The Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) is the most detested document that is required to be filled up by public officials, even more detested than our income tax returns (ITR) and other tax filings. Not to be underestimated, this seemingly simple form has toppled not one, but two Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justices (i.e., CJ Renato Corona for alleged misdeclaration and de facto CJ Ma. Lourdes Sereno for non-submission). If one fails to file or misdeclares in an ITR, we can almost be certain that there will be an abundance of opportunities to rectify any supposed mistakes and to compromise the deficiencies with hardballing, but reasonable (wink) BIR assessors. Should one do the same for the SALN, a case filed before the Ombudsman will certainly merit an indictment with the Sandiganbayan, equating to years of litigation, expensive attorneys’ fees and the trouble of begging for permission before panel of justices whenever respondent would like to fly abroad for a quick respite.

Back in the limelight, thanks to the newly adopted House Resolution (HR) 2467, providing the rules on requests for SALN of House members, the public is in an uproar with the alleged infringement of the constitutional right to information. Adding fuel to the flame is the unfortunate timing of this news tidbit, as it was released right smack in the middle of the protracted 2019 budget issue centering on the recurring issue of pork barrel, budget insertions in the billions and sleazy contractors in conspiracy with corrupt public officials.

I respectfully beg to differ and I am of the opinion that HR 2467 has legal basis which can be challenged before the SC — anyone willing is free to do so. Foremost, it must be recalled that the creation of the SALN Review and Compliance Committee was not the doing of former President now House Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo but of former Speaker Sonny Belmonte by his issuance of House Special Order 05-12. From thereon, this committee existed for the sole purpose of crafting its rules, even during the term of former Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez. Only recently were the rules finalized, just a few months before the end of Speaker Arroyo’s term, though we do know she is the type of leader who would leave no stone unturned.

The SALN Review and Compliance Committee has the discretion to look into requests and deny the same should it be used for an undisclosed purpose, for a reason contrary to morals or public policy or if it will compromise decisions and activities of a House member. Some sensitive personal information will be redacted by the House, pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act (RA) 10173, or the Data Privacy Act, and a fee of P300 shall be required for each request. However, it must be emphasized that these provisions, including the imposition of a reasonable fee, are all found in Section 8 of RA 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees — the legal basis of the SALN.

Restrictive, they say, is an understandable adjective for the process. Malacañang said it may violative of the Constitution. “Such procedure may be perceived as a transgression of Article XI of the Constitution, requiring any public official to submit a SALN in relation to Article II thereof which guarantees the right of the people to information on matters of public concern,” said presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo. However, a reading of the exact provision in the 1987 Constitution, or Section 17, Article XI thereof, provides that “The declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.” Thus, we must take into consideration the provisions of RA 6713 and RA 10173.

Senate President (SP) Tito Sotto, on the other hand, said the Senate will not impose stringent rules like in the House and that it has the same formula as the SC. He is correct in the sense that the Senate does not have rules yet with regard to requests for SALN. The current procedure, I was told, was that all requests are referred to the Office of the Secretary General of the Senate which in turn will process these requests. SP Sotto, respectfully, however, was incorrect in stating that it has the same procedure with the High Court.

The rules in the SC are stringent as well, should one read A.M. 09-8-6-SC issued on 13 June 2012, also referred to in the more recent SC Rules on Access of Information, issued on February 2018, particularly in Section 11 thereof. To clarify, the SC rules are similar to the House rules since both require the plenary to tackle the SALN requests — it only appears more restrictive with the House since it has nearly 300 members, as compared to the SC’s 15.

When the SC rules first came out in the aftermath of the CJ Corona impeachment trial, the public was also in a temporary uproar as regards its restrictiveness but it later showed that the process worked. In fact, some SC decisions on SALN requests can be read on its website. My point is — Let’s give the House rules a fair chance.

As I earlier mentioned, critics are free to question the procedure before the High Court but, more than anything, I hope this discussion would ignite talks in revising the laws requiring submission of SALN, together with the proposed Freedom of Information Act. In other countries, only top government officials and those from fiscal generating agencies are required to accomplish financial disclosure forms, which is done electronically. In the US Congress, just log on its website and you can access financial disclosure forms of the House members sans sensitive personal information. Let’s see if we get there one day. After all, public office is a public trust.