests for copies of statements of assets and liabilities of any Justice or Judge shall be filed with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court or with the Court Administrator, as the case may be, and shall state the purpose of the request.”

With a tinge of paranoia, the resolution argued that the High Court “be wary of deceptive requests for information,” as well as requests that appear to be a “fishing expedition intended to harass or get back at the Judge.” Thus with the stroke of a pen, the Narvasa court slammed the door on the Constitutional mandate to make available SALNs of high-ranking public officials.

Section 17 Article XI  of the 1987 Constitution states that “A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a  declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress,  the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be  disclosed to the public in the manner provided  by law.”

The above provision unambiguously states who is required to file their SALN. In addition the oral record of the Constitutional Commission itself allows us to glean the intent of the framers as they wrote a particular provision. In that regard, the late Senator Blas Ople who was also a delegate to the Constitutional Commission argued that only high ranking government officials should be required to file a SALN. The framers, he said, wanted to "introduce a new form of accountability." Stating further that "in a society, it is understood that we have to lead by example and those who have this burden more than the others are the holders of the greatest power.” In comparison, Ople further pointed out that “In the case of the United States, comparable officers are required by law to so disclose their assets and liabilities to the public.”

Thus although the Narvasa court did not defy the constitutional provision outright, it effectively prevented the public from viewing any of the SALN documents kept by the Tribunal’s clerk of Court. Ever since A.M. No. 92-9-851-RTC went into effect almost 20 years ago, not a single request has ever been granted—not one! Corona’s SALN which was reluctantly surrendered by Clerk of Court Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal to the Impeachment Court did not go through the court’s approval process—if it did it would have likely been denied as well.

So, the question arises: were the various SALN requests filed with the Supreme Court over the past 19 years all frivolous or illegitimate that not a single one merited approval? Of course not, Nervasa and his judicial accomplices knew exactly what they were doing and what would happen once their resolution took effect.

In a country like the Philippines where there both local and international organizations acknowledge that sky-high levels of corruption exist; and with a judicial system where judges are the sole arbiters in civil and criminal cases (unlike the US where a jury determines guilt or innocence), hiding the SALN of Judges and Justices is simply unconscionable. It is so easy for jurists to accept bribes or engage in illicit activity. In fact, simply playing the stock market by buying or selling stock based on decisions to be rendered can make a judge a bundle of money—and without access to their SALN, the public will have no clue anything illegal is going on.

Narvasa who is now retired and likely enjoying his twilight years should nonetheless be made to answer for this travesty of justice which in its nearly two decades of existence, has likely caused immeasurable damage to the Country and its people. Sadly the poor and helpless usually end up bearing the brunt of such wrong-headed if not criminal decisions by magistrates who knew better, but didn’t seem to care about anyone but themselves. Published 1/24/2012

Join our poll: Should former CJ Narvasa be held accountable for his resolution 19 years ago? CLICK HERE to vote.

Philippine NewsLink reserves the right to select and edit comments for publication.

© 1996 - 2012 PHILNEWS.COM     Home    Forum    Immigration USA    Forex Rate    RP President    Archives    Contact Us     RSS     Privacy Policy