“I’M NOT hearing this,” the procurement expert recalls himself saying as he tried to cover his ears. He was recounting an interesting incident that happened sometime last year, while he was helping oversee a public bidding for civil-works contractors to build roads in a southern Philippines province.

The roads project was being funded by a major bilateral donor, which had hired the procurement expert to help ensure the selection of contractors was honest and transparent. The bidding had gone very well; there were many eligible participants and the price bids were genuinely competitive. Members of the bids and awards committee (BAC) also did not take a long time to recommend that the contract should be awarded to the lowest bidder.

But then, the expert said, the winner of the bidding approached him and the BAC members to tell them this: “The mayor just called to ask for his cut. He said we wouldn’t be allowed to enter his town if we didn’t give him something. What should I do?”

That’s when the procurement expert, who spoke to the PCIJ on condition of anonymity as his employment contract forbids him from talking publicly about the project, put his hands to his ears. He said he didn’t know how the story ended – whether the mayor got his cut and how much, if any. But for him, the incident underscores some of the ills that continue to plague many public works projects even as the central offices of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) begin to make some headway in curbing corruption and collusion in the implementation of big projects.

“For big projects, it’s clear that Secretary Rogelio Singson’s reforms are already making a significant impact,” said the procurement expert, an engineer who used to work for a government-planning agency. “But picking contractors for pork-barrel and local projects is still influenced to a large extent by congressmen or local politicians.”

Exactions by local pols

Even if they do not have a hand in choosing contractors, politicians try to take a slice off the private contractors’ profit margins by threatening to make it hard for them to secure various kinds permits from local authorities. Noted the expert: “Even contractors for major projects being supervised by the DPWH central offices are not spared. Congressmen and local officials demand that contractors see them first before they do any projects in their territories.”

Manolito Madrasto, executive director of the Philippine Constructors Association, the industry grouping of building and infrastructure contractors in the country, and a long-time construction industry veteran, says that as Singson slowly makes some headway in cleaning up the central offices of the DPWH, the problem seems to be shifting to exactions made by local politicians.

“There is still some leakage in public works contracts though it has probably gone down from 30 to 40 percent to only five to 15 percent, most of which go to pay off local officials and politicians,” Madrasto says.

A PCIJ review of the DPWH databases on bid summaries for civil works contracts as well as awarded contracts found that public tenders supervised by central and regional offices tended to be more competitive than those administered by engineering districts, which interact more with local officials. The average number of bidders for contracts worth P50 million and above bidded out by the central and regional offices was 4.4 per project but fell to only 2.4 for contracts worth less than P50 million, which are handled by engineering districts.

Similarly, the “price cut,” or the difference between the authorized budget ceiling, the maximum possible price, and the lowest bid for big projects managed by central and regional offices was 10.9 percent, but was only 4.7 percent for small projects handled by engineering districts.

Not likely to end

The vice president of a major Philippine construction company says exactions from politicians is a problem unlikely to go away soon in spite of Singson or the Aquino administration’s efforts to clean up the DPWH and other national government agencies.

“It seems to be ingrained in our political system,” says the construction bigwig. “I can’t blame these politicians for making these kinds of demands on private contractors because they are just responding to demands made on them by their political supporters and constituents for various kinds of favors. Go to any politician’s house or office, and you’ll see the long lines of people asking for everything from jobs to money for hospitalization.”

The president of a medium-sized construction company says that dealing with politicians’ demands for payoffs is just one of the many challenges facing private contractors on the ground. “In some ways, it’s similar to the problem posed by communist or Muslim rebels asking for revolutionary taxes,” he says. “The appropriate response will depend on the situation but it does not always involve giving them money. Sometimes, CSR (corporate social responsibility)-type of projects like building a school or a livelihood project will do.”

Still, in spite of the problems facing public works contractors, Madrasto says that many of the PCA’s big members are keen to participate in infrastructure projects, including those to be carried out under public-private partnerships (PPP), because of the reforms being put in place in DPWH and other infrastructure agencies.

No more chop-chop?

“We note that he (Singson) is trying to correct the past practice of chopping up a large project into several smaller ones just to accommodate contractors who are not qualified to carry out big projects,” remarks Madrasto. “That’s very encouraging for our members.”

The PCA is helping the DPWH curb collusion among contractors and public works officials, he says.

“We threw out an entire chapter composed of around 20 members because we suspected they were involved in collusive schemes to fix the results of biddings for public works contracts,” says Madrasto, adding that information on their collusive activities were submitted to DPWH.

PCA members are also looking forward to a new mechanism being developed by DPWH for long-term maintenance contracts, lasting five to 10 years, in road and bridge construction, Madrasto says. While holding private contractors to strict performance standards, they will be given a lot of leeway to develop the most cost-effective ways to meet such standards, he says.

It remains to be seen if the reforms to curb collusion and corruption will take root and spread across the entire DPWH organization throughout the country as the agency steps up the implementation of infrastructure projects.

This year, the department is expected to bid out P170 billion worth of projects compared to P156 billion planned last year.

Down then up

The PCIJ review of DPWH data on awarded contracts show that the total value of awarded civil works contracts entered in the agency’s public works registry began to go up toward the end of 2011 after sharply declining in the second half of 2010.

From P121.9 billion, the value of civil works contracts registered with the DPWH in the last year and a half of the Arroyo administration fell by more than half to only P54.96 billion in the first year and a half of the Aquino administration. To be sure, the big slump is not just due to the spending slowdown after the new government reviewed and froze some projects. Some of it is also the effect of the surge in spending under the Arroyo administration just ahead of the May 2010 national elections.

(Click here for a larger version of this figure.)

The number of projects fell from 14,816 to only 9,530 during the same period. But then the value of awarded contracts surged to P7.96 billion in December 2011, the highest since March 2010.

But guarding against collusion among bidders and ensuring the government gets the best price bids when it puts up a public works contract for bidding are not the only challenges facing the DPWH in selecting contractors to build or repair roads, bridges, flood control dikes and other infrastructure projects. It must also choose only those who are qualified to do the work on time and within budget, and with the track record to prove it.

To get a glimpse at the track record of construction companies being awarded millions of pesos worth of public-works contracts, PCIJ generated a list of the hundreds of contractors who won the 9,530 awarded civil works contracts registered since the Aquino administration took over in July 2010, and compared these with some items in the Constructors Performance Evaluation System (CPES) report for 2009, the year before the new administration came in.

The CPES report is prepared by the Construction Industry Authority of the Philippines and Philippine Domestic Construction Board (CIAP-PDCB), joint public-private sector bodies that audit the performance of construction companies carrying out infrastructure projects. CIAP and PDCB have developed a scoring system for a contractor’s workmanship, materials and timeliness in implementing projects. It then adds up the scores and assigns an overall rating for the contractor’s performance for the project. These range from “Outstanding,” “Very Satisfactory,” “Satisfactory,” to “Unsatisfactory” and “Poor.” (Click here to view a copy of the CPES report.)

Bad guys get deals

There were 121 contractors that received a rating of “Poor” and “Unsatisfactory” for at least one completed project between 2007 and 2009, according to the 2009 CPES report. The PCIJ found that 77 of these, or almost two-thirds, were still awarded civil works contracts from the middle of 2010 to 2011.

Altogether, they won contracts worth an aggregate value of P6.4 billion or 11 percent of the total contracts awarded in the last year and a half.

What’s more, even the worst-performing contractors who got more than one “Poor” or “Unsatisfactory” ratings still managed to win huge contracts; the vast majority only have a single failed rating.

A contractor that has four failed ratings got nine projects worth P186.9 million, which is more than four times the average value of contracts per company.

Another with three failed ratings won 32 contracts with a combined value of P245.2 million.

A company with two failed ratings won contracts worth P361.4 million, making it one of the 20 biggest contractors.

A ranking of the contractors by value of aggregate projects showed that two of the Top 10 contractors are not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It appears that two of the 10 biggest contractors are not in the SEC online database at all, possibly suggesting they are not corporations but only single-proprietorships.

Same with Arroyo

This brings to mind a similar finding made by the PCIJ in 2009 when it examined summary information on over 27,000 DPWH awarded contracts between 2000 and 2008, and discovered that four of the ten biggest contractors were not corporations but only sole-proprietorships.

Another contractor in the Top 10 list seems to be operating with a revoked SEC registration. That seems odd not only for one of biggest contractors around but one which also built the DPWH’s two biggest projects. Though it first registered way back in 1977, the company has no single report filed with the SEC’s online corporate records system.

Perhaps an SEC registration does not count for much in the construction industry so long as a contractor can do the job well. Indeed, nine of the contractors in the Top 10 list had a General Engineering rating of AAA, the highest, while one had a rating of AA, the second highest, according to the Philippine Construction Accreditation Board, the public-private joint body that issues licenses to construction companies wishing to do business in the country.

A PCAB rating of AAA or AA implies a certain degree of financial capacity to carry out and complete large-scale infrastructure projects. If a contractor is not registered with the SEC or does not submit timely reports to the corporate regulator, that makes it harder for the potential clients and the wider public to independently verify its financial position.

Madrasto says that some wily contractors file different financial statements with different agencies to suit different purposes. “They submit inflated figures with PCAB when seeking accreditation and deflated figures with the BIR (Bureau of Internal Revenue) to avoid paying a lot of taxes,” he says. “We in the PCA are advocating the harmonization of submissions to the different regulatory agencies.” – With additional research by Karol Ilagan, PCIJ, April 2012

THE PROVINCE of Pampanga is one of the worst places to be in during the rainy season. Located at the bottom of a geological depression, it lies at the heart of Central Luzon’s drainage system where floodwaters from surrounding provinces converge before rushing out into Manila Bay. And within it lies another sinkhole, the town of Candaba, an old lakebed whose swamps and fields offer a temporary resting place for migratory birds on their way to and from North Asia.

No wonder Candaba’s mayor was furious when Public Works Secretary Rogelio Singson in late July 2010 cancelled a P78-million contract to repair the town’s dikes and riverbanks that help contain waters of the Pampaga river.

At the time, Singson had barely warmed his seat at the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), having been appointed just less than a month before. Yet he seemed already on his way to making his first enemy as DPWH chief, with the Candaba mayor warning that if the river swelled and the dikes collapsed, floodwaters would submerge not just Candaba but also the towns of Mexico, Sta Ana, and San Fernando.

But the cancelled deal to rehabilitate Candaba’s embankments was just one among some 19 contracts for projects to rebuild infrastructure damaged by Typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng that the new secretary nullified after he found they were awarded with no public bidding.

In fact, within months of coming to power on June 30, 2010, the new administration either froze, modified, or cancelled scores of infrastructure projects, in accordance with President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III’s anti-corruption campaign.

The contract cancellations may have discomfited Candaba’s mayor — and perhaps many of the townspeople themselves. But little harm was done in the end.

A PCIJ review of DPWH databases on awarded civil-works contracts and bidding results reveals that most of the suspended flood-control projects were eventually bidded out and implemented. We also found the DPWH got much lower prices for the contracts to carry out the civil-works projects, suggesting the delays were well worth it.

This is quite a surprise for a department long perceived as hopelessly corrupt and inefficient. The PCIJ itself had no expectations when it reviewed about 2,600 biddings conducted by the DPWH 18 months before, and 20 months after, the Aquino administration came to power on June 30, 2010, to see if there have been any palpable improvements in its procurement activities. Copies or summaries of the bidding results are posted on the DPWH web site but PCIJ also asked for a copy of the database in spreadsheet format, which Singson readily granted. (Link to the DPWH online database)

A similar PCIJ request made to then DPWH secretary Hermogenes Ebdane Jr. was not granted in early 2009. (Related story: WB suspects, whistle-blowers bagged biggest DPWH deals)

Early gains

The PCIJ found that by most indications — and despite apparent resistance from some local officials — the much-maligned department seems to be finally paving its own daang matuwid (straight path), the battlecry of the Aquino administration.

For instance, the cost savings from awarding the suspended post-Ondoy and Pepeng rehabilitation projects through competitive tender could be signs of early gains from the new DPWH secretary’s campaign to curb graft in the department.

In Candaba, for example, the department tendered the contract to repair the dikes and riverbanks in January 2011, six months after it was cancelled. There were eight bidders, including Northern Builders, the original contractor, which offered the lowest bid of only P58.4 million, or a quarter less than the original contract price.

The difference amounts to some P24 million in real savings for the government; it gets the same structure built for much less. Northern Builders began construction in March 2011 and had completed 65.3 percent of the Candaba dike and riverbank works as of February this year.

Costs down 34%

Similarly, most of the 19 civil works contracts cancelled by Singson in July 2010 had been successfully bidded out in 2011, and many of the projects are already being built, according to data gathered by the PCIJ. At least three have been completed as of February 2012. New contract prices for 14 projects on which information is available show that the DPWH was able to bring down costs by an average of 34 percent compared to the original cost.

(Click here for the larger version of this table.)

