SC to review assets non-disclosure policy

COULD the Supreme Court be on its way to reversing a resolution prohibiting public access to the statements of assets and liabilities of justices?

Chief Justice Reynato Puno, in a roundtable discussion with The Manila Times, said he “would not object” if the high tribunal “reexamines” its policy against the disclosure of the assets statements of justices and other members of the judiciary.

Puno said, however, that there should be “guidelines” to balance the need for transparency with a similar imperative to protect the judiciary from harassment. The guidelines “will accommodate the contending values involving this problem,” Puno said.

The high court has kept closed justices’ Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs), invoking a 1992 ruling that established the precedent. That order denied a request from the Office of the Ombudsman for copies of the SALNs of two judges, as the high court en banc deemed the request to be solely for the purpose of “fish(ing) for information against the said judges.”

The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713) requires all public officials and employees, except those in an honorary capacity, laborers, and casual and temporary workers, to submit a statement of their assets and liabilities every year.

SALNs as a tool of transparency

SALNs are considered as one of the most valuable public documents available that allow citizens to keep tabs on — and exact accountability from — public officials. These declarations provide baseline background information about the assets of officials; the idea is that such declarations make it easier to keep track of the accumulation of wealth by public officials, so that the public can check on, among other things, potential conflicts of interest or illicit gain from public office.

In 2000, for example, PCIJ investigated then President Joseph Estrada’s unexplained wealth — as shown by the disparity between what he declared in his asset statements and what other public records showed he actually owned. The investigations involved thoroughly checking the asset declarations of the former president.

The same methods have been used in other countries, with similar impact on exacting official accountability. In Thailand, the newspaper Prachachart checked the accuracy of asset statements by comparing them with corporate and other records. For example, in 1999, the Thai interior minister was forced to resign after declaring a fake loan from a company to cover up an unexplained increase in his assets. The newspaper found out about the fake loan because it was not registered in the lending firm’s balance sheet.

In 2001, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra came perilously close to losing his post after he was charged with filing inaccurate asset declarations and with concealing his assets by transferring his shares to his maid and driver. The newspaper Prachachart did the initial investigation as well, again by comparing the prime minister’s asset declaration with corporate financial statements.

In the last few years, PCIJ has regularly obtained the SALNs of members of the various branches of government. The data culled from those statements are encoded into databases and uploaded to PCIJ’s information website, i-site.ph. So far, PCIJ has not met any particular difficulties with accessing the disclosures of the Executive and Legislative, as well as local government officials. It is with the judiciary that PCIJ has faced a dead-end.

Pushing for a Freedom of Information law

The Supreme Court’s refusal to disclose their assets statements is among those being challenged by advocates of access to information. The Access to Information Network (ATIN), of which PCIJ is a member, has long been calling for the legislation of a specific freedom of information law which, they say, will address the difficulties of accessing information held by government.

While the Philippines codified in the Constitution the public’s right to know, the lack of a specific law has made access erratic.

In his forum with The Manila Times, chief justice Puno acknowledged the need for transparency in the judiciary, saying that it, in fact, “would further encourage independence among judges and justices.”