The Supreme Court (SC) stressed that while the “laws on Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) aim to curtail the acquisition of unexplained wealth,” they “do not automatically impose liability on erring public officials or employees.”

It pointed out that “Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6713 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) provide for a review and compliance procedure for SALN submissions and give public officials or employees an opportunity to correct erroneous entries or supply missing information in their SALN to conform to the prescribed requirements.”

The filing of SALNs by public officials and employees is mandated under Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

SALN should be filed within 30 days from assumption of office, on or before April 30 of every year thereafter, and within 30 days after separation from the service.

For constitutional and national elective officials, SALN should be filed with the main office of the Office of the Ombudsman; senators and congressmen, with the secretaries of the Senate and the House of Representatives; justices, with the clerk of court of the SC; judges, with the Office of the Court Administrator; and all national executive officials, with the Office of the President.

For regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the Office of the President; and those below said ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions.

All other public officials and employees should file their SALNs with the Civil Service Commission.

The issue on SALN was discussed by the SC in its June 16, 2021 decision that was made public last Dec. 20 in the petition filed by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon (ODOL) versus Hurley D. Salig under GR No. 215877.

Salig was employed in 1986 as a forester under the Bureau of Forest Development.  He rose from the ranks until he was designated officer-in-charge of the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) of Cavite.

A complaint was filed against him in 2005 alleging that he committed corrupt practices and acquired unexplained wealth.

The anonymous complainant alleged that Salig owned a three-storey building in Calamba in Laguna, five vehicles, two nightclubs in Calamba, and other real properties.  The complaint was transmitted to the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission which endorsed it to the Office of the Ombudsman since Salig was not a presidential appointee.

In his counter-affidavit filed on Oct. 23, 2007, Salig said that his and his wife’s properties were lawfully acquired and that they took out loans to fund their business ventures.

He said that he inherited the house and lot in Los Banos, Laguna from his parents and that he acquired the property in Calamba City through a bank loan.

For their businesses, Salig said he obtained loans for them.  For his vehicles, he said they were financed by various banks to support their car rental and travel and tour business.

The ODOL did not agree.  On March 26, 2012, the ODOL found Salig guilty of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and violation of RA 6713 for failure to declare his wealth in his SALNs for 2002 to 2005. He was ordered dismissed from the service.

The ODOL ruled that Salig acquired the properties that were manifestly disproportionate to his salary and other lawful income.  

When his motion for reconsideration was denied, Salig elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) which modified ODOL’s ruling as it found him guilty of simple negligence with a penalty of six months suspension without pay.

Among other things, the CA ruled that mere misdeclaration in the SALN does not automatically amount to dishonesty. There should be malicious intent to conceal the truth or make false statements, it said.

It pointed out that from the evidence on record, the element of intent to commit serious dishonesty and malicious concealment of assets were not substantially established, and the records did not show that Salig intended to defraud the government or conceal unexplained wealth.

ODOL elevated the case to the SC. It insisted that there was a glaring discrepancy between Salig's income and his and his wife's properties and business interests since he was employed as a forester in 1986 until his appointment as Officer-in-Charge of PENRO. It also claimed that the alleged additional resources in the form of loans to finance the vehicles and business ventures were found to be insufficient.

The SC, in a decision written by the now retired Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos, said:

“It is clear that Section 10 of R.A. No. 6713 and its IRR allow for corrective measures. The head of office has the authority to establish compliance procedures and review whether SALNs have been submitted on time, complete, and in the proper form.

“If it is determined that an employee did not file his or her SALN, or that the SALN has not been properly accomplished or has incomplete data, the head of office or compliance committee should inform the employee concerned and require him or her to file, correct, or supply the essential information, and make the necessary corrections.

“The review and compliance procedure serves as a mechanism that affords the public official or employee a final opportunity to comply with the requirements before any sanction is meted out. It seeks a fuller and more accurate disclosure of the necessary information.

“While the SALN is an instrument that ensures accountability, the review and compliance procedure work as a buffer that prevents the haphazard filing of actions against public officials and employees.

“Here, Salig's failure to correct entries, supply missing information, or give proper attention to the filling out of his SALNs, without first calling his attention on the matter, could not be considered as indicative of untruthful declaration of assets, absent any concrete proof.

“The appropriate office or committee should have given Salig the opportunity to correct the entries in his SALNs to conform to the prescribed requirements at that time.

“Section 10 of R.A. No. 6713 and its IRR are clear that in the event the authorities determine that a statement is not properly filed, they shall inform the reporting individual and direct him or her to take the necessary corrective action.

“Thus, We disagree with the CA in finding Salig guilty of Simple Negligence and imposing on him the penalty of suspension for six months without pay.

“Here, Salig was not given a chance to correct or fully explain the entries in his SALNs. His failure-to give a detailed explanation or supply missing information could have been prevented if he were properly apprised by the head of office or appropriate committee.

“Nevertheless, Salig was able to successfully prove that he did not possess any unexplained wealth and had properly accounted for them …. Thus, without any malice or wrongful intent, administrative liability cannot attach.

“While the Court is mindful of the duty of public officials and employees to fully disclose their wealth in the SALN as a means to maintain transparency and a standard of honesty in the public service, such public officials and employees should also be given the opportunity to explain and take corrective action of any prima facie appearance of discrepancy in their SALN.

“Where the acquisition of unexplained wealth can be properly accounted for, then such assets cannot be considered as illegally acquired or accumulated.

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 23, 2014 and the Resolution dated Nov. 17, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 130515 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The administrative charges against respondent Hurley D. Salig are DISMISSED without pronouncement on costs of suit. SO ORDERED.”