(Click here for the DPWH database on status of projects and the DPWH database on awarded contracts)

Singson has overhauled procurement and administrative systems and procedures at the DPWH in a bid to clean up the agency, which emerged as the most corrupt government institution in a 2009 survey by polling group Pulse Asia.

That year, the World Bank debarred five construction companies and two of their owners for rigging a series of biddings for bank-funded road projects. The Bank also released an internal report where it alleged that a cartel composed of private contractors and public works officials has been “institutionalized and has operated with impunity for at least a decade, possibly longer,” on account of the “systemic corruption and bid rigging” in the Philippine public works sector.

It added that evidence gathered by World Bank investigators suggested, “the cartel may enjoy support at the highest levels of the Government of the Philippines, including several officials of the DPWH and even reaching the husband of the President (Gloria Macapagal Arroyo) herself.” (Related story: $45m lost to bribes for ‘cartel’ backed by DPWH, pols)

Singson has reshuffled DPWH officials to prevent them “from being too familiar with contractors and suppliers, and to reduce the opportunities for colluding with them.” Too, he had also replaced other officials with serious eligibility deficiencies and pending complaints or cases.

Curbing collusion

The gains from the DPWH’s moves to toughen procurement policies are not confined to suspended projects that were subsequently put up for bidding. There are indications the department is making broader progress in the battle to curb widespread collusion that has artificially inflated the cost of public works projects in the past.

The PCIJ’s review reveals that the average number of bidders for large projects worth P50 million and more went up from 1.3 under the Arroyo administration to 4.4 under Aquino. For projects valued at less than P50 million, the number of bidders rose only a bit from 1.3 to 2.4. More bidders suggest more competition, which should result in lower price bids for DPWH projects.

This seems to be happening especially for big civil-works projects. The PCIJ compared the lowest price bids with the authorized budget ceiling (ABC) before and after the Aquino administration came in. The ABC is the DPWH’s estimate of the maximum cost of carrying out a civil-works project. It expects price bids should be below the ceiling.

We found that the average “price cut,” or the difference between the ABC and the lowest bid, for projects worth P50 million more than doubled to 10.9 percent under Aquino from only 4.2 percent under Arroyo, suggesting more competition perhaps because of the increase in average number of bidders.

For projects worth less than P50 million, the “price cut” more than quadrupled to 4.7 percent under Aquino from 1.1 percent under Arroyo.

Savings rate up

The DPWH claims much better results. It estimates that savings, or the difference between ABC and the awarded amount, on 106 contracts for civil works, goods and consultancies tendered by the central office and project management offices between July 2010 and November 2011 averaged 15 percent.

Savings on 5,091contracts tendered by regional offices and engineering districts averaged only 10 percent, according to its 2011 accomplishment report. Interestingly, post-Typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng rehabilitation projects, which include contracts cancelled by Singson and tendered again in 2011, yielded the biggest savings of as much as 30 percent.

In peso terms, the savings amounted to P5.53 billion between July 2010 and November 2011, says DPWH, adding that it could reach P6 or P7 billion by the end of last year.

The department says that budget allocation for the 5,000 or more projects between mid-2010 and end-2011 was around P60.5 billion. The aggregate ABC, however, was just P52.7 billion and the total contract award for those projects reached only P47.1 billion.

The DPWH considers these results as an indication that the new administration’s moves to curb corruption and inefficiency are beginning to pay off. “Collusion in the bidding of public works projects is being addressed through transparency reforms and strict adherence to public bidding rules,” the department said in its 2011 accomplishment report.

Costly delays

Still, the DPWH’s estimated savings of P5.5 billion, commendable as it is, came after lengthy periods of administrative reviews that postponed the implementation of many projects. These inevitably delayed the completion of badly needed public works such as roads, bridges, classrooms, river dikes, irrigation canals, and others

Economists say the delays in the availability of these crucial facilities have costs, too, and must be taken into account in determining if the DPWH’s savings are indeed significant in the bigger scheme of things.

The impact of the contract cancellations go beyond affected places such as Candaba. The revoked or delayed projects were widely blamed for the Philippine economy growing much more slowly than it should have last year. Infrastructure and other capital outlays fell below budget by 34 percent or P82.7 billion, more than half the total amount of underspending by government in 2011. Though business leaders welcomed the new administration’s anti-corruption drive, many are worried that it is coming at the expense of economic growth.

“The DPWH’s estimates of savings from better procurement must be assessed against the economic costs of delayed infrastructures,” says former budget secretary Benjamin Diokno, now a professor of public finance at the University of the Philippines. “For example, there is a cost when a classroom fails to be completed on time, and that is the value of education foregone by children who cannot be accommodated in schools because of lack of classrooms.”

While estimating the costs of the delayed projects is difficult at this time, one can still have a sense of the magnitudes involved by comparing the DPWH accomplishments in the first 11 months of 2011 with its full-year targets. The department lists some 120 items as major final outcomes (MFO), a document that accompanies its annual budget, but reports accomplishments on only seven items related to the construction of roads and bridges.

Short of target

Based on the DPWH’s 2011 accomplishment report, the department appears to be short of its target to replace temporary bridges with permanent ones by 59.4 percent. That is equivalent 2,203 lineal meters of sturdier bridges, almost the same length at San Juanico Bridge. DPWH is also short of the target for building new bridges by 25.6 percent. That is equivalent to 1,039 lineal meters of new bridges that were not constructed. It is falling behind its target to rehabilitate paved roads by 22.6 percent, equivalent to 253 kilometers of better roads, almost the same as the distance between Manila and Baguio.

More than half of 833 school-building projects worth P754 million assigned to DPWH from the Department of Education in 2011 were not yet started as of November 2011. The DPWH hopes to catch up with its targets this year. It promised that all of the school-building projects began in 2010 and 2011 should be finished by the first quarter of 2012.

It managed to offset some of the shortfalls on its bridge building targets by building more new roads than planned. Of course, that is not much comfort to, say, a heavy-truck driver who must seek a longer route because a temporary or damaged bridge is not sturdy enough. Hopefully, as anti-corruption reforms take root at the department, honest tenders for public works projects would not come at the cost of their timely completion. – PCIJ, April 2012

AMID the rampant misdeclaration or underdeclaration of their Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) by senior public officials lies a prettier, often overlooked, picture: the few good men and women in high and low positions who follow the law most diligently and truthfully.

To this minority of good SALN filers belong a number of Cabinet members and officials of constitutional commissions. The ties that bind them are a few things. Most came from the private sector or the professions where they founded their wealth. They are political appointees, but until they became part of government nearly all had no history of engaging in party politics or running in elections. Of fairly senior age, most are self-made names with fairly good credentials or work portfolio, even before public office beckoned.

This exceptional few replicate the good example of rank-and-file civil servants who consider filing their SALNs as a most solemn duty. Various media reports on patterns of compliance with the SALN law have celebrated public school teachers, career service personnel, and low-level bureaucrats who submit fully accomplished SALNS every year without fail.

Their compliance with the law has been encouraged in part by employees associations, periodic reminders and review of their SALNs by agency human resource officers, and in the case of public school teachers, risk avoidance. Some public schools have set a firm policy: file no SALN by the April 30 annual deadline, collect no salary for the summer school break.

But trying to assess who filed what kind of SALN can be tricky, in part because those seeking access to SALNs find themselves being forced to go through hoops and red tape.

Faulty SALN filing can actually be a violation of several laws, among them the 1987 Constitution, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees or Republic Act No. 6713 (R.A. No. 6713), and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or Republic Act No. 3019 (R.A. No. 3019).

According to the R.A. No. 3019, “every public officer, within thirty days after assuming office and, thereafter, on or before the fifteenth day of April following the close of every calendar year, as well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation or separation from office, shall prepare and file… a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year.”

In addition, the Constitution says that public officials must disclose to the public copies of their SALNs.

The fundamental law of the land, in fact, prescribes disclosure of SALNs by senior-rank officials. It states: “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.”

Entry, exit SALNs

Transparency, under the Constitution, is a state policy. In Section 8, Article II, the Charter says: “Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.”

Indeed, apart from filing SALNs every year, the Constitution and R.A. No. 6713 require elective and appointive officials to also submit what might be called their entry and exit SALNs – the first refers to asset records they must file within 30 days from assumption into office, and the second, to asset records their must file within 30 days after resignation or separation from service.

SALN filers and custodians have just three simple tasks under the law, according to lawyer Nepomuceno Malaluan, co-convenor of the Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition. First, make a truthful declaration. Second, submit such declaration within deadline. Third, file and publicly disclose asset records.

The third is a shared task of both the filer and the SALN custodian, who receives, keeps, and is supposed to share SALN copies to the public, in the manner provided by law. Nonetheless, nothing stops all filers who have copies of their SALNs to share and disclose these outright, on request of the public or the media.

The law spells out the manner of disclosure of SALNs under its section titled “accessibility of documents,” says Malaluan. It provides that SALNs shall be made available for inspection at reasonable hours, and for copying or reproduction after 10 working days from the time they are filed, subject to the payment of a reasonable fee to cover the cost of reproduction and mailing of such statement, as well as the cost of certification.

Right to know

Complementing this duty to disclose is the people’s right to access information in the custody of public agencies that the Constitution also guarantees.

Disclosure is required precisely because SALNs are supposed to serve as instruments of such valued principles as transparency and the people’s right to know on one hand, and accountability and good governance on the other.

SALNs are a tracker document: they fix and plot the wealth of public officials, by type of assets and liabilities and time of acquisition, and from their dates of entry to and exit from public office.

SALNs are a reference document as well: they spell out, or should, the context and links of the wealth of public officials, their business interests and financial connections, and where exactly they might get into real, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest when they decide public policy or award public contracts and funds.

Malaluan says the members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission had set high hopes and standards for the potential of SALNs to affirm all these hallmarks of good governance.

The late Sen. Blas F. Ople, a ConCom member, did not see SALNs as documents that should just be archived or left to rot in the filing cabinets of public agencies. Disclosure of their SALNs, Ople had stressed, should be a bigger and more reasonable expectation of the most senior public officials.

Citing ConCom records, Malaluan quotes Ople as saying, “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.”

“(O)ne of the objectives it wishes to serve is the development of a higher level of ethical practice in the government,” Ople had also said, “so that it is addressed to the public’s right to know, but at the same time it would put all public officers within the compass of a duty to disclose their own conflict of interest when this arises or to make available information, such as statements of assets and liabilities and net worth, as a matter of obligation under this provision.”

Half and half

Far too few have heeded Ople’s words, however. Indeed, President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III and about half of his two dozen Cabinet-rank appointees filed 2010 SALNs that are largely lacking in substantive facts about when and how they acquired their real assets, as well as the details of their investments and liabilities.

Fortunately, the other half filed fairly to absolutely complete SALNs for 2010, in point of both form and substance.

The good filers include Agrarian Reform Secretary Virgilio de los Reyes, Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario, Energy Secretary Jose Rene Almendras, Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, Trade and Industry Secretary Gregory Domingo, Finance Secretary Cesar V. Purisima, Public Works and Highways Secretary Rogelio Singson, Tourism Secretary Ramon Jimenez, Presidential Legal Counsel Eduardo de Mesa, National Anti-Poverty Commission Chairman Jose ‘Joel’ Rocamora, Metro Manila Development Authority Chairman Francis Tolentino, Transportation and Communication Secretary Manuel ‘Mar’ Roxas and his predecessor, Jose ‘Ping’ de Jesus. All of them, except for Roxas, had not sought or assumed elective positions.

De los Reyes even attached his income tax return (Form 1700 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue) and his certificate of compensation tax withheld (BIR Form 2316) for the honorarium he received as professor at De La Salle University’s College of Law for the year 2010.

Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chairman Francisco T. Duque is exemplary for the depth of details of his SALN although it is under his watch that the CSC imposed an exorbitant fee of P200 on requesters for each SALN copy, which is typically all of two to five pages long.

Duque’s SALN for 2010 came with four annexed documents. Annex A listed10 real properties he owns, including the exact unit number of the condominium units and addresses of the houses, the exact months and years when he purchased each, and the amount he paid to the last peso, to acquire each one.

Annex B listed six motor vehicles and the exact years and amounts he paid for each one. Annex C listed five investment instruments he has in three country clubs and accounts in two banks, and the exact months and years when he acquired and opened these.

Annex D listed to the last all his jewelry – including two diamond rings with exact stone setting, paintings by Filipino masters that he identified by name, and when and at what cost he acquired these.

In the Cabinet, Foreign Secretary del Rosario comes closest to the completeness of the details that Duque enrolled in his SALN. For instance, del Rosario submitted a three-page list of his business interests and financial connections from1965 to 2010, as well as the executive and board positions he assumed in each one.

Commission on Elections Chairman Sixto Brillantes Jr. and former Commission on Audit Chairman Reynaldo A. Villar filed fairly complete SALNs as well.

