By Charmaine P. Lirio
TO SHARE or not to share — that’s a question that arguably shouldn’t even come up whenever the Supreme Court is asked for the Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) of its members and the rest of the judiciary.
Recently, however, the Supreme Court rejected even the request of Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Henares for copies of the SALN of members of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Court of Tax Appeals. According to the Court, Henares’s request lacked reasonable and sufficient basis — which probably had the country’s top tax official practising some more at the shooting range.
And yet Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, in her most recent meeting with the press, said that in her opinion members of the judiciary are already “very transparent” when it comes to their wealth. She also said that a review of the guidelines on accessing the SALNs of members of the judiciary would require more time.
“It was in 2012 that we decided with full compliance of the SALN law,” Sereno said at the press conference in late August. “Now, you are going to ask us to push further.”
“Give it a little rest,” she said. “It’s only been two years.”
SALNs, of course, are important source documents for tracking the wealth of public officials and for checking for potential and actual conflicts of interests that may affect the performance of their duties. But for the last two decades or so, getting SALNs from members of the judiciary has been far from easy. That includes the last two years since Sereno became Chief Justice.
To be sure, the Supreme Court, in its 2012 resolution containing guidelines on requesting copies of SALNs from the judiciary, said that “custodians of public documents must not concern themselves with the motives, reasons and objects of the persons seeking access to the records. The moral or material injury which their misuse might inflict on others is the requestor’s responsibility and lookout.”
Despite such pronouncements, though, the Court requires a statement of specific purpose and interest to be served for SALN requests. If the requestor cites public interest or public concern, a further justification should be indicated. If it is for an individual, the interest must “go beyond pure or mere curiosity.” If it includes a request for SALN for previous years, a separate explanation is also needed.
That”s not the end of it. The Clerk of Court will then assess the request to see if it is covered by the limitation and prohibitions of the law and the Supreme Court’s guidelines before referring it to the Court En Banc for “final determination.”
In addition, a request for copies of SALN of the judiciary calls for the accomplishment of a request form, which must be notarized. For members of the media, the submission of proof of media affiliation and a certification that the organization is a legitimate media entity are also needed.
The Supreme Court invokes privacy, safety, and the maintenance of the independence of the justices by protecting them against intimidation as reasons for its numerous requirements for SALN requests. At the press conference, Chief Justice Sereno said that the Court was not acting outside of its bounds when it set the guidelines.
In its 2012 resolution, the Court had also mentioned the restrictions under the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Under Rule IV of the law’s IRR, requests for information may be denied when disclosure would put an individual in imminent danger, might compromise rulings or decisions, or interfere with adjudication and enforcement proceedings.
The law itself includes provisions for the availability of SALNs at reasonable hours and reasonable costs, as well as a prohibition against using these for purposes contrary to moral or public policy or for commercial purposes other than communication media.
Prior to the resolution, the courts referred to a 1989 guideline when receiving SALN requests. The old rule was stricter and leaned more toward denial of access. This facilitated a practice of secrecy that had developed during the ’90s under then Chief Justice Andres B. Narvasa. At the time, reports of alleged bribery and corruption swirled around the high tribunal, damaging its reputation and even causing the early retirement of its chief justice in 1998.
The policy of non-disclosure was adopted by succeeding justices. In fact, the Court has been rejecting SALN requests from PCIJ since 2006.
The situation changed somewhat in 2012, when the tribunal was compelled to act on the numerous requests before them, triggered in part by the proceedings against then Chief Justice Renato Corona, who was impeached because of inaccurate entries in his SALN.
To Sereno, the SALN guidelines circa 2012 are “a major improvement over the former regime that had prohibited the disclosure of the SALN except for very, very limited reasons.”
Perhaps others can tell the difference. As for PCIJ, there are only more forms to fill, requirements to accomplish, purposes and interests to explain, and offices to go through in the hope that its request for the justices’ SALNs won’t face the same fate as that of the BIR.
