Until two months ago, Jose Calida had three reasons to be pleased with himself. He was enjoying the power and perks that go with being the Solicitor General, who is the government’s chief lawyer. He was apparently enjoying the respect and esteem of his peers in the legal and judicial communities. And, last but not least, the security-agency business that he and his wife founded, Vigilant Investigative and Security Agency Inc., was operating profitably.
Then things began to turn bad for Calida. He lost much of the respect and esteem that he until then had enjoyed at the hands of his professional colleagues. Allegations of misuse of Office of the Solicitor General funds were leveled at him. Perhaps worst of all, the operations of the family business came under attack.
It is very difficult for anyone writing about today’s Calida to avoid the temptation to say things about the quo warranto complaint that he filed—and won —in the Supreme Court. But I intend, in this column, to resist that temptation; I intend, instead, to merely cite the laws and regulations that he is said to have violated since June 30, 2016, when his boss, President Rodrigo Duterte, came into office.
First, the Constitution. Article VII, Section 13 of the Basic Law prohibits “the Members of the Cabinet” from being “financially interested in any contract” with “any government body.” The operative phrases, obviously, are “Members of the Cabinet,” “financially interested in any contract” and “any government body.”
Then there is the Code of Professional Responsibility, to which lawyers, whether in and or out of government service, are subject. Chapter I, Canon 6 of the Code states: “A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests or allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.” Here the operative phrases are “use his public position” and “promote or advance his private interests.”
Next there is the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713). Section 3 (i) of the Code states that a conflict of interest is a situation in which a public official “is a member of a board, an officer or a substantial stockholder of a private corporation or an owner or having a substantial interest in a business, and the interest of such corporation or business, or his rights or duties therein, may be opposed to or be affected by the faithful performance of official duty.” Here the operative phrases are “substantial stockholder of a private corporation” and “affected by the faithful performance of official duty.”
And, of course, there is the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019), which punishes conflict-of-interest and other acts by government officials that bring disadvantage to the government.
What facts have been established regarding the Solicitor General’s involvement with Visai? Calida’s own statements, the records of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other official data have provided the following information.
First, Visai obtained more than P250 million worth of security-service contracts with government agencies (National Economic and Development Authority, National Parks Development Committee and National Anti-Poverty Commission) after—repeat, after—his installation as the government’s chief lawyer.
Second, prior to his assumption of office, Calida resigned from the positions of Visai chairman and president, but SEC records show that he still has interest in the company, in the process violating the within-60-days dives—ment rule of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials and Employees.
Third, Calida promised on television that he would divest himself of his Visai shareholding “should an actual conflict arise.” In the complaint that she filed with the Office of the Ombudsman against Calida, Jocelyn Marie Acosta alleges an “actual conflict” of interest.
Smart lawyer that he believes himself to be, Calida has put together a defense consisting of the following positions: (1) that he is not a member of the Cabinet; (2) that it was Visai, not the OSG, that solicited (no pun intended) the contracts with the government agencies, (3) that the law requires that public officials divest themselves of their business interests within 30 days of assuming office or—Mr. Calida emphasized “or”—divest themselves of their shareholdings within 60 days, and (4) that he never intervened in Visai’s acquisition of the contracts with the government agencies.
Calida may indeed not have intervened, but is that a relevant factor, considering that he was a high government official and the prospective clients were government bodies? Besides his actual intervention was not necessary in the business culture of this country all that the awarding officers of the government bodies needed to hear was a whispered “Kay SolGen yan.”
Statutory Construction must have been one of the Solicitor General’s favorite subjects in law school. In the quo warranto complaint he stressed the difference between “may” and “shall.” In his current situation he has stressed the difference between “or” and “and.”
The unethical-behavior case against the Solicitor General is very strong. Is he likely to survive? I don’t think so.