Gaps in access

Filing SALNs is advisedly just the first step in complying with the law. The second step, filing truthful and complete SALNs, is the foremost compliance problem. But even worse, publicly disclosing SALNs promptly and at reasonable cost, the third step, seems the most sticky issue for now, a full 23 years after R.A. No. 6713 came into force.

“The public disclosure element plays a very vital cog in the system of accountability that the Constitution wanted to achieve on SALN,” wrote Malaluan in a recent commentary on SALNs. “But the public disclosure component leaves much to be desired in practice.”

He added that in some agencies, notably the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives, “one mechanism to frustrate compliance is through administrative avoidance.”

“Rather than facilitating the orderly implementation of Section 8 (C) of RA 6713, some government agencies apply instead the general duty, also under RA 6713, to act promptly on letters and request within 15 days from request,” Malaluan wrote. “Any response, including acknowledgement, referral, or indication of future action, is regarded as substantive compliance.”

High court huge barrier

Yet worst of all, Malaluan rued that some major custodians of SALNs, notably the Supreme Court again, the Civil Service Commission, and the Office of the Ombudsman, “have promulgated guidelines that go beyond reasonable regulation of the manner of access, and which appear intended more to subvert the plain, mandatory directive of the Constitution for disclosure of SALNs to the public.”

In May 1989, the high court issued an en banc resolution requiring requesters to state the purpose of the request and outlined the conditions under which requests would be denied. Three years later, in September 1992, the tribunal “issued an even more restrictive guideline authorizing the Court Administrator to act on requests only upon a court subpoena signed by a presiding judge in a pending criminal case against a judge or court personnel, or upon an appropriate request personally signed by the Ombudsman,” Malaluan wrote.

In June 2009 as Ombudsman, Ma. Merceditas N.Gutierrez issued Memorandum Circular No. 1 that, Malaluan said, “limits the legitimate reasons for requests, requires requests to be subscribed and sworn to, and introduces a wide discretion for denying requests for SALNs.” Gutierrez’s circular remains in force under the watch of Aquino appointee, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.

And finally, on March 11, 2011, the CSC adopted Resolution No. 100356 requiring SALN requests to be sworn to, and imposing a P200 fee for each SALN copy.

And even as it continues to refuse requests for the SALNs of the members of the House of Representatives that PCIJ filed 20 months ago, the lower chamber is also reportedly planning to adopt the CSC’s guidelines on the disclosure of SALNs.

Should this happen, and the House follows even the CSC’s imposition of a P200 fee per SALN copy, the asset records of nearly 300 district and party-list representatives is sure to cost journalists and researchers a fortune – about P60,000 for all the SALNs of the House members.

Already, the Commission on Elections has copied the CSC’s rules. The poll body now also collects a P200 fee for each SALN copy.

The following agencies are the custodians of SALNs:

• The national office of the Ombudsman, for the SALNs of the President, Vice President, and officials of the constitutional commissions (CSC, Comelec, COA).
• The secretary/secretary-general of the Senate and the House of Representatives, SALNs of the senators and congressmen.
• The clerk of court of the Supreme Court, SALNs of the justices.
• The court administrator, SALNs of the judges.
• The Office of the President, SALNs of the Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, and the heads of the foreign service missions, government-owned and –controlled corporations (GOCCs), and state colleges and universities (SUCs).
• The offices of the Deputy Ombudsman (for Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao), SALNs of regional and local officials and employees, both appointive and elective, including other officials and employees of GOCCs and SUCs.
• The Office of the President, SALNs of the officers of the Armed Forces from the rank of Colonel or Naval Captain, while those of lower rank, below with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions.
• The Civil Service Commission, SALNs of all other public officials and employees.

As a rule, though, copies must also be filed with the respective departments, agencies, and offices of the SALN filers.

FOI boon or bane?

But better compliance with the SALN law may soon happen – that is the guarded optimism that Malaluan holds in light of the long-awaited passage of the Freedom of Information Act. Last February, President Aquino finally transmitted to the Senate and the House his administration’s version of the FOI, which enrolls a provision on the mandatory disclosure and upload online via government websites of the SALNs of all public officials and employees.

Still, Malaluan reckons that good or bad things may happen. The good, he says, is that the FOI may enhance “proactive disclosure, procedure for access, and administrative and criminal penalties for violation of the right to information, plug loopholes not only with respect to access to SALNs but to all other government-held information.”

But the other possibility smells of trouble. Given the controversy that the SALN has generated in light of the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, Malaluan says that the provision on mandatory disclosure online of SALNs in the President’s FOI version could precisely draw heat and flak from the legislators, and challenge the passage of the FOI Act. – PCIJ, March 2012

WHATEVER THE outcome of the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, a once-ignored piece of document seems to be getting the attention it deserves at last. The question, however, is whether or not the general public’s increased familiarity with the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth or SALN would finally shame public servants into taking it seriously and accomplishing it beyond token compliance.

Corona is on trial at the Senate impeachment court in part for his alleged failure to disclose not just his SALN, but also the full details of his wealth. According to his prosecutors, Corona misdeclared, underdeclared, or did not declare multimillion pesos of cash and other assets.

But one inconvenient truth is that misdeclaration, underdeclaration, and non-declaration of all sorts of assets in SALNs are rampant across branches of government, political parties, and administrations. Tellingly, too, instead of providing the public greater access to SALNs, internal guidelines in the judiciary, the House of Representatives, and the Ombudsman have led to the opposite and have created more barriers to securing copies of a document that was supposed to help foster transparency in government.

In other words, both individual compliance by public officials and institutional compliance by public agencies with the SALN law are wanting and have failed to honor and do justice to its spirit.

Twenty-five years ago, a new Constitution heralded what should have been an era of transparency, accountability, and good governance in the country. Among other things, it triggered the mandatory filing and disclosure by all civil servants of their SALNs, under Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. R.A. No. 6713 was enacted in 1989.

The SALN is aimed at helping keep public servants honest, since the information it should contain would aid the public in keeping track of any sudden increases in a government employee or official’s wealth. The assumption, of course, is that the data entered in the SALN are all accurate and up to date. For any monitoring to be done, access to that data is also presumed.  

For years now, though, the SALNs of all members of the judiciary have been inaccessible to the public, including the media. Majority of Corona’s prosecutors and members of the House of Representatives have also dug in their heels regarding the release of their SALNs, reportedly because they want to skirt inquiry and intrigue – exactly the situation the chief justice is now in.

Poor form, substance

A cursory review of the SALNs of about 1,500 senior elective and appointive officials that PCIJ has gathered since 1998 yields a possible reason for this: SALNs are mostly deficient in form and substance, with the habitual and seemingly non-disclosure pointing to flagrant sins of commission instead of mere sins of omission.

Many officials, for instance, still refuse to disclose the full details of the current/fair market and assessed values of their real properties, their exact location, and the size of their real properties. They include President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III himself, Budget Secretary Florencio ‘Butch’ Abad, Health Secretary Enrique T. Ona, and some senators, congressmen (as of their 2009 SALN), and other Cabinet members. 

For a man who knows both his law and his money, Abad offers a puzzling SALN. He reported owning six real properties worth less than a million pesos or basement prices that could leave eBay and sulit.com bargain hunters slack-jawed in envy.

The six properties that Abad enrolled in his December 2010 SALN include a lot and a house in Quezon City (which he said bought and built in 1983 and 1990, and with assessed values of only P203,040 and P584,550), three lots in Batanes (acquired on sale in 2001, 2004, and 2008, with assessed values of P2,250, P64,000, P33,370), and a lot in Batangas (acquired in 2008 with assessed value of P105,000).

Altogether, Abad declared the assessed value of his six real properties to be only P993,070. He left blank the columns for data on current/fair market value and acquisition cost of his real properties.

Meanwhile, Health Secretary Ona, who had a long lucrative private practice as a kidney doctor before his Cabinet posting, declared a net worth of P78.24 million in his December 2010 SALN.  But he opted to be mum about the details of his wealth; regarding his real properties, Ona simply typed the word “various” under the columns for “kind,” “location,” and “year acquired,” and left blank those for the assessed value and fair market value of his properties.

Ona’s net worth was shored up, however, by unspecified “stocks and investments” declared at P75.43 million, even as he reported liabilities such as “personal loans” of P5 million, a car loan from a bank of P750,000, and income tax payable of P65,059.50.

Similarly, President Aquino himself filled out his SALNs for June 2010 and December 2010 by simply typing “various” on and on under the columns for personal and other properties, leaving out many important details like his purchase of a second-hand Porsche (that he later sold), and the firearms he owns.

Cash & investments

PCIJ’s survey of SALNs also shows that while many officials declare having piles of cash on hand and in bank, and investments, they do not disclose how and in what years they acquired their millions.

There is also a tendency by many officials to claim huge sums of investments, time deposits, stocks, and money market placements, but they would not disclose in which business entities, companies or establishments these are lodged. 

Examples of such filers are Vice President Jejomar Binay and Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas, Jr., chair of the justice committee and lead prosecutor in the Corona impeachment trial.

Binay declared a net worth of P58.09 million in his latest SALN as of December 2010 – all of it representing assets. He had zero liability.

He declared 12 real properties (three in Makati City, three in Batangas, two in Laguna, one each in Muntinlupa, Cavite, Isabela, and Bataan). Of the 12, Binay said he purchased seven, inherited two, earned two others as legal service fees, while two remain mortgaged.

Binay placed the acquisition cost of the 12 properties at only P16.88 million. 

He reported though a constantly growing amount of personal and other properties totaling P42.7 million, or nearly three times more than his real properties. This accounts for P17.52 million “cash on hand and in bank”, P11 million in “receivables,” P7.07 million in “furnitures, antiques, clothings, etc”, and P4.05 million in “investment in business” that Binay said was the “exclusive property of the spouse.”

As for Tupas, his SALNs offer a curious case of constantly rising investments in “time deposits and money markets.”

He reported a significant steady growth in his net worth, according to his disclosed SALNs for 2007, 2008, and 2009, or the years when he served in the 14th Congress.

As of his latest available SALN – 2009 – “time deposits/money market” assets seem to be the pivot of Tupas’s wealth, even as it first appeared only in his 2008 SALN. It just kept growing, despite the fact of the global financial crisis that sent markets in Europe tumbling down in 2008 to the present.

In July 2007, Tupas said he had P8.5 million cash in bank, but zero “investments” or “time deposits/money market” assets. In December 2007, his cash in bank stood at P11.5 million, but still he had zilch for “time deposits/money market.” By December 2008, however, his cash in bank slipped to P2 million, and a new entry, “investments,” came in, which Tupas valued at P11.7 million.

In December 2009, the term “investments” disappeared in his SALN; in its place, Tupas reported he had “time deposits/money market” assets worth P22 million.

The paper trail of real properties (i.e. land, houses, buildings) is fuller and stricter, thus easier to track. In contrast investment instruments could be shrouded in corporate veil, or brokered and sealed with agents, thus easier to hide.

Conflict of interest?

But by not disclosing in which business entities they have investments, public officials open themselves up to conflict of interest situations, which anti-graft laws say could be real, perceived, or potential. Hence transparency requires that they disclose these details.

Too, while many officials admit to incurring huge loans, mortgages, and other liabilities from relatives, friends, banks, credit card agencies, and business associates, they withhold data on the names of their creditors. Yet again, by not disclosing the identities of their creditors, public officials open themselves up to real, perceived, and potential conflict of interest situations.

And even if the SALN form requires the disclosure of specific data, including the incomes of the filer and his or her spouse, many officials do not, or simply will not, file honestly and fully, often leaving the columns blank. 

There are also some senior officials who fill out their forms by hand – which would not be a bad thing in itself, except that the data enrolled usually end up illegible. 

Ex, present Ombudsman 

This is fortunately not the case with the SALN of Ombudsman Conchita . Yet what she filed may likely raise a few eyebrows anyway. 

As a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court, Carpio-Morales’s SALN had not been disclosed previously, on account of court resolutions that placed the SALNs of all justices, judges, and court personnel secret from the public.

But when she assumed office as Ombudsman in June 2011, Carpio-Morales promptly filed her SALN in July 2011. She would not voluntarily release copies of her SALN, though, until last January 2012, amid the impeachment trial of Corona for, among others, non-disclosure of his SALNs.

Carpio-Morales declared a net worth of P40.75 million, representing P14.1 million in real properties and P29.04 million in personal and other properties, but also P2.4 million in liabilities. The last amount, she reported, was “amortization of purchase price of condo unit” to her creditor, the “Eton Group of Companies.”

She said P14.10 million was the total  “acquisition cost” of the nine real properties she “purchased” or built – three residential lots in Muntinlupa, a house and lot in Lemery, Batangas, three condominium units (located at The Fort, Manila, and Albergo in Baguio City), and two memorial lots.

She purchased two of the three condominium units only recently: The Fort condo in 2008 supposedly for P4 million flat, and the Baguio City condo in 2011, for P2,508,000.

