File SSAL truthfully, accurately, says SC decision

By EDMER F. PANESA (Manila, Philippines)

September 6, 2010, 5:43pm

The Supreme Court (SC) has reminded government officials not to treat their Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SSAL) as a mere scrap of paper and thus, it should be “accomplished as truthfully, as detailed and as accurately as possible.”

In a 14-page decision penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama Jr., the High Court said the annual filing of SSAL “must not be treated as a simple and trivial routine, but as an obligation that is part and parcel of every civil servant’s duty to the people.”

The SC issued the reminder as it upheld the 2004 decision of the Office of the President dismissing from the service a regional director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for failing the lifestyle check of the previous  administration.

Lawyer Antonio F. Montemayor, former director for Revenue Region IV in San Fernando, Pampanga, was dismissed from service for his failure to declare that he owned two luxury vehicles — a 2001 Ford Expedition and a 1997 Toyota Land Cruiser — in his SSAL for the years 2001 and 2002.

The law, particularly Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, requires government officials and employees to file a detailed SSAL on taking and leaving office — as well as not later than the first 15 days of April at the close of every calendar year. It included a statement of the amounts and sources of  their income, the amount of their personal and family expenses, and even the amount of income taxes paid.

The High Tribunal underscored the importance of SSAL in promoting  transparency in the bureaucracy and in ensuring that “all government employees and officials lead just and modest lives.”

It added that SSAL also serves as basis of government and the public in monitoring the income and lifestyle of state workers “in compliance with the constitutional policy to eradicate corruption.”

When in Cebu City, please visit gregmelep.com for your real estate and retirement needs.

Published in Manila Bulletin September 6, 2010.

SC backs GSIS employees’ right to rally

By Tetch Torres
INQUIRER.net

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court affirmed the exercise of freedom of expression and speech of employees of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) when in 2005, they wore red shirt and appeared at a hearing to show support to their union leader.

In a decision by the high court en banc, it dismissed the petition of former GSIS President and General Manager Winston Garcia for failure to prove that employees Dinnah Villaviz, Elizabeth Duque, Adronico Echavez, Rodel Rubio, Rowena Therese Gracia, Pilar Layco and Antonio Jose Legarda were guilty of grave misconduct and/or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service according to the rules of procedure of the GSIS.

On May 27, 2005, wearing red shirt, the said employees appeared before the GSIS Investigation Unit to support Mario Molina and their union leader Albert Velasco. They raised clenched fist in airing their grievances against Garcia’s administration.

A month later, using as basis the report of the GSIS security, Garcia suspended the employees for one year.
The Civil Service Commission (CSC), however, found the employees guilty of a lesser offence and reduced the penalty to reprimand. The CSC said wearing red to a public hearing and supporting their union leader can be considered an exercise of freedom of expression, a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Garcia elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which sided with the CSC.

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Garcia argued that the employees’ failure to submit their answer to the complaint is an admission that they are guilty of misconduct.

“Petitioners must remember that there remain averments that are not deemed admitted by the failure to deny the same. Thus, even if respondents failed to file their answer, it does not mean that all averments found in the complaint will be considered as true and correct in its entirety,” the high court said.

It added that it is still Garcia’s duty to present evidence to support his complaint. However, the high court noted that even Garcia was not certain if there was intent on the part of the employees to disrupt GSIS operations.

“Government workers, whatever their ranks, have as much right as any person in the land to voice out their protests against what they believe to be a violation of their rights and interests.”

“Civil Service does not deprive them of their freedom of expression. It would be unfair to hold that by joining the government service, the members thereof have renounced or waived this basic liberty. This freedom can be reasonably regulated only but can never be taken away,” the high court said.