PLTCOL LOUIE B PERRERAS

PSOSEC 2022

1. Robert Sy, a well-known businessman and a founding member of the Makati

Business Club, aside from being a classmate of the newly-elected President of
the Philippines, had investments consisting of shares of stocks in the Urban
Bank, the PNB, the Rural Bank of Caloocan City and his privately-owned
corporation, the RS Builders Corporation and Trans-Pacific Air. After the
President had taken his oath and assumed his office, he appointed Robert as
Honorary Consul to the Republic of Vietnam. Robert took his oath before the
President and after furnishing the Department of Foreign Affairs with his
appointment papers, flew to Saigon, now Ho Chi Min City, where he organized
his staff, put up an office and stayed there for three months attending to trade
opportunities and relations with local businessman. On the fourth month, he
returned to the Philippines to make his report to the President. However, the Anti-
Graft League of the Philippines filed a complaint against Robert for (1) falling to
file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities within thirty (30) days from assumption
of office; (2) failing to resign from his businesses, and (3) falling to divest his
shares and investments in the banks and corporations owned by him, as required
by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees. QUESTION: WILL THE COMPLAINT PROSPER? EXPLAIN YOUR
ANSWER

No, the complaint will not prosper.

It is worth noting that the appointment of Robert Sy is in an honorary

capacity and he is still considered a private individual who is taking care of his
tasks in a part-time basis without remuneration.

In Republic Act No. 6713 otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees specifically Section 8 of
said statute, government officials in honorary capacity are exempted from filing a
Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN). Therefore, the first
complaint is untenable and Robert Sy cannot be penalized for such.

In Section 9 of the Code aforementioned, divestment of his shares and

investments and resignation from previous positions in businesses are not
applicable to individuals who serve the Government in an honorary capacity.

Since the complaint stems up from these alleged erring acts committed by
Robert Sy, therefore, all these stipulations should not prosper.
2. A month after the arraignment of Brad Kit, Commissioner of the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board, who was charged with violation of Section 3 (h) of
Republic Act 3019 [Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the
Sandiganbayan, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a Motion to Suspend
Accused Pendente Lite pursuant to Section 13 of the Anti-Graft Law. The Court
granted the motion and suspended accused Brad Kit for a period of 90 days.
Accused assailed the constitutional validity of the suspension order on the
ground that it partakes of a penalty before Judgment of conviction is reached and
is thus violative of his constitutional right to be presumed innocent. He also
claimed that this provision of the law on suspension pendente lite applies only to
elective officials and not to appointed ones like him. Question: IS BRAD KIT
CORRECT. Explain with reasons

No, Brad Kit is not correct.

Republic Act No. 3019 defines the suspension pendente lite not as a form
of punishment, but an instrument of the court to adduce an unbiased
investigation on the part of the prosecution so that the defendant may not be able
to influence in the investigation process as a whole due to his power, if being
retained.

In the given facts, Brad Kit’s situation has been clearly discussed by the
Supreme Court in the case of Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, on which suspension,
being temporary, is not a punishment in itself, but a necessary step to meet the
ends of justice.

The said suspension is not limited to elective officials only. Suspension

pendente lite is only not applicable to judges and justices of lower courts due to
the importance of their role in the criminal justice system of the state.

Therefore, Brad Kit’s contentions does not have any weight and merit. The
suspension should proceed.
3. Kabilugan, in January 2019, was appointed director of a bureau in one of the
departments of the government. In accordance with the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, he filed his statement of assets and liabilities within thirty days
after assuming office. In March, 2019, after the February political upheaval,
Kabilugan fled the country, fearing that he would be investigated for a number of
irregularities in his department. For his failure to file his statement of assets and
liabilities on or before April 15, 2019, he was charged with violation of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Kabilugan pleads that he being abroad, it was
impossible for him to prepare and file his statement of assets and liabilities.
QUESTION: Is the charge against Kabilugan proper? Explain with reasons

No, the charge against Kabilugan is not proper.

Under the rules clearly stipulated in Republic Act No. 6713 otherwise
known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees, Section 8, Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN)
shall be filled: (a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office; (b) on or
before April 30, of every year thereafter; and (c) within thirty (30) days after
separation from the service.

In the given facts, Kabilugan was able to file his SALN within thirty days
after assuming office, which he was appointed in January 2019. The law is clear
that on part (b) of Section 8, RA 6713, he shall file his next SALN on or before
April 30, of every year thereafter, meaning in the year 2020. The filing of SALN is
sufficient if a public officer has filed it once in a given year as clearly defined
under existing jurisprudences of the Court.

Therefore, charge against Kabilugan should fail.