Yet while Carpio-Morales reported the “acquisition cost” of all her nine properties, she left blank all the other columns in her SALN where she should have disclosed such details as assessed value, current fair market value, and nature of property (paraphernal, conjugal or community).

She also did not disclose how much in income she is getting as Ombudsman, and what the P25 million she has in “cash/investment inclusive of retirement benefits” actually consists of, in which entities she has investments, and how much of the total was her “retirement benefits.”

In comparison, Carpio-Morales’s resigned predecessor, Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, had stated in her December 2010 SALN the annual income she was getting as Ombudsman: P743,673.50.

Gutierrez also declared the “current/fair market value” of seven real properties she said were “conjugal” assets (three inherited, two “donation”, and two “sale on installment”). She tagged these to be worth P69.5 million in all.

Yet like Carpio-Morales, Gutiertrez withheld details of the P7.5 million she said she has as “investments/savings/retirement benefits,” as well as details of the P13 million of her “loans, credit cards” liabilities that she said she owed “banks/private.”  

In her 2006 SALN, Gutierrez said her P19.8-million “liabilities” then included P4.5-million “loans” with PCIB Equitable, P10.8-million “mortgages” with Allied Bank, and P4.5 million in “private loans.”

The senator-judges

Among the senator-judges, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen. Edgardo J. Angara stand out with their fully filled-out SALNs, which show to the last detail of the registration and plate numbers of their vehicles, and dates of acquisition of how many stocks in whichever companies.

In contrast, like President Aquino, opposition Sen. Manuel B. Villar repeatedly typed “various dates” under the column for  “year of acquisition” of his real estate and other properties in his 2010 SALN. 

All that Villar revealed were “investment in shares of stocks” worth P147.8 million, and “other real and personal properties” worth P572.8 million. His net worth: P725.2 million, with zero liabilities.

The colorful Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago meanwhile said in her 2010 SALN that her assets include nine residential and two agricultural lots (six located in La Paz, Tarlac; two in Iloilo, and one in Lipa, Batangas) worth only P4.18 million. 

The bulk of her wealth or P100.3 million consists of personal and other properties, including P51.2 million “cash on hand/in bank” and P29.06 million in “investments” in unnamed business entities. But because she declared P60 million in “personal loans” to unnamed creditors, Santiago’s net worth slipped to only P40.3 million.

Sen. Joker P. Arroyo filed possibly the most trite of all SALNs among his colleagues. He declared a net worth of P11.05 million in his 2010 SALN. He said he had P7.9 million in “investments” and offered no further details. He also said he owns a “residential” property in Makati City that he said was worth P3.15 million. 

Arroyo, a known resident of posh Dasmariñas Village in Makati, said he acquired it in 1968 for P450,000, but that its assessed value now is only P150,000; he constructed his house for P1.05 million, but that he had improvements made so its value should now be worth P3 million.  

Why bad compliance?

Lawyer Nepomuceno Malaluan, co-convenor of the Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition of the advocates of the Freedom of Information Act, sees three apparent reasons for bad compliance with the law.

The first and least worrisome: Officials who think the SALN is an invasion of their privacy. Malaluan says that “the fear of calling attention to their wealth, of being investigated” could be the most common reason why some officials do not want to expose details of their real and cash assets. 

But the lawyer says that “privacy is not an option for public officials,” and argues: “The minute they embraced public office, they have to embrace the principle of a public office is a public trust. Your personal discomfort (about lack of privacy) must be overcome because of your public mandate.”

Second and a bit worrisome: Officials with a “puwede na” attitude or who take to their duties, including filling out SALN forms, half-heartedly, or with less than best effort. 

“There are officials who think that filling out some spaces and leaving others blank is good enough.” Malaluan notes. And because the SALN custodians are not looking or auditing compliance by form and substance, these officials get away with filing defective or deficient SALNs year on year.

While the first two groups may not be readily accused of “malice” or “malicious intent to deceive” in filing bad SALNs, Malaluan takes exception to yet a third, and the most worrisome, group: officials who file defective or deficient SALNs “knowingly and willfully, with intent to deceive, to hide their unexplained wealth, to avoid compliance with the law.”

This third group includes, he says, “those who want to conceal corruption.”

According to Malaluan, any discussions on how to improve compliance with and enforcement of the SALN law must acknowledge these “multiple tendencies of non-disclosure.” 

Yet even more important, he says, the myriad problems of implementation must be the target of reforms. These include “the problems introduced by internal guidelines in some agencies, the norms and systems for disclosure of documents across government, the standards for filing and filling out SALN forms, and the lack of review by custodians of the quality of SALNs filed.”

Public demand

Through it all, Nepomuceno says the citizens have to demand better and more truthful compliance by public officials. “The reality is there should be more pressure from the people for public officials to disclose, and to disclose truthfully, their assets, their wealth.”

Jose Manuel Diokno, dean of De La Salle University’s College of Law and national chairman of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), for his part assigns the greatest role in punishing bad SALN filers to the Office of the Ombudsman.

After all, apart from simply submitting SALNs, all public officials are also obliged to grant the Ombudsman access to their tax records – yet another document that could help validate the integrity of the sources of their wealth.

Diokno cites that the law, or R.A. No. 6713, already imposes on all public officials the obligation “to execute…the necessary authority in favor of the Ombudsman to obtain from all appropriate government agencies, including the Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents as may show their assets, liabilities, net worth, and also their business interests and financial connections in previous years, including, if possible, the year when they first assumed any office in the Government.”

Reiterating a recent FLAG position paper on the issue, Diokno says, “It appears, however, that our public officials have never complied with this requirement; and the Ombudsman has never exercised its right of access to public officials’ BIR and other government records to determine if they are acquiring ill-gotten wealth.” – PCIJ, March 2012

According to the report, “Children in an Urban World,” children living in slums are among the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in the world because they are deprived of the most basic services. While children in cities generally enjoy greater access to schools, health centers, and recreational facilities, the study found that many are denied of necessities like clean water, electricity, and health care.

A streetchild in Dasmariñas City. Photo by Florenz Sison, PCIJ intern

Citing the Philippines as an example, UNICEF deputy representative Dr. Abdul Alim said that children who live in poor urban communities experience deprivations such as lack of decent housing and limited access to clean water. These children, Alim said, are more exposed to disaster risks and are also more prone to neglect, abuse, and exploitation.

Estimates from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) reveal that almost one in every two Filipinos or 49 percent of the entire population live in urban areas as of 2011. At present, there are 32 highly urbanized cities in the country. These are areas that have a minimum population of 200,000 and an annual income of P50 million.

Metro Manila is the most populated urban area with 11.5 million people, where an estimated 1.7 million children live in informal settlements. In the Philippines, a person below 18 years of age is considered a child. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) data indicate that children living in Metro Manila, Cebu, Davao, and other large- and medium-sized cities experience severe deprivation of shelter (1.45 percent of total), of potable water (8.33 percent), and of toilet facilities (6.15 percent), among others.

In Metro Manila alone, less than half or only 46 percent of the urban poor has access to improved drinking water. This figure, according to UNICEF, is far below the national average of 91 percent and the average for the total urban population of 93 percent. And while four of five people residing in urban areas use improved sanitation facilities, nearly half of the urban population in Metro Manila do not. The national average, meanwhile, is at 76 percent or three in four people. (See related story: “Urbanization by the numbers.”)

UNICEF also reports that the vast majority of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) transmission takes place in urban areas. In fact, records show that more than 50 percent of all 2011 HIV infections were registered in Metro Manila, and one out of three of these newly reported cases involve persons between 15 and 24 years old.

A streetchild in Dasmariñas City. Photo by Florenz Sison, PCIJ intern

As for education, health, and other indicators, Alim pointed out that aggregate data obscure the situation of urban-poor children because statistical averages lump together all city dwellers, including both the rich and poor. According to the report, the needs of the poorest can be overlooked when these averages are used in drafting policies and allocating resources.

UNICEF also reports that children who live and work on the streets in the major cities of the country are particularly vulnerable to human traffic, sexual exploitation, violence, and drug abuse. Estimates of these children now reach about quarter of a million in major cities.

At the report’s launch at the Sulô Riviera Hotel in Quezon City, Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse Robredo specifically raised issues concerning children in conflict with the law (CICL), referring to the batang-hamog and the bukas-taxi gang, or the groups of children who steal from cars stuck in traffic jams, among others.

According to Robredo, around 52,500 children were in detention or under custodial settings from 1995 to 2000. Thus, an average of 10,500 children was being arrested every year, or about 28 children per day, or more than one child per hour. From January to October 2004, 2,121 children were arrested and placed under custody, based on Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) records. Yet, Robredo said, there is a lack of halfway houses for children among local government units. Just like adult prisoners, children in detention centers are likely to suffer sexual, physical, and psychological abuse, he noted. “If jail is harsh for adults,” added Robredo, “you can imagine how it is harsh for them (children).”

A streetchild in Dasmariñas City. Photo by Florenz Sison, PCIJ intern

For UNICEF’s Alim, addressing these problems should begin with the availability of intra-urban data, or a set of more focused and accurate information necessary to help identify inequalities among children in urban areas. He also suggested removing barriers to inclusion so that marginalized children and their families would be able to enjoy services and the core elements of citizenship such as legal protection and security of housing tenure.

Robredo meanwhile said that local governments have the “unique opportunity to rewrite the rules for a world fit for children.” The former Naga City mayor suggested going beyond the provision of affordable shelter and building “communities where the young are nourished and not scared of constant demolition.” He said that the Aquino administration has allotted P10 billion every year in the next five years to house 120,000 informal settlers living in major areas.

As well, the DILG chief said that local governments must ensure that the structure created by law to protect the rights of children is funded and functional. He noted that the proposed memorandum circular to monitor LGU compliance to Republic Act No. 9344 or the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006” has already been uploaded on the DILG website for comments.

The memorandum covers the four major mandates of local governments, which include: the allotment at least one percent of an LGU’s internal revenue allotment for the Local Councils for the Protection of Children; appointment of a Local Social Welfare and Development Officer to assist children in conflict with the law; development of a local, comprehensive juvenile intervention program; and, the establishment youth homes for CICLs.” – With additional reporting by Darlene Basingan, PCIJ intern

In this new version, former President Ferdinand Marcos is portrayed as the real hero of EDSA for refusing to fire upon the assembled crowds in February 1986; EDSA was a gathering of military adventurists, veteran professional protesters and communists, and hakot crowds; and Corazon Aquino stayed tucked away in the safety of Cebu while unwitting civilians put their lives on the line.

Marcos is hailed as the one who built massive infrastructure projects and rebuilt the economy; he is also the one who turned back the communists at the gates of Malacanang by declaring Martial Law. In addition, Marcos is portrayed as a close friend of oppositionist Benigno ‘Ninoy’ Aquino Jr., whom he jailed during Martial Law. In fact, this version says, Marcos and Ninoy would even chat with each other using scrambler telephones. As such, Marcos could never have ordered Ninoy’s assassination.

As the nation marks the 26^th anniversary of what the world has come to know as the People Power Revolution, young Filipinos who never experienced the events of February 1986 are left wondering again what all the ruckus is about. But what is most striking is the fact that this alternate version of the story is one that more and more young Filipinos are tuning into – and apparently identifying with and liking.

This new version of the People Power story is being told over the Internet through social media sites, in a nine and a half minute video that seems like a cross between the Angry Birds game and the movie ‘Gladiator,’ with heart-pounding music, bold primary colors, and moving graphics, yet with simple lines of text that are well attuned to what one viewer calls the “Powerpoint generation.”

Hidden truths?

Titled “Ninoy + People Power: Hidden Truths the Media is not Telling Us!”, the video began gaining popularity in YouTube by the middle of last year and has since become viral. It has appeared or has been reposted in numerous websites and YouTube channels, and pops up repeatedly in FaceBook.

The video’s creator, who calls himself Baron Buchokoy, maintains a YouTube channel called PinoyMonkeyPride. As of mid-February, the video that was posted in Buchokoy’s YouTube account in June 2011 already has more than 200,000 views. Buchokoy implies that the video has had more views, saying that the video in fact was just re-uploaded “since the powers that be hacked and removed it recently from YouTube.”

This is proof, Buchokoy says in his introduction to the YouTube video, that “someone or some group is trying to hide the truth.”

“Please spread the message,” he adds. “Marcos is the least suspect in the Ninoy assassination and that only 2% of the 1986 Philippine population attended EDSA People Power. Let’s end Filipino ignorance. It ends now.”

IN THE past, such assertions had merely been dismissed as rumblings of Marcos sympathizers keen on putting their own spin into the history books to rehabilitate a fallen icon.

“The points are not very new,” says Mon Casiple, executive director of the Institute for Political and Economic Reform (IPER). “These came out immediately after the assassination of Ninoy and right after EDSA 1.”

“All these arguments were made by Marcos-aligned groups,” Casiple says. “It is a mixture of truth, lies, omissions, and, of course, a little bit of popular handling.”

