Category: Freedom of Information

Sereno y Carpio: UP clams up for the chief, tales of Megatron

mcmangahas Leave a comment

IN PCIJ’s analysis, the biggest obstacles to achieving full transparency in the high court seem to be its top two officials: Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes P. A. Sereno and Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio.

The two were among the seven who did not respond to PCIJ’s clarificatory letters but whose SALNs invite the biggest questions of all.

In Sereno’s case, what happened seems to be either indifference or diffidence to PCIJ’s request for asset records she had filed in previous years that only she can actually decide on now. The matter has been awaiting Sereno’s action since last month.

It all started with PCIJ submitting a request last September with the University of the Philippines for copies of SALNs that Sereno had filed as a professor with the UP College of Law form 1996 to 2002. The documents are on file with the UP Human Resources Development Office.

But instead of releasing Sereno’s SALNs, the premiere state university, which is usually jealous of its academic freedom and avowedly as zealous about good governance, rushed to the Court en banc for an opinion.

According to UP President Alfredo Pascual, it was the advice of UP’s lawyers to get clearance from the high court before releasing Sereno’s SALNs in light of the high court’s Guidelines on the release of the justices’ SALNs.

Here’s the thing: the Guidelines, which clearly refer to SALNs of justices and judges, were issued in 2012, or 10 years after Sereno had filed her last SALN with UP as a law professor.

Last month, the en banc tossed the issue to the Office of the Chief Justice so Sereno herself could decide on it. So far, she has yet to take action in favor of transparency.

Carpio’s refusal to deal with what PCIJ found were apparent disparities in his SALNs, meanwhile, is totally inconsistent with his declaration that a new era of transparency had come upon the high court, when he became acting chief justice.

PCIJ’s clarificatory letter to Carpio raised the following concerns:

* His 2011 SALN lists the total amount of personal properties at P54,241,220.00, but PCIJ’s computation of the 23 properties that he declared he owns amounted to P58,425,914.00. There seems to be a difference of P4,184,694.00, which should make his total net worth P84,079,719.57 and not P79,895,025.57 as he said in his 2011 SALN.

* Carpio’s latest SALN enrolled assets worth P4,184,694.00, P552,500.00, and P10,000,000.00 representing “insurance” policies. He did not say whether or not these are the face value of his policies or just the premiums he had paid.

According to a tax lawyer, however, it is not exactly correct to say that the face value of one’s insurance policies are one’s assets. These do become assets of the filer’s beneficiaries after the filer would have passed on, says the expert. Interestingly, the amount of one of the policies – P4,184,694.00 – matches the discrepancy between his stated total net worth and PCIJ’s computation.

* The real nature and extent of operations of what Carpio disclosed was his family’s holding firm, Megatron Holdings, Inc. beg more explanation. This became apparent after PCIJ reviewed the corporate records of Megatron at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Megatron had