That non-disclosure of assets, liabilities and net worth is betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution;

hence it is our ultimate assertion that it is, without an iota of doubt, an impeachable offense. Public office is vested with the support and trust of the people, hence, it is but fitting and proper that those who hold it must take extraordinary care to reciprocate and affirm this trust, as their power remains with them only as long as the people would have it. I am before you today to discourse the practicability of inclusion of the non-disclosure of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth as an impeachable offense. My argument lies in two questions to be answered. First: Is this really feasible? Is there any statute that deters or hinders it from taking place? The 1987 Constitution provides for the responsibility of public officers and employees to submit a declaration, under oath, of their assets, liabilities and net worth. This is further reinforced by Republic Act 6713 otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The Constitution proclaims that since public office is a public trust, public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. R.A. 6713 takes it even further to include the necessity that they must also uphold public interest over their personal interests. Simply put, both laws stress the paramount importance of integrity, loyalty and honesty among public officers, hence they must have a high standard or sense of responsibility towards their office, and that includes special care towards full honesty in their declaration of their assets, liabilities and net worth. With this said, we truly believe that the non-disclosure of the SALN is tantamount to culpable violation of the Constitution, which as we know is one of those considered as the grounds for impeachment, as enumerated in Article XI, section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Let us now look into betrayal of public trust, another ground for impeachment. It is a well-known idea that as of this moment, neither the Constitution, nor the Supreme Court has yet provided us with a clear, concise definition of the phrase. And as a general rule of Statutory Construction, when there is ambiguity, the law may be interpreted through the concept of the spirit of the law, by using the very purpose of the man behind the pen in placing the aforementioned phrase or section. The 1986 Constitutional Commission, in their deliberation, as mentioned in their Journal, stated their opinion on the matter as to include all acts which would render the officer unfit to continue in office. Furthermore they stress that really it refers to his oath of office and if he violates that oath, he has betrayed that trust. In addition, the commission enumerates offenses such as: betrayal of public interest, inexcusable negligence of duty, breach of official duty by malfeasance or misfeasance, among others. Most of these offenses are not necessarily crimes made punishable by legislation, nevertheless they are included as grounds for impeachment, which as we know, covers some of the most powerful government officers of the country. In this light, applying statutory construction once again, it can be contented that nondisclosure of the SALN is in fact consistent with the commissions definition of betrayal of public trust, and thus constitutes an impeachable offense. Therefore it is our contention that since it constitutes betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the constitution, and that no legal

force hinders it, non-disclosure of the SALN being an impeachable offense is in fact legally feasible. The second question on which I base my stand is this: Is it practical? Will the application of this proposition somehow have a negative or derogatory effect on society or the political realm? The answer lies in a simple concept: defense of the rule of law. My colleagues have already established that the assailed proposition will promote transparency and accountability in public office. Given this, this will inevitably lead to the promotion of perfect respect for the rule of law. Yes, the law is an ideal, and being created by the hands of imperfect men, is constantly in need of examination and interpretation, however, there is a very clear difference between interpreting and applying the law, and looking for ways to overcome it. Public officers undergo an oath in where they swear to uphold the constitution and respect all laws, and incidentally, some of these laws dictate that they must accurately disclose their assets, liabilities and net worth. Isnt it a very elementary fact then, that these letters of the law must be respected, much less by the very officers in which the trust and support of the democracy is invested? What manner of order can be achieved when everyone can simply hurdle the law and get away with it? In conclusion, let me end with this simple concept in mind: Dura Lex, Sed Lex. The law may be harsh, but it is the law. The power of law alone separates democracy from anarchy, so it is our paramount duty to keep it solid.