“That falsification or distortion of history may go some length, but it is like you can change the perception of Hitler and the Nazi regime,” comments Rene Saguisag, former spokesman of then President Corazon Aquino. “You saw the human rights violations and the plunder committed by the Marcoses during their merciless martial rule.”

Old version, new traction

But if the number of views and the lively and passionate comments on YouTube are to be any indication, this new “old” version appears to be gaining traction with the youth. Too, the video is told in the language and the pace of the Net and video generation, something that neither pro-EDSA nor pro-Marcos proponents were able to maximize before.

“It’s effective,” says 20-year-old Darlene Basingan, a PCIJ intern from De La Salle University in Cavite, after watching Buchokoy’s video. “Marcos was portrayed very negatively in the stories I had heard about EDSA. So I wondered if it could be true that everything about Cory was positive. Now I have been enlightened as to the truth after watching this video.”

She says Marcos “wasn’t all negative” during the uprising. “Hindi naman pala niya gusto atakihin ang mga tao (He didn’t want to attack the people).”

“This should be viewed by the youth,” says Basingan. “I suppose everything said here is true, based on facts, and not just someone’s imagination. If that is the case, this should be seen by other youth so they can have a bigger perspective of People Power.”

“This is the only time I learned about this,” says JB, a sophomore computer science major. “I had never seen or heard about these things in any documentary. Not everything we heard about EDSA was true.”

In Buchokoy’s YouTube account, a post by MrLangam read, “I used to be fooled by our history teacher using a false book.”

“The only thing I can say is that this country needs a new Marcos, and history needs some revision,” said Maimiewow.

“I cried after watching this video… this country is dying,” said Dyna1226. “Like a patient with cancer stage4.”

Meanwhile, anelio21 said, “Dami na nating nagising na mga Filipino dahil sa video na ito. Maraming salamat sa gumawa nito (There are a lot of us who were awakened with this video. Thank you to the one who made this.).”

Yet while the comments were overwhelmingly in favor of the video and its message, not everyone has been a happy fan. Said genocide222: “Most people who are commenting here are probably too young to really know what happened so please just don’t comment. Cory had a country that were in ruins in every aspect and was destined to fail, Marcos on the other hand came in with an economy that was one of the best in Asia and he just built on that, and he did a good job on that. I just think he became obsessed with the idea that he is the savior? of the country and did not want to let go. That’s why he was threatened by Ninoy.”

Macoy, Ninoy ties

THE VIDEO is divided into three parts. The first part opens with the accomplishments of Ferdinand Marcos during his 21-year reign, including the building of structures like the San Juanico Bridge, the Philippine Heart Center, and the Cultural Center of the Philippines. Marcos, the video says, built more roads, bridges, and schools than any of the other presidents who succeeded him combined; the exchange rate was two pesos to the U.S. dollar, and the country had supposedly become self-sufficient in rice. The video transitions to Martial Law, where Marcos throws suspected communists in jail, including his main opponent, Ninoy Aquino.

The video then relates how Marcos did not implement the death penalty on Ninoy, and even allowed him and his family to travel to the United States. The video goes to some length, using quotes and video clips, to show that Marcos and Ninoy had a special relationship that was “intentionally silenced in Philippine history.” Buchokoy then asserts that Ninoy was never a threat to Marcos, and that Marcos had selected him as his successor.

The second part sets the stage for the EDSA revolt. Marcos won in the 1986 snap elections even though, the video says, there was massive cheating on both sides. When then defense minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Police Constabulary chief Fidel Ramos break away from Marcos, Buchokoy says that “Cardinal Jaime Sin called upon innocent Manilenos, hakot crowds, communists, curious civilians, and the yellow army” to assemble in EDSA.

There were four elements in EDSA, Buchokoy says: an “absent leader” who was identified as Cory Aquino; “zealous nuns”; “veteran professional communist protesters”; and “catholic (sic) civilians” summoned by Sin.

“EDSA revolution was only peaceful and non-violent because of one completely ignored and silenced fact,” Buchokoy says in his video. And this was that Marcos ordered the marines “not to attack.”

In the last part of the video, Buchokoy says the “old oligarchy that Marcos abolished” was back in power, controlling industry and the media and demonizing everything about Marcos. Twenty-five years after EDSA, Buchokoy says its legacy is “monopoly of the oligarchs, hegemony of the media, mediocre life of the middle class, and eternal suffering of the poor.”

Gloss & drama

Veteran television news producer and blogger Paul Farol says there is no denying that Buchokoy’s video was successful in pushing its message across to the youth.

“When I first saw it, I actually had to stop myself from buying into everything it was saying,” confesses Farol. “It was so well-made, it was glossy, it was sexy, it had all the elements, it had dramatic tension, it had imagery that played out the story well. And it did not do it with a voice over or anything like that. It was just images and words and sound bites.”

University of the Philippines professor and former student activist Vim Nadera also says it’s a far cry from all the other documentaries or stories made about EDSA.

“The one who made this comes from the Powerpoint generation,” he says. “The style indicates someone young, not someone from our generation who relied on the mimeograph.”

Speculating that the videomaker could be as young as his students, Nadera says that the text is laid out like poetry — “line by line.” He explains, “If you’re looking for a fair, deep, or accurate message, this is not the kind of sentence form you would use. It is like poetry, with line-by-line cutting. I suspect a youth made this, and he fit everything into the space that can be handled by a cell phone or an Ipad.”

“IT IS a professionally made video, the one who conceptualized this knows his stuff,” says political analyst Casiple. “He observed the rules of mass communication: give just a hint, nothing heavy-handed; it tried to portray itself as balanced.”

This, Casiple says, is where the danger lies: In presenting itself as a balanced account of EDSA, the video liberally uses facts and quotes out of context. For example, says Casiple, it may be wrong to portray EDSA as a gathering of professional communist protesters when the communists themselves were divided over EDSA.

“The context at the time was that the communists had a boycott stance,” he says. “They actually have a problem politically on how to identify with EDSA. And in history, it’s clear that there was a debate about it within the movement.”

“The communists stayed away and admitted that they committed a blunder,” says Saguisag. “In other words, when they say people power, it was really the people, it was not military power or communist power, kundi pami-pamilya na handa magbuhos ng dugo para sa bayan (but families that were ready to shed blood for the nation). That was the time we were asking what can we do for the country, and not what the country can do for us.”

Twisting truth

Nadera’s objection is more fundamental. His sector, the youth, was not even included in the video. He says that he is upset that he wasn’t among those included by the videomaker as having joined EDSA. “He didn’t include me,” he repeats. “There was no youth or student seeking change.”

On the point about Cory Aquino being in Cebu during EDSA, Casiple says the facts had never been in dispute. When Enrile and Ramos announced their breakaway from Marcos on Feb. 22, 1986, Cory Aquino was in a convent in Cebu. “That’s also clear in history, Cardinal Sin was the one who called for EDSA,” says Casiple. “What’s not debatable is that Cory was identified by the people as part of EDSA.”

“There’s a certain twisting of the truth,” he says, “because the video cites actual video and actual quotes, but they’re all out of context. If you’re not careful and you don’t know your history, you can be easily convinced (by it).”

INTERESTINGLY, THE person responsible for all this renewed debate about EDSA has not even revealed himself. For all the attention he has gotten, no one seems to know Buchokoy’s real name, his affiliations, or if he is one person or a group of persons.

“Why doesn’t the creator of this video identify himself? By keeping himself anonymous, the video creator is no different from the other “propagandists” he is? railing against,” said tetablanco in Buchokoy’s YouTube channel three months ago.

In his YouTube channel, Buchokoy described himself as a 35-year-old artist who is “fighting against ignorance in Philippine society through the utilization of graphic materials such as animations and comic strips.”

“This Filipino visual artpiece is created, authored and directed by a conservative Filipino citizen residing in the Philippines,” Buchokoy said. “This video is not Marcos propaganda. It is all about what media is not telling us. After 25 years, it is now obvious that Cory administration is more violent with more journalist dead in her 6 year term compared to Marcos’ 29 years. She also suffered 8 coup attempts which is a reflection of her administrations rampant corruption.”

Buchokoy’s videos in PinoyMonkeyPride have already had a total of 2.1 million views, with 11,909 subscribers. Buchokoy’s channel contains 25 videos, all of them running along similar themes critical of EDSA, the Cojuangcos and the Aquinos, of economic and political policies implemented since 1986, and of the influence exerted by television giant ABS-CBN and the broadsheet Philippine Daily Inquirer on the public and on the government.

PR’s handiwork?

Farol is one of a few who have been in contact with Buchokoy in the past, and only then, it was done through private messages on the Net. Even he is not clear who Buchokoy is or who he represents.

“Some part of me thinks Baron may or may not be just one person,” says Farol. “The work he did I think he cannot do it by himself, unless you have help. Maybe he is working as a group.”

In one message last year, Farol told Buchokoy that a reporter wanted to schedule an interview with him. Buchokoy replied that he would rather remain anonymous. “He said, ‘It is better that no one surfaces, so that people just focus on the work and the message that I’m trying to give’,” Farol recounts.

Casiple, however, believes that Buchokoy is the product of a well-funded production house contracted by a public relations firm whose message is simple: “Si Marcos ay para sa tao, at ang lahat ng nangyari, including people power, were plots against the people (Marcos was for the people, and everything that happened, including people power, were plots against the people).”

Says Casiple: “As a propaganda video, nag succeed siya.”

The PCIJ tried to get in touch with Buchokoy through his Facebook and YouTube accounts, but there was no reply.

Another blogger, Warlito Vicente, who goes by the online name of BongV, says Buchokoy is an animator for “a firm that contracts animation from overseas.” Vicente says Buchokoy preferred to use a pseudonym “as he is cautious about security – you know how it is in the Philippines.”

Flaws in psyche

VICENTE SAYS Buchokoy merely translated into video some of the ideas that he had seen in the websites antipinoy.com and getrealphilippines.com, which he supports. The two websites are not purely political websites. In fact, they are meeting places for politically and socially active Filipinos who have a critical take, not only of Philippine politics, but of Philippine society, culture, and current events.

“Their thing is about critical thinking, not politics,” Farol says. “Although some have adopted more political lines like economic liberalization, parliamentary form of government, and decentralization. They look at the flaws in the Filipino psyche and highlight them so that other people look at it and try to change it.”

Farol dismisses any insinuation that the sites’ active members are pro-Marcos and anti-Aquino. “They are not anti-Noynoy or anti-Cory, but it is very convenient for them to have these characters to dissect, to use Cory as a symbol of what may be wrong in the country,” he says. “There are a lot of people in that group that are anti-Marcos also.”

He also doesn’t think that Buchokoy’s take on EDSA is a rewriting of history. Says Farol: “I think everyone came from EDSA with their own story. Each person who walked between the length of those two camps came out with their story. Maybe this is Baron’s story. Maybe his parents were there. Maybe he heard the story and absorbed it and then made his own story about EDSA. One view of EDSA is no more valid than the other views of EDSA.”

Nadera and Casiple acknowledge that Buchokoy’s identity is not as important as his message, and its impact on a new generation that never experienced EDSA and live through it only through the little they find in the history books.

Promise, results gap

“We did an analysis of the textbooks in the Philippines,” Casiple recounts. “For the period covering martial law, there was a deafening silence by the textbooks on the human rights violations. They treated it like an ordinary period of any presidential term. Edsa was never given a special place.”

He says Buchokoy’s video taps into the yearning and frustrations of the youth for a better life. After hearing all the promises of EDSA that the older generation like to talk about every time February rolls around, many youths feel alienated and at a loss. If EDSA was such a good thing, Casiple notes, then why are we were we are today?

“They see that there are the same problems like corruption,” he says. “What tie them together are aspirations, but there is a twist. They go by the results, not the process.”

“If that trend is not reversed,” says Casiple, “in a few years, we will have a majority of voters who did not go through that period, and who therefore, will be susceptible to videos like this.”

Saguisag for his part says he is not worried, and that there is enough evidence around of Marcos’s dictatorial rule, if only people would bother to look. “I feel confident that this video will not gain a far reaching effect because the relatives, friends, and grandchildren of the victims of Marcos are still here,” he says. “It will not succeed. I hope not. I do not want my grandchildren apologizing, saying my grandfather was stupid for fighting against a hero.”

Not quite finished

But Nadera says the success of Buchokoy’s video is still a reminder to Filipinos that we live in a country of “short memories” and “unfinished businesses.”

“It is the fault of our generation that should have cared for the torch of EDSA,” he says. “We neglected it because we thought that it all ended after we got rid of Marcos. It is easy to get the medal, but to be worthy of wearing it always is another thing altogether. The same goes for our victory in EDSA. It should not have ended with the ouster of Marcos.”

“There is a shortness of memory because there are no reminders,” says Casiple. “If all you know of Marcos is that he is a great speaker, or that he is handsome, well, you are dead, because you do not know roles these people played in the history of the Philippines.

