AGRICULTURE Secretary Emmanuel “Manny” Piñol surprised many when he returned an expensive Rolex watch given to him as a Christmas gift by an agricultural company official.
Piñol wasn’t the first, and wouldn’t be the last, government official to be given an expensive Christmas gift by someone from a business entity with interests in a government office. What was uncommon was Piñol’s decision to return it and make public the gift-giving.
Piñol said on his Facebook page that he resisted a temptation and returned a Rolex submariner worth P450,000, which he received during a dinner of officials of an agri company. He said the giver was involved in activities that may require supervision by his office. He then encouraged others in government to check their gifts and see if they would be violating ethics rules if they were to accept them.
The implementing rules for Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, state conditions when those in government may or may not receive gifts. The rules cite as a ground for administrative disciplinary action the - “Soliciting or accepting, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value which in the course of his official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of, his office.”
The propriety or impropriety of the gift is determined “by its value, kinship or relationship between giver and receiver and the motivation.” The rules added, “A thing of monetary value is one which is evidently or manifestly excessive by its very nature.”
The rules give the recipient leeway in interpreting propriety of the gift. There lies the problem because a government official, other than Piñol, could find a Rolex gift acceptable considering friendly and warm relations with the giver. A cash gift is a no “by its very nature,” the rules said, but a giant television set or car may be allowed if the recipient can justify the nature of his or her relations with the giver and assure the absence of attached strings.
The rules also exclude from the prohibition the -- “Unsolicited gift of nominal or insignificant value not given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor from a public official or employee or given after the transaction is completed, or service is rendered. As to what is a gift of nominal value will depend on the circumstances of each case taking into account the salary of the official or employee, the frequency or infrequency of the giving, the expectation of benefits, and other similar factors.” Contrary to the provision’s intention, others might find in this a way to rationalize the gift.
What is not in the gift policy is the shock level to the public. Piñol cared that the public would be scandalized. That was why his Facebook post received 51,000 likes and 6,500 comments as of Wednesday from people happy with what he did. Would other officials care?
(ninicab@sunstar.com.ph)