House Majority Leader Fredenil Castro, on Saturday said that the issuance of rules governing the review, filing, and disclosure, and access to the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth of House members, officials and employees was legitimate and in accordance with the law.
At a news forum, Castro maintained that the House’s decision to draft and approve the resolution was justified.
Taking a swipe at those who oppose the resolution, Castro said he does not see any problem with it. “They are expressing imaginary problems. For some, nothing and nobody is good but themselves,” Castro, one of the principal authors of House Resolution 2467, said.
The resolution, Castro said, fulfills the mandate of Republic Act 6713.or the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees” which mandates government agencies, even the Supreme Court, to come up with the rules of procedure in the review, filing and disclosure, and access to the SALNs of government employees.
The concept was started during the time of then-Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., and had been worked on during the speakership of former Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez and only prospered during the time of Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
Castro earlier said among the purposes of HR 2467 is to pinpoint responsibility in case when the SALN of a House Member, official or employee ends up in the hands of unscrupulous people with sinister design.
“We do not really know who is responsible pag kumalat ang SALN. How can we run after unscrupulous people with sinister design when we don’t even know their identity, affiliation or organization,” Castro earlier said.
To prevent this, he said there should be proper identification of the requesting individual, his affiliation, background, and organization.
The proper identification of the requesting individual will serve as protection for House members, officials and employees as well as to the requesting person.
“Without proper identification, sino hahabulin natin in case the SALN of the House Member, official or employee is changed? For instance, if the requesting party alters the net worth in the SALN from P10 million to P100 million and this is distributed around for political purposes, who do we run after if the requesting person was not properly identified? Sino hahabulin ng House and ng House member?,” said Castro.
The required proper identification as provided in the new rules of procedure under HR 267 will also be a protection for the requesting person.
“If he is of good standing and from a legitimate organization, pero ninakaw ung kopya ng SALN, at ito ay na-altered, the one caught in possession of it will be held responsible. The legitimate holder of the SALN will have no responsibility,” said Castro.
Castro said under the new rules on SALN access and disclosure procedure there will be no more need to obtain subpoena from a judicial or quasi-judicial body.
“It is more expeditious and easier because all you have to do is apply or request for a SALN. If it is established that the opposition to the SALN request is not valid, the requesting party can then appeal in the plenary and the plenary will decide on it. It is more transparent,” said Castro.
He said any request for the SALN of House Members, officials and employees should come with an obligation on the part of the requesting and approving parties.
One of the features of the resolution is to let the requesting party identify the purpose of securing a SALN copy. He stressed there should be “safety, privacy and legitimacy” of the purpose in getting the SALN copy.
He said a House member also has the right to protect himself or herself.
He said Congress can deny a request for SALN if the purpose of securing it is politically motivated and the requesting party has a bad purpose. “Maaring kasabwat ito ng extortionist, terrorista, blackmailer. Ano naman magagawa natin?,” he said.
The House will rely on a process in deciding over a request. He said the House will not readily follow a House member if he rejects a request. The House SALN Review and Compliance Committee will refer the matter to the plenary which in turn will decide whether to support or not the decision of the House member.
A House member can refuse the SALN request as a matter of self-defense, he said. “But the argument of the House member will still be studied by the Committee to find out if the lawmaker’s opposition is valid,” he said.
In the same breath, nobody can stop a lawmaker if he or she approves the SALN request.
Castro, a lawyer, called on critics of HR 2467 to read and study well the Rules of Procedure in the Filing Review and Disclosure , and Access to the SALN of House Member, officials and employees. “They should read and study it well. It is intended for the protection of everyone,” he said.
HR 2467 provides that the such Rules of Procedure are in line with the constitutional mandate that a public office is a public trust and public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people.
Meanwhile, Castro said the creation of a Committee on Review and Compliance was based on the constitutional obligation of the House members to file their SALN.
The law also mandates the House of Representatives or any other institution like the Supreme Court to form a group or committee similar to the SALN Review and Compliance Committee to fulfill the giving of information to the public of matters of public concern.
“We were guided by the Supreme Court systems to pass and form a SALN Review and Compliance Committee,” Castro maintained.
He said the Supreme Court formed a group to see to it that the purpose of requesting the SC Members’ SALN is legitimate and to address the public’s right to information on matters of public concern.
The SC group brought the SALN requests to the en banc for approval. “Nobody complained (when the SC formed a similar group),” he said.
“We as an institution should make compliance and disclosure governed by rules to assure order and responsibility. The plenary becomes responsible on why it opposes any release or approves it,” said Castro.