“Some people have realized that when something happens like EDSA, it is not the end of the road where everything is resolved and the hero goes off to lalala land where everything is made of gold,” Farol says. “Democracy is a continuing struggle that is never finished. People must challenge the views out there.”

“Maybe,” mulls Farol, “Baron is challenging the view that Cory gave us democracy. And that is his view, and it is his right.”

Nadera agrees with Farol, but adds one more point. Baron Buchokoy may be critical of the democracy that came after EDSA, but it is the same democratic space that he now uses to have his voice heard. Points out Nadera: “In the time of Cory, you could just criticize her, and you would hear all sorts of things, that she was an ordinary housewife who knew nothing. But you would not be jailed for that.”

“That is democracy, that is what Cory’s government gave us, and that is the legacy of EDSA,” he says. “That you can criticize all you want without fear, just as this video is doing.” – With additional reporting by Winona Cueva, PCIJ, February 2012

A documentary on the murder of Doc Gerry Ortega, produced by the PCIJ with support from the Open Society Institute (OSI)

EXACTLY ONE YEAR ago today (January 24), a gunman shot dead Palawan environmentalist and broadcast journalist Doc Gerry Ortega along Puerto Princesa’s busy highway. Ortega was one of Palawan’s most popular radio commentators, anchoring the radio program “Ramatak” on DWAR Radio Mindanao Network.

The alleged gunman, Marlon Recamata, was immediately caught by passing firemen and charged with murder. Recamata was also caught on the local government’s CCTV cameras casing the scene of the crime, and fleeing immediately after Ortega’s murder.

More importantly, Recamata pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, and identified his other co-conspirators, including former marine soldier Rodolfo Edrad, who allegedly coordinated the whole operation. In turn, Edrad turned state witness, and identified former Palawan Governor Joel Reyes and Marinduque Governor Jose Carreon as the masterminds.

Interestingly, the gun was traced to Romeo Serratubias, who had served as provincial administrator for Reyes. Serratubias claimed he had sold the gun to another person. Serratubias only presented a handwritten note as evidence of the sale of the gun.

Despite the trail of evidence and testimonies, the case against the alleged masterminds has barely moved foward.

“We’ve always known that justice here is slow,” said Ortega’s daughter Mika on the first anniversary of her father’s murder. “But this is unbelievably slow. It has been an entire year. This is already ridiculous.”

A special panel of prosecutors had removed the names of Governors Reyes and Carreon from the original charge sheet in June last year, claiming there was insufficient evidence. After an outcry and an appeal from the Ortega family, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima formed another special panel of prosecutors to study the case.

The new panel has reportedly submitted its recommendations to De Lima earlier this month.

“All that is needed is probable cause,” Mika Ortega said. “There is probable cause. Kinakabahan kami kasi hindi namin alam ang laman ng recommendation.”

Edrad also appeared before the Palawan Regional Trial Court today to testify during the murder trial of Recamata. It was the first time that Edrad appeared in court to testify to his involvement in the murder.

Defense counsels objected to the presentation of Edrad as a witness, but the judge allowed Edrad to affirm the veracity of the affidavits he had earlier signed identifying all those allegedly involved in the conspiracy, from Reyes and Carreon to Recamata.

Ortega said Edrad also told the court that his life was in constant danger, especially after agreeing to turn state witness against the alleged masterminds in the case.

As for the Ortega family, family members gathered in Aborlan to commemorate the first death anniversary of Gerry Ortega. The family and close friends are also scheduled to hold a candlelight vigil tonight in memory of the slain broadcaster.

That’s the score of the so-called “Gods of Padre Faura” – the justices of the Supreme Court – as well as those in the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and all the judges and personnel of the judiciary. Zero in their disclosure of the full details of their statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth or SALN for the last two decades.

Since 1992, the asset records of the judiciary have remained sub rosa or secret on account of a series of self-serving resolutions that the high court under a series of chief justices had issued.

It began when the high court under then chief justice Andres Narvasa first granted virtual rank exemption for all judiciary personnel from compliance with Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

The Narvasa court’s decision was affirmed in subsequent resolutions of the chief justices that followed, namely Hilario Davide Jr., Artemio Panganiban, Reynato Puno, and now Renato C. Corona.

As a result, multiple requests for copies of SALNs from the high court and the appellate court that the PCIJ over the years have to this day yielded zero documents.

In 2006, the PCIJ filed a request for the SALNs of the judges and justices, up the level of the Supreme Court, so these could be uploaded on PCIJ’s online database, http://i-site.ph.

The PCIJ, however, never received a formal response from the Supreme Court. It learned that the Court had denied one of its requests only because an enterprising reporter of The Manila Times made a story out of it. The reporter saw a July 2009 PCIJ letter request for SALNs and asked for a specific explanation why the Court could not grant access. The Court told the reporter that by making the SALN public on PCIJ website, the public may use the information against the justices.

On April 27, 2006, the Supreme Court issued a “Media Backgrounder” defining the procedure for “Request of Copies of Statements of Assets and Liabilities of Justices, Judges and Court Personnel.”

The “Media Backgrounder” is still the latest resolution of the high court restricting access to the SALNs not only of magistrates, but also that of all court personnel. It remains in force to this day.

Among other things, it states that there should be “a legitimate reason” for the request, since access to such documents could lead to supposed “fishing expeditions” by litigants and other parties against judiciary personnel.

In the “Backgrounder,” the Court reasoned that such requests could also undermine the independence of justices, and expose them to retaliation for adverse decisions, or even to extortion, kidnapping, and blackmail. The Court added, “In the few areas where there is extortion by rebel elements of where the nature of their work exposes to assaults against their personal safety, the request shall not only be denied but should be immediately reported to the military.”

Interestingly, the guidelines include a provision that says the Court must state “the reason for the denial” of the request – something it failed to do with that of PCIJ.

In 2009, the tribunal informed the PCIJ that the en banc had created a “special committee” to study the consolidated requests of the PCIJ for the SALNs, as well as the personal data sheets and curriculum vitae (PDS/CVs) of the justices.

Chaired by Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario until she retired in 2010, neither the committee nor the high court has revealed whatever came of the several hearings that the committee had conducted.

This is even as the PCIJ in October 2009 filed a 19-page pleading with the office of the Court Administrator to submit its views to the committee.

It noted that the duty of public officials to disclose their SALNs is enshrined in Section 17 Article XI & Section 28 Article II of the 1987 Constitution that declares: “Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.”

In the pleading, the PCIJ was represented by three lawyers adept in freedom of information issues: Nepomuceno Malaluan of the Action for Economic Reforms, and Professors Solomon Lumba and Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, at the time the secretary and dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law, respectively.

Aside from records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, the pleading cited arguments from the records of the Senate, decisions of the Supreme Court itself, jurisprudence in the United States, and the practice of the US Federal Supreme Court to argue for full and prompt disclosure of the justices’ SALNs.

The PCIJ pleading noted that in several rulings, the Supreme Court itself held that the Constitution clearly guarantees the people’s right to access information and spells out the obligation or duty of public officials to disclose information.

Too, the pleading pointed out that high court rulings have asserted that, “when it comes to the right of the people to information on matters of public concern, the presumption is in favor of access by the public because to hold otherwise ‘will serve to dilute the constitutional right’.”

“Thus, the duty to disclose information should be differentiated from the duty to permit access to information,” the pleading said. “There is no need to demand from the government agency disclosure of information as this is mandatory under the Constitution; failing that, legal remedies are available.”

Culling Constitutional Commission records, the pleading cited this statement by the late Senator and Commissioner Blas F. Ople: “This is a mandate on the State to be accountable by following a policy of full public disclosure. For example, information concerning loans contracted by the government ought to be made available. Public officials should follow this policy by submitting their statements of assets and liabilities and making them available for public scrutiny, not merely storing them in the archives, which is what happens most of the time.”

The pleading argued that, “the principle of independence of the judiciary does not bar disclosure of or access to the SALNs of the justices.

In Duplantier v United States of America, an action challenging the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the United States Court of Appeals 5th Circuit discussed many, if not all, of the competing interests involved.

The plaintiffs contended that the requirement for judges to file personal financial reports for public disclosure under the Act intrudes upon the independent, decisional freedom of United States judges and thereby violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

They further argued that the Act unconstitutionally interferes with judicial independence by subjecting federal judges to familial disquiet, political pressure, and increased threats of physical or economic harm at the hands of criminals and disgruntled litigants.

Some of the Duplantier considerations were also touched upon in the Supreme Court en banc resolution dated May 2, 1989, establishing its policy for the release of SALNs of members of the judiciary.

But the Court also noted that similar requests may not be made upon the justices and judges of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Shari’a Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts under circumstances that may endanger, diminish or destroy their independence and objectivity in the performance of their judicial functions or expose them to revenge for adverse decisions, kidnapping, extortion, blackmail, or other untoward consequences.

As such, it resolved to lay down guidelines on requests for SALNs of justices, judges, and court personnel, citing that, “the independence of the Judiciary is constitutionally as important as the right to information which is subject to the limitations provided by law. Under specific circumstances, the need for the fair and just adjudication of litigations may require a court to be wary of deceptive requests for information which shall otherwise be freely available.”

The Constitution, however, clearly enrolls the Supreme Court justices among the officials who must, upon assumption of office, and as often as may be required by law, “submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth.”

The Charter also stipulates: “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.”

But the PCIJ pleading lamented that “the manner in which the Supreme Court has historically dealt with requests for SALNs of members of the judiciary has not always been consistent with this presumption” of the people’s right to access information.

An en banc resolution dated May 2, 1989 required SALN requesters to state the purpose of the request and outlined the conditions under which requests would be denied.

This resolution was followed by the high court’s resolution in Administrative Matter No.92-9-851–RTC, in which it turned more restrictive. It authorized the Court Administrator “to act on requests for copies of the assets and liabilities, as well as other papers and documents on file with the 201 Personnel Records of lower court judges and personnel, only upon a court subpoena duly signed by the Presiding Judge in a pending criminal case against a judge or personnel, and in the case of the Ombudsman, upon the appropriate request personally signed by the Ombudsman.”

Previous PCIJ requests for SALNs had all met with denials from the high court.
On June 6, 2006, the PCIJ wrote Clerk of Court Ma. Luisa Villarama to get copies of the justices’ SALNs, stating that “the data will be used for the PCIJ’s website on Philippine politics and governance.”

On the same day, Ismael Khan Jr., then Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office, responded and enclosed a “Media Backgrounder” embodying guidelines governing the procedures for the release of the SALNs.

On August 2, 2006, the PCIJ sent Khan another letter seeking clarification on whether the request has been denied, and if so, to state the reason for the denial. If it had not been denied, the PCIJ wrote, would Khan’s office then kindly inform it of what is lacking in the request?

Five days later, Khan responded, stating that PCIJ had to “fully comply with the guidelines”; and that the Court found that the reason stated was “insufficient and hence would like to be apprised of the specific purpose or purposes for which the SALNs of the SC Justices will be used.”

On August 9, 2006, the PCIJ wrote Khan to offer a more detailed explanation about its information website, but received no response to this.

The pending PCIJ pleading before the high court averred that the wording of the tribunal’s two resolutions and the manner in which these have been interpreted and applied indicate that “whenever there is a request for SALNs of members of the judiciary, it is the burden of the requester to establish the legitimacy of the purpose of his request.”

Even worse, it said, this burden on the requester has been imposed despite “the wide latitude of discretion of the Court or its functionaries to pass upon the legitimacy of said purpose, as can be seen in PCIJ’s experience.”

“The effect is to nullify the presumption in favor of disclosure to or access by the public,” the pleading added.

To this day, nearly 25 years after the 1987 Constitution was ratified with firm guarantees of the people’s right to know, “no one has, as of yet, successfully requested from the Court the SALNs of Justices of the Supreme Court…the presumption is actually against disclosure or access.”

What follows is the paper trail (and pertinent records) of this 20-year fruitless effort to pry open the asset records of the judiciary:

1. PCIJ Memorandum/Pleading, October 2009, A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC RE: Request for Copies of the SALNs and PDS/CVs of the Justices of the Supreme Court.
2. PCIJ Request Letters for SALNs of the Justices (Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan)
   • Letter dated July 17, 2009 addressed to Associate Justice Diosdado M.Peralta, Sandiganbayan
   • Letter dated July 30, 2009 addressed to Hon. Conrado M. Vasquez Jr., Court of Appeals
   • Letter dated July 30, 2009 addressed to Chief Justice Reynato Puno, Supreme Court
   • Letter dated August 11, 2009 addressed to Associate Maria Cristina C.Estrada, Sandiganbayan
   • Sandiganbayan’s reply dated August 14, 2009
   • Letter dated August 13, 2009 addressed to Chief Justice Reynato Puno, Supreme Court
   • Letter dated August 19, 2009 addressed to Chief Justice Reynato Puno, Supreme Court
   • Letter dated December 19, 2012 addressed to Chief Justice Renato Corona, Supreme Court.
3. PCIJ Letters to the Justices of the Supreme Court inquiring about their business interests still listed in their names, as per public records available with the Securities and Exchange Commission:
   • Letter to Bersamin dated May 20, 2010
   • Letter to De Castro dated May 20, 2010
   • Letter to Carpio dated May 19, 2010
   • Letter to Corona dated May 19, 2010
4. Justices’ reply letters to the PCIJ:
   • Abad’s reply dated May 28, 2010
   • Bersamin’s reply dated May 24, 2010
   • Carpio’s reply dated June 3, 2010
   • Corona’s reply dated May 25, 2010
   • Peralta’s reply dated June 9, 2010

– Malou Mangahas, PCIJ, January 2012

The Office of the Secretary General is the repository agency of the SALNs of the members of the House of Representatives as provided in Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) and the Civil Service Commission’s Resolution No. 060231.

