Final exam: a paralegal work

1. True or False. One of the main reasons CJ Corona was removed through impeachment is that his
SALN did not reflect his dollar accounts.

Ans: True
It is provided for in Art. XI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution that “a public officer or employee
shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a
declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the
Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and other constitutional offices, and officers of the
armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the
manner provided by law. ”

CJ Corona failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as
required by the Constitution. It is also reported that some of the properties of Respondent are
not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in violation of the anti-
graft and corrupt practices act.
CJ CORONA is likewise suspected and accused of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring
assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits.

2. True or False. The general rule is that the secrecy of bank deposits is protected by law.
If true, cite the pertinent law/s and the specific provision/s.

Ans. True

According to RA 1405 or also known as AN ACT PROHIBITING DISCLOSURE OF OR INQUIRY INTO,

DEPOSITS WITH ANY BANKING INSTITUTION AND PROVIDING PENALTY THEREFOR.
Section 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines
including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political
subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential
nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official,
bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment,
or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials,
or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.

3. True or False. An exception to the general rule is in impeachment cases. If true, what are the
other exceptions, if any? If false, what are the exceptions, if any?

Ans. True

As stated in RA 1405 Section 2: All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the
Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political
subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and
may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office,
except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a
competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money
deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.

4. True or False. An exception to the exception on impeachment proceedings is when foreign currency
accounts are involved.

If true, cite the pertinent law/s and the specific provision/s.

Ans: True

According to RA 6426 AN ACT INSTITUTING A FOREIGN CURRENCY DEPOSIT SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Section 8: Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. – All foreign currency
deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits
authorized under PD No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential
nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency
deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office
whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private; Provided,
however, That said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any
other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body
whatsoever. (As amended by PD No. 1035, and further amended by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21, 1977.)

Ans. True

5. True or False. The secrecy of CJ Corona's dollar accounts is protected by law.

Ans: True

The confidentiality under Republic Act 6426 justifies a public official from disclosing his dollar accounts
in his SALN. RA 6426 provides that all foreign currency deposits, without any qualification as to whether
they are owned by a private or a public person, are absolutely confidential, except upon the written
waiver of the depositor. Even if Section 8, Republic Act 6713 requires public officials to file a SALN under
oath, this provision does not amend the confidentiality of dollar deposits under the Foreign Currency
Deposit Act, which is a specific law. Besides, our Constitution provides, under the Bill of Rights, a right to
privacy and a right to information. According to Justice Brion, Republic Act 6713 did not repeal Republic
Act 6426, and I quote, “The implied repeal of inconsistent laws that Republic Act 6713 mandates cannot
be interpreted as a repeal of the express substantive right granted to confidentiality under Section 8 of
Republic Act No. 6426, even if the latter was enacted earlier.” Implied repeals are not favored. The
presumption is against inconsistencies or repugnance and, accordingly, against implied repeals.

Sec 8 of RA 6426 says All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD No.
1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, are hereby declared as and
considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the
depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any
person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any
other entity whether public or private; Provided, however, That said foreign currency deposits shall be
exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body,
government agency or any administrative body whatsoever. (As amended by PD No. 1035, and further
amended by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21, 1977.)

6. True or False. CJ Corona's dollar accounts were admitted as evidence in the impeachment
proceedings.

If true, why were they admitted. If false, why were they not admitted?

True CJ Corona’s dollar account were admitted as evidence in the impeachment

proceedings.

The following statements are the excerpt from the speech of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile
explaining his verdict to CJ Corona:

With all due respect, I believe that the respondent chief justice’s reliance on the absolute
confidentiality accorded to foreign currency deposits under Section 8 of Republic Act No.
6426 is grossly misplaced. The Constitution, in Article XI, Section 17, provides that, and I
would like to quote it: “A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as
often as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities and
net worth.” The oath required him to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. So help him,
God.
Are we now to say that this constitutional command, mandatory as it is, is limited to public
officials, assets or deposits in local currency? If so, would we not be saying, in effect, that
the Constitution allows something less than a full, honest and complete disclosure under the
first sentence of Section 17 of Article XI?

It bears noting that the prescribed form of the SALN quite simply requires public officers and
employees to declare their assets, real and personal, the latter to include cash and bank
deposits, bonds and others. It does not require the public officer or employee to indicate
whether or not he or she has foreign currency notes or deposits. Neither does it require
details such as account numbers, account names, bank identities, nor any branch addresses.
All that it requires is a declaration under oath of the total amount of funds deposited in any
bank account or accounts maintained by the public official or employee concerned.

Surely, the chief justice knows the equivalent value in local currency of his foreign currency
deposits to be able to declare the same as part of his assets, especially since the aggregate
amount of this foreign currency deposits by his own account under oath amounts to U.S.
$2.4 million.

The nondisclosure of these deposits in both local and foreign currency would naturally result
in a corresponding distortion of the chief justice’s real net worth.

Consistent with the position taken by this court in the case filed by the Philippine Savings
Bank before the Supreme Court last February, pursuant to which the Supreme Court issued
a Temporary Restraining Order, I maintain that the constitutional principle of public
accountability under Article XI of the Constitution overrides the absolute confidentiality of
foreign currency deposits. The provision of RA 6426 cannot be interpreted as an exception
to the unequivocal command and tenor of Article XI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution.
And I regret that the highest magistrate of the land no less would think otherwise.

Section 8 of RA 6426 provides that, “except with the written permission of the depositor” —
I would repeat—”except with the written permission of the depositor”—and I quote, “in no
instance shall foreign currency deposits can be examined, inquired or looked into by any
person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative
or any other entity whether public or private.”

Any other interpretation of this provision would be unwarranted and the term “any person”
would not include the depositor.

The so-called conflict of laws between RA Nos. 6713 and 6426 is more illusory than real to
me. Section 8 of RA No. 6426 merely prohibits the examination, inquiry or looking into a
foreign currency deposit account by an entity or person other than the depositor himself,
because that depositor knows his deposit and he can reveal it, if he wants to, without any
penalty or punitive sanction against him, unlike others who would reveal it. But there is
nothing in RA No. 6426 which prohibits the depositor from making a declaration on his own
of such foreign currency funds, especially in this case where the Constitution mandates the
depositor who is a public officer to declare, under the Constitution itself, all assets owned by
him or his family under oath.
Here lies what many have posited as a moral dilemma. I believe it is our duty to resolve this
“dilemma” in favor of upholding the law and sound public policy in this country. If we were
to agree with the respondent chief justice of the Supreme Court that he was correct in not
disclosing the value of his foreign currency deposits because they are absolutely
confidential, can we ever expect any SALN to be filed by public officials, no matter how high
and no matter how low, from hereon to be more accurate and true than they are today? I
do not think so.