SO MANY debates and discussions have graced the television networks about the insignificance of the SALN, the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth “...an annual document that all government workers in the Philippines, whether regular or temporary, must complete and submit attesting under oath to their total assets and liabilities, including businesses and financial interests, that make up their net worth.
The assets and liabilities of the official, his or her spouse, and any unmarried children under 18 who are living at home must be included.
Real property must be listed with the “description, kind, location, year and mode of acquisition, assessed value, fair market value, acquisition cost of land, building, etc. including improvements thereon.”
Any “co-mingled” assets, like a house co-owned by siblings, must also be listed.[3] Any gifts, donations, inheritance, or other property received at no cost must be listed at the fair market value and the assessed value.” (Official Gazette, RP)
Many of the defenders of Chief Justice (CJ) Lourdes Sereno have underscored the absence of value of this paper to her case and her situation. They say that many government workers and officials do not submit this requirement either.
So what goes? Is there really no significance attached to the SALN? A very safe reason for not wanting the CJ to stay in her position is of course the non-submission of this paper.
However, our books say that “SALNs are often used by political opponents or other government officials to determine if government leaders or workers have ‘unexplained wealth’, i.e. wealth that cannot be attributed to a salary, investment, gifts, inheritance, or other legal sources and therefore are likely to have come from bribes, kickbacks, grease money or other forms of corruption.
During the trial for plunder of Joseph Estrada, former Philippine president, his SALN played a key role.” (Official Gazette, RP)
This is the importance of this official paper which the law now requires every government worker to have. It can prove an official’s probity, honesty and integrity through the years of his service.
In addition, since this is required by law, shouldn’t the chief justice be the first one to follow it and give an example to the nation?
Being chief justice, she is the safekeeper of the laws of the Republic and so are all the Justices of the country. But being the chief justice, the greatest responsibility of safekeeping lies on her lap and in her conscience.
This is where wisdom and integrity come in. And I am a firm believer of wisdom as the first requirement for being a chief justice of the land. With wisdom come integrity and prudence.
Taking care of the law is like taking care of an infant. Extreme care and love should be practised that no harm may come upon the child that no neglect of the child may result in a deterioration of values during the years of development and that may eventually cause irreparable damage or injustice to others.
Discussions may go on and on but underneath it all, lies the fact that there is chaos in the house of the Justices. There have been many complaints by fellow workers, fellow officials against her and there too have been defenses in her favor.
Many say that to remove the CJ is to weaken the Judiciary Department.
“There’s a chilling effect,” many co Justices point out. I don’t think so. What has given me a chilling effect is the fact that the Chief Justice is an appointee of a sitting President of the land. But an appointee that has more ever reaching powers than any official in any branch of government.
The chief justice stays until retirement age, outliving or out working the President who appointed him/her. And he/she can only be removed by impeachment or any other cause warranted at that time of her term, just like the President!
This term of office I find questionable. I do think that the constitution should be amended. Wisdom is such a valuable trait that not only one person should sit for such a long time and become the exclusive giver of justice. How about other senior justices with so much wisdom too? They should be given a chance to serve and to judge.
The position of chief justice should be co terminus with that of the President who appoints a person to this position. An appointee who becomes more powerful than the appointer, can make the mistake of declaring his/her position a Republic, and worse, of thinking he/she is also one.
We need judges with wisdom, usually found in the aged, because age means experience, and the passing of the years mellows a person to realize the true meaning of justice.