Sept. 6, 2010
PCIJ Research Director Karol Ilagan sent a letter to Secretary-General Marilyn B. Yap, requesting for (a) the 2008 and 2009 SALN and PDS/CV of the 14th Congress House members, and (b) 2010 SALN (upon assumption) and PDS/CV of the 15th Congress House members. PCIJ also sent an accomplished Request Form as required by the Secretary General’s office. The request was also made as a follow-up to PCIJ’s previous requests dated October 14, 2009 and May 19, 2010.

Sept. 28, 2010
Ilagan called the Secretary General’s office to follow up on the request. She was told that the letter was forwarded to Legal (office) on Sept. 6.

Jan. 18, 2011
Ilagan called the Secretary General’s office. Ilagan was asked to visit the House of Representatives and meet with Emily, a staff employee at the Office of the Secretary General.

Feb. 10, 2011
Ilagan, along with then PCIJ Senior Researcher Che de los Reyes, visited the Office of the Secretary General upon Emily’s advice that PCIJ talk to a director. Ilagan and de los Reyes spoke with Director Roberto P. Maling who said that he will check with Secretary General Yap on the status of PCIJ’s request. He promised to call the same day. He called at around 7 pm. De los Reyes talked to him. Maling asked PCIJ to send another letter stating a “more specific” reason why it needs the SALNs. He sounded very apologetic. PCIJ’s Sept. 6, 2010 letter indicated that it is requesting the said documents for “purposes of research.”

Feb. 17, 2011
PCIJ sent a revised letter upon Maling’s instruction that a “more specific” reason be cited. In the Feb. 17, 2011 letter signed by Ilagan and PCIJ’s Executive Director Malou Mangahas, PCIJ recounted the requests it had previously made to the Office of the Secretary General. It also said that as an independent media agency, it was requesting for copies of the documents “for research and reporting purposes.” As well, the request was made so PCIJ could update its library files of the SALNs and PDS of government officials and employees. An accomplished Request Form was attached to the letter.

A copy of the letter was furnished to House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., House Committee on Public Information Chair Rep. Ben Evardone, Civil Service Commission Chairman Francisco Duque, and then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.

A staff employee of the Civil Service Commission, upon receipt of PCIJ’s Feb. 17, 2011 letter, called Ilagan; the CSC staff said that she would check if CSC has filed of the House members’ SALN.

Feb. 22, 2011
Director Maling of the Office of the Secretary General called and said that PCIJ’s request was being granted. He said that PCIJ should coordinate with Atty. Ricardo Bering of the Records Management Service in order to have the SALNs and CVs photocopied. Ilagan then called Bering to arrange for a meeting the following day. Bering agreed to see Ilagan the next day in the morning.

Feb. 23, 2011
Ilagan and de los Reyes went to the office of Bering, who seemed to act as if he and Ilagan did not talk the previous day. He even had to call Director Maling of the Secretary General’s office. Eventually, Bering approved the release of the 2008 and 2009 SALNs. Ilagan asked about the 2010 SALNs, which was included in the request. Bering said that the 2010 SALNs were not yet available. Ilagan pointed out that the 2010 SALNs referred to in the request refers to the July 2010 or the SALN upon assumption of the House members. Bering said 2010 means “as of December 2010.” Bering made this assertion even if the request was dated Sept. 6, 2010.

Bering asked Ilagan to send another letter-request for the July 2010 or the upon-assumption SALN. Ilagan and de los Reyes arranged for the photocopying of the 2008 and 2009 SALNs at MAA, a photocopying service/station just outside Bering’s office.

Ilagan and de los Reyes then went to Maling’s office to clarify the 2010 SALN request. Maling said that another request should just be made. As for the CVs, he said he would follow this up with Human Resources. He also said that if the 2008 and 2009 CVs were with Records, then these should be provided. Ilagan and de los Reyes went back to Bering and told him what Maling said.

Feb. 24, 2011
PCIJ sent a new request-letter along with the Request Form to Secretary General Yap, following instructions from Bering and Maling.

Feb. 28, 2011
De los Reyes got a text from Tyrone of MAA (photocopying service), saying that the SALNs were ready for pick up. Ilagan then asked a PCIJ intern to go the following day and get the documents.

Mar. 1, 2011
The PCIJ intern went to Records but the documents were not immediately released to her; the documents would be released only to Ilagan. Ilagan phoned Bering, who asked if the intern was authorized to get the documents. He also asked Ilagan to send an authorization letter. Ilagan sent an authorization letter. The intern was then able to get the 2008 and 2009 SALNs upon payment of P4,065. Still pending are the 14th and 15th Congress members’ CV and the July 2010 SALNs and the December 2010 SALNs, which should be available after the April 30 deadline.

Mar. 3, 2011
Ilagan called the Secretary General’s office to make a follow-up. She was told that the letter was still with Legal, where it had been since Feb. 24.

Mar. 9, 2011
Ilagan called the Secretary General’s office to make another follow-up. Emily said that Ilagan should ask Bles of Legal. Ilagan phoned Bles of Legal. Bles said that the request was still being processed. “May process kasi (There is a process),” she said. She added that a response was still being prepared.

Mar. 21, 2011
Ilagan called Legal to make a follow-up. Chona of Legal told Ilagan to call again after lunch because the person concerned had stepped out. Ilagan received mail from Rep. Maximo Rodriguez of Abante Mindanao that contained his July 2010 SALN.

Mar. 24, 2011
Ilagan called Legal to make a follow-up. Bles said the request had already been transferred to the Secretary General’s office. Ilagan then called the Office of the Secretary General. Emily said that Ilagan should talk to Director Maling.

Mar. 28, 2011
Ilagan phoned Director Maling. Maling asked Ilagan to call back because he was still looking for the file.

Mar. 29, 2011
Ilagan called Maling, who said the request was “okay.” He advised Ilagan to call Atty. Bering of Records. Ilagan talked to Hans Cortez of Records. Cortez said he would call back. He did not.

Apr. 4, 2011
Ilagan called Bering of Records. Bering said that there was still “no action taken” on PCIJ’s request. He said the files of the July 2010 SALN were not complete. He insisted that PCIJ should just get the December 2010 SALNs because these should almost be the same with the July 2010 SALNs.

Ilagan then called Emily of the Secretary-General’s office who said that the reply pertaining to the approval of the request was sent to Records on Mar. 15. Ilagan called Cortez of Records. Cortez said that Records did not receive any reply, but that he would check and call back. He did not call back.

Apr. 19, 2011
House of Representatives was closed for the entire week.

Apr. 25, 2011
Ilagan called the Records Management Service. Cortez said he received the Mar. 15 letter. But he said he was told by Bering that only the December 2010 SALNs would be provided because the difference is just months from the upon assumption or July 2010 SALN. Cortez also said that he was just following orders. Ilagan called again to talk to Bering, but he was not available.

Apr. 26, 2011
Ilagan called the Secretary General’s office to clarify things. Jane said the copy of the letter with the signature and approval of Secretary General Yap was already with Records so that’s where PCIJ should coordinate. She said the Office of the Secretary-General had already approved it.

Ilagan then called the Records Management Service. Bering was in a meeting.

Ilagan called again and was able to speak to Bering. According to Bering, it was Maling of the Secretary General’s office who said that only the December 2010 SALNs should be released. Bering said he did not see the letter with Yap’s approval.

Ilagan then called Maling. Maling asked Ilagan to give him until the next Tuesday so he could check what happened; he could then give PCIJ the right response. He said PCIJ was not the only one with a request so the “baka sala-salabat na ang response.” He also said he was not sure anymore because there were many transactions at hand. Still, Maling said that the Speaker might have also given an instruction.

May 4, 2011
Ilagan called Maling who said that he would ask Bering. Maling then called Ilagan and said that the documents would not be released. He said the his office could only issue a summary of the SALNs of the House members. He said the process was “tedious” and “huhugutin bawat isa.” Ilagan told Maling that perhaps Records could keep a separate file for photocopying in order to keep the original files in tact. Maling said that RG Cruz of ABS-CBN also made a request and that he would tell him the same. Ilagan told Maling that she will send another request. Maling said that in the future, the House of Representatives will only provide a summary of the assets, liabilities, and net worth of the House members and not the actual copies of the document. When asked why the 2008 and 2009 SALNs were released, Maling said, “Ginawan lang ng paraan ‘yung dati.” He also said, “I hope you understand.”

Dec. 19, 2011
PCIJ sent a letter to Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., requesting a copy of the SALNs of the members of the prosecution panel and the rest of the members of the 15th Congress. The letter, which was signed by Ilagan and Mangahas, also recounted the previously denied requests with the Office of the Secretary General. A copy of the letter was furnished Secretary General Yap.

Director Maling called PCIJ office around 4:30 pm. Ilagan answered the phone and greeted him “Magandang hapon (Good afternoon).” Maling said (not exact words), “Mukhang ‘di maganda ang hapon, nabasa ko itong letter mo.” Ilagan told Maling that the letter was actually addressed to Tupas. He said, “So nagsend kayo kay Cong. Tupas?” Ilagan said yes.

Maling said that if PCIJ wants the SALN of the members of prosecution panel, Ilagan should fill out and send the SALN request form, like before. Ilagan said that she can do that and send the form by fax. Maling said his office needs the original copy. He also said that PCIJ would have to pay for the reproduction cost. Ilagan said this should be okay because PCIJ always carries the reproduction cost for SALN requests.

Maling then told Ilagan (not exact words): “Akala ko ba okay na tayo dati na summary na lang.” Ilagan said, “Sir, if you would remember, we did not agree to just having the summary. I’ve told you that we’ll not stop and we’ll send another request.” Then Maling said PCIJ’s reason was “manipis.” He said that if the SALNs were needed for a database, then the summary should be okay. He said that his office did not mean to hold the documents. (The reasons PCIJ stated were for “research and reporting purposes” and to “update PCIJ’s library files.”)

Maling then asked why PCIJ needs the actual documents. Ilagan told Maling that the SALN is a public document and PCIJ needs the details of the assets, for example, not just a total figure. He mentioned “manipis” again and said that in law, disclosure of the SALN is not just for “whatever” legal purpose. He said that it’s “not absolute.” Then, Ilagan explained to him again why PCIJ needs the SALNs. Maling said that PCIJ should submit again the Request Form. Ilagan then asked about SALNs of the rest of the members of the 15th Congress. Maling said that this should be included in Request Form.

Dec. 20, 2011
Ilagan sent Maling a clarificatory letter, saying that there is no need to send yet another Request Form because PCIJ has already complied with this before.

Dec. 21, 2011
Ilagan called the Secretary General’s office to make a follow-up. Lito said Maling was already on vacation/leave. Ilagan was told to call in January 2012.

Jan. 3, 2012
Ilagan called the Secretary General’s office to make a follow-up. Emily said Maling was not in the office. She said that the letter had been forwarded to Legal.

Jan. 12, 2012
Ilagan called Legal to make a follow-up. Bles of Legal told Ilagan to call again because the person concerned (Deputy Secretary) stepped out.

From September 2010 to December 2011, PCIJ made a total of 28 calls and sent four letters to the Office of the Secretary General to obtain copies of the July 2010 (upon assumption) and December 2010 SALNs of the 15th Congress members and the CVs and PDS of 14th Congress and 15th Congress members. As of this writing, these have yet to be released by the repository agency. – PCIJ, January 2012

IN ONE of the eight articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, the 188 members of the House of Representatives who signed the complaint censured him for refusing to disclose his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth or SALN.
 
By their act, the House members raised a virtual Sword of Damocles over those in public office who insist on keeping the full details of their SALNs secret.

But the House accusers could well be accused of a similar omission, and culpable violation of the Constitution and anti-graft laws. Indeed, the PCIJ’s records from 2006 to December 2011 reveal a sorry picture of rank non-disclosure of SALNs not just by Corona and all the justices of the high court since 1992, but also by the incumbent House members who have brought him to trial.

Worst, defiance of the SALN law has been shown as well by the Office of the Ombudsman under Aquino appointee Conchita Carpio-Morales, a retired Supreme Court associate justice who became Ombudsman in July 2011.
 
