By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III
It has been reported in several leading media outfits (including this newspaper) that the Ombudsman had pronounced that he has not- and will not- conduct lifestyle checks on public officials. The said pronouncement was reportedly made during a congressional hearing. Without any attempt at content-moderation, the news also carried the anecdotal story told by the Ombudsman about a fictional public official who from a “meagre” salary, saves up and buys a BMW. Everyone knows that a BMW is among the list classified as luxurious vehicles- even if acquired as second-hand. This, according to the Ombudsman, does not call for an investigation as he has long questioned the “logic” of such a strategy of investigating public officials on the mere swelling of their pockets. The Ombudsman further argues that perhaps some government officials only have “distorted priorities or values” and that alone is not against the law, much less does it amount to a crime.
In society, in law, and life in general, for every privilege or right comes great responsibilities. When one accepts a judgeship position for instance, it has been held by the Supreme Court that “The judicial office circumscribes the personal conduct of a magistrate and imposes a number of restrictions. This is a price that judges have to pay for accepting and occupying their exalted positions in the administration of justice. (Re: Anonymous complaint against Judge Laarni N. Dajao, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Siocon, Zamboanga Del Norte, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2456. March 2, 2020). Thus, judges cannot, on one hand, display irascibility in or out of the courtroom, nor on the other, be overly friendly especially with lawyers.
This is true with any government official or employee who had accepted either an elective or appointive office as well as those who went through the ranks according to the merit-and-fitness system of the Civil Service laws. They, too, while enjoying governmental privileges and perks, must bear the duties and responsibilities that these entail.
Republic Act No. 6713 which took effect on February 20, 1989 entitled AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, quintessentially embodies what the law envisages of public officials to live up to. Section 2 of this law articulates the declaration of policy, thus:
“Section 2. Declaration of Policies. – It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public service. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest.”
More tellingly, Section 4 of this law prescribes the mode of living of “public officials and employees” and even “their families” by stating that:
“Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. – (A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:
X x x
(h) Simple living. – Public officials and employees and their families shall lead modest lives appropriate to their positions and income. They shall not indulge in extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth in any form.”
The recent pandemic which necessitated people to social-distance had severely affected several businesses and companies and had brought most of them to their knees. But not the government. In the midst of COVID-19, the resilience of government employment had become all the more undeniable. The least therefore that government officials and employees can do is to live a simple and modest life. And the law enjoins their family members to follow suit. For the fictional public official who buys a second-hand BMW therefore, it would not only be a mere error in logic, nor mere misplaced sense of priorities that he/ she is committing: it could be a violation of the law which calls for a dogged investigation.
It bears to emphasize that under Article 7 of the New Civil Code that “Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom, or practice to the contrary. X x x. Indeed, just because a law is being violated or not being observed by non-use, custom or contrary practice does not mean that it is has been repealed. Simply stated, a law is not repealed just because it is not being implemented.
When a public official or employee’s wallet fattens while in government service (whereas in contrast, his wallet was fraying at the edges, or he/ she had no wallet at all prior to entering government service) it is true that the law does not immediately consider this as a crime. However, given the serious responsibility that comes along with government service, being a public trust, at the very least, the bulging wallet serves as a tell-tale sign or a red-flag to commence an investigation. Anyhow, apart from that coming within the territory of being in public service, the innocent public servant will be as brave as a lion to face the investigation and whatever smudge that will be caused his/ her reputation will be cured by the panacea of a clear conscience.
The constitutional-mandate that “Public office is a public trust” which is echoed by Republic Act 6713 that outlines the norm of conduct of public officials, must not be paid mere lip-service to, lest they be relegated to mere “sounding brass” or “clanging cymbals”.
(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates- a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).