If one’s failure to disclose SALNs is now an impeachable offense, then a long list of officials should also now be expunged from public office, including Ombudsman Carpio-Morales and by their own assertion, even 185 of the 188 members of the 15th Congress who filed the impeachment complaint against Corona but have not disclosed copies of their own SALNs.

Thus far, only two of the 282 members of the 15th Congress have actually disclosed copies of their 2010 SALN upon request: Mohammed Hussein P. Pangandaman (Lanao del Sur) and Maximo B. Rodriguez Jr. (PL-Abante Mindanao). Neither is among the 188 signatories to the impeachment complaint that the House had submitted to the Senate impeachment court.

The PCIJ was able to obtain the 2010 SALNs of five more members of the Lower House, including three who had signed the impeachment complaint against Corona. But that was only because their SALNs seem to have been mixed inadvertently with the asset records of the members of the 14th Congress that PCIJ was allowed to photocopy early this year.

Summary compliance?

Last year, in apparent creative defiance of Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials – which requires disclosure to the public of the actual copies of SALNs – the House merely issued a public release on the summaries of the net worth of the House members.

This is even as the PCIJ had filed four request letters for SALNs of the members of the 15th Congress from September 2010 to December 2011. The first three were addressed to House Secretary General Marilyn B. Yap. The fourth and most recent letter dated Dec. 19, 2011 was addressed to the House justice committee chair, Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., lead prosecutor in the Corona impeachment trial.

Simultaneously, also on Dec. 19, 2011, the PCIJ sent a new request letter to the Supreme Court addressed to Court Administrator Midas P. Marquez, in yet another effort to secure the SALNs of Corona and his 14 associate justices, from their first year of appointment to the tribunal.

Last week, Marquez had promised to give the PCIJ an official statement from the tribunal on its latest request but also said that because of Corona’s upcoming impeachment trial, positive action may not come. The first en banc session of the high court is scheduled on Jan. 17, 2012 yet, he said.

In October 2008, the PCIJ had filed a pleading with the “Special Committee to Review the Policy on SALNs and PDS” chaired by then Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario that the en banc had created, in response to repeated requests that PCIJ had filed since 2001 for the SALNs of the justices and judges.

The PCIJ is a party to the Administrative Matter 09-8-06 SC and 09-8-07-CA cases filed with the committee. After Nazario’s retirement in 2010, the committee’s task has supposedly been entrusted to a new study committee headed by Marquez.

The high court’s policy to recede in the dark, especially where SALNs of all judiciary personnel are concerned, actually began with Andres B. Narvasa, who served as chief justice from December 8, 1991 to November 30, 1998. The Narvasa court had been marred by reports, including a number authored by the PCIJ, alleging multiple instances of bribery and corruption involving some justices. “The best Supreme Court that money can buy,” legal circles had described the tribunal at the time.

The exposes triggered the early retirement of an associate justice even as the Narvasa court also summoned lawyers it suspected to be among the PCIJ’¦s unnamed sources to an inquiry board composed of justices at Padre Faura.

Those who succeeded Narvasa, Hilario G. Davide Jr. (who served from November 30, 1998 to December 20, 2005), Reynato S. Puno (who served from December 20, 2005 to May 17, 2010), and Corona (chief justice since May 2010) followed the practice of secrecy in regard to the SALNs of all judiciary personnel.

Not lawful compliance

The Constitution and anti-graft laws require the disclosure of the real, detailed SALNs of public officials, within 10 working days after these have been filed within the yearly April 30 deadline. Disclosing summaries of entries in the SALNs, such as what the 15th Congress and two associate justices had done recently, is not contemplated in the law as full compliance.

To be fair, supposedly as an accommodation of the PCIJ, the House shared copies of the SALNs of the members of the 14th Congress under Speaker Prospero Nograles, Jr. that ended its term of office in May 2010.

Still, even Tupas, interviewed by the PCIJ, acknowledged the gross omission of the House in withholding copies of the 2010 SALNs of the current legislators. “Yes, what should be revealed are the full details of the assets, liabilities, and net worth, copies of the SALNs,” he told PCIJ.

“I didn’t know until recently that was how it’s done in the House. I didn’t know it’s that bad. I didn’t know this issue with SALNs is that complicated,” Tupas said.

“The point is, in the Supreme Court, there is zero compliance,” he said. “The Constitutional provision is clear: Release your SALNs, that is compliance.” He said he was willing to release his own SALN, adding that, “we have to start somewhere somehow in enforcing the law.”

Tupas admits that by their failure, a long line of public officials, possibly including the Ombudsman, constitutional commissioners, and House members, who have failed to disclose their SALNs might now have to be summoned as candidates for possible impeachment. Promised Tupas: “I will hold hearings on compliance with the SALNs law soon. For all other SALNs, there should be a congressional investigation.”

Over the last 26 months, the PCIJ had filed and refiled request letters over to secure copies of the SALNs, Personal Data Sheets/Curriculum Vitae (PDS/CVs) of the members of the Lower Chamber. Four letters were filed with the 15th Congress to secure copies of the SALNs as of July 2010 (assumption of office) and December 2010. For the 14th Congress, PCIJ wrote two letters of request, the first in October 2009, the second in May 2010.

‘Tedious’ process

Failing to get a response, PCIJ included its request for such documents for members of the 14th Congress in subsequent letters asking for copies of similar sets of papers covering the 15th Congress.

The PCIJ sent letters of requests dated Sept. 6, 2010, Feb. 17, 2011, and Feb. 24, 2011 to Marilyn B. Yap, House secretary general for the SALNs and the personal data sheets/curriculum vitae (PDS/CVs) of the members of the 14th Congress, and the members of the 15th Congress, upon their assumption into office as of June/July 2010, and as of December 2010.

Yap approved the release of SALNs filed for 2008 and 2009 of the members of the 14th Congress, which was dominated by allies of then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. But the request for those of the 15th Congress members was denied.

On May 4, 2011, Director Roberto P. Maling of the Secretary General’s Office told PCIJ that the Records Management Service would not able to provide copies of the SALNs because the process is “tedious.” He said PCIJ was able to get copies of the 2008 and 2009 SALNs because the Records Office just made an exemption.

When asked about future SALN requests, Maling said the House of Representatives will only provide a summary of the assets, liabilities, and net worth of the House members and not the actual copies of the document.

Pangandaman and Rodriguez of the 15th House, however, on their own sent PCIJ copies of the SALN in response to its request.

Secured by mistake

The PCIJ also obtained the July 2010 SALNs of incumbent Representatives Pastor M. Alcover Jr. (PL-Anad), Dakila Carlo E. Cua (Quirino), Salvio B. Fortuno (Camarines Sur), and Alfredo A. Garbin, Jr. (PL-Ako Bicol), and the December 2010 SALN of Rep. Herminia B. Roman (Bataan). By some fluke, these had been included among the SALNs of the members of the 14th Congress that PCIJ was allowed to photocopy.

Cua, Garbin, and Roman signed the impeachment complaint against Corona; Pangandaman, Pastor, and Rodriguez did not. Fortuno’s name does not appear in either list.

Yet before 2008, the Office of the Secretary General of the House of Representatives had responded favorably to requests from the PCIJ for copies of the SALNs and PDS/CVs of the House members.

The Senate is by far the most exemplary agency in its compliance with the law. It has consistently disclosed the asset records of all its members over the years, including those making up the current Upper House.

On Dec. 19, 2011, PCIJ, still bent on getting copies of the SALNs of the members of the 15th House, filed a sixth letter request, this time addressed to Rep. Tupas. A copy of the request was furnished to Secretary General Yap.

The request was apparently forwarded to Maling, who promptly rang up the PCIJ office phone the same afternoon. When greeted with a courtesy “good afternoon” by the PCIJ staffer who had picked up the phone, Maling replied that it didn’t look like a good afternoon at all and that he had read the PCIJ letter. He then said that if PCIJ wanted the SALN of the members of prosecution panel, it should fill out the SALN request form and pay for the reproduction cost.

Maling also said that he had assumed that the summary generated by the House had been sufficient for PCIJ’s purposes. Reminded that the PCIJ did not agree to this and precisely sent follow-up request letters for the complete SALNs, he said the PCIJ’s reasons for securing the SALNs – research, reporting, and updating of its database and library files – were “manipis” or “superficial.”

Maling said the House did not mean to hold the documents, but asked whyever the PCIJ needed the details of the assets of the House members. He asserted that under the law, disclosure of such documents is not just for “whatever” legal purpose and is “not absolute.”

On May 11, 2011, the House released a 2010 SALN summary list signed by Atty. Ricardo Bering of the House Records Management Service and Director Jose Ma. Antonio Tuaño of the Administrative Management Bureau.

It contained the total amount of the real properties, personal and other properties, assets, liabilities and net worth of the members of the 15th Congress ranked from highest to lowest by net worth. News reports about the list ran on May 13 and 14, 2011.

Carpio-Morales, too

It seemed to be a case of déjà vu for PCIJ, which had earlier heard a similar argument from the Ombudsman’s Office.

On Sept. 8, 2011, the PCIJ filed with the office of Ombudsman Carpio-Morales an omnibus request for copies of the SALNs of President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, Vice President Jejomar C. Binay, former Ombudsman Merceditas N. Gutierrez, and other senior officials of the Ombudsman, among others.

In the same request letter, the PCIJ also sought Carpio-Morales’s assistance in securing the SALNs and the PDS/CVs of the members of the House of Representatives, executives of the constitutional commissions, the Supreme Court justices, and star-rank officers of the uniformed services. Previously, these PCIJ requests had all been denied and referred to other agencies like the Office of the President and the Ombudsman.
 
Attached to the request to the Ombudsman were the letters of denials and referrals from the same agencies that PCIJ had collected over the last six years.

The PCIJ asked Carpio-Morales to help reverse the tide of non-compliance with the SALN law. Instead of doing so, Carpio-Morales, replying through Assistant Ombudsman Asryman T. Rafanan, simply advised the PCIJ to file a new request, as had been required by the controversial Memorandum Circular No. 01 Series of 2009 that was issued by her impeached predecessor Merceditas N. Gutierrez.

Gutierrez’s restrictive circular provides “that the requester should accomplish a SALN Request Form which should, among others, identify or indicate a legitimate reason as the purpose for the request, and which should be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor in the Office of the Ombudsman.” The requirement for the request to be subscribed and sworn to before a prosecutor is not required in the SALN law.

Nonetheless, the PCIJ had precisely filed a sworn SALN Request Form on March 30, 2011, in compliance with Gutierrez’s circular. A copy was attached to the PCIJ letter addressed to Carpio-Morales. But Rafanan apparently did not even browse through sheafs of documents that the PCIJ submitted in its omnibus request for the SALNs of all other officials who have rebuffed the PCIJ’s requests for SALNs since 2006.
 
The PCIJ also wrote that its request was made “to assist our work as journalists and researchers.” But Rafanan replied, “(You) have not advanced a clear and specific legitimate reason to justify you request for the release of the PDS or the disclosure of information of a personal nature of the enumerated public officials whose PDS are in the custody of the Office of the Ombudsman.”

Rafanan added, “The CV is not a public document but a private document, which is not required by the Civil Service Commission to be filed by a public official or employee.”

Told about the evident reluctance of the new Ombudsman to lift the veil of secrecy on SALNs, Tupas remarked: “The new Ombudsman should be the role model here in releasing SALNs. We impeached Merci Gutierrez for not disclosing her SALN.”

Valte won’t disclose

Interestingly, until four months ago, even the president’s deputy spokesperson Abigail Valte had cited “security” concerns arising from the disclosure of SALNs as one more reason why she said Aquino is reluctant to endorse the Freedom of Information bill.
 
At a press conference on Sept. 23, 2011, Valte had voiced her reluctance to reveal her own SALN. “That for me personally is a concern because I’m the one here (in government) and not my family,” she said. “These are the types of concerns that we are trying to solve when it comes to the freedom of information bill.”
 
Yet just two days after the impeachment complaint against Corona was filed on Dec. 12, 2011, no less than President Aquino challenged the former to go public with his asset records. Two days later on Dec. 15, Valte’s immediate boss and Aquino spokesperson Edwin Lacierda exhorted the high court to reverse its resolution banning the disclosure of the SALNs of the justices, judges, and all other personnel of the judiciary.

“Under the Constitution,” Lacierda said, “it is very, very clear that all government officials, and in fact the Supreme Court was mentioned in that particular constitutional provision that they should disclose to the public their statement of assets and liabilities.”

“They can change the ruling anytime because that is an internal process for them,” he said. “That is an internal decision for them. Since we are calling for transparency, for accountability, I don’t think that is an unreasonable request for the public to know the statement of assets, liability (sic), and net worth of any government official.”

According to Lacierda, “kami na nasa executive branch, we are more subjected to threats. We deal with the people more. We are more exposed and yet we willingly disclose our SALN so there should be no reason for them not to disclose. It is not unreasonable for the public to request for the release of their SALN.” – With research and reporting by Karol Anne M. Ilagan, PCIJ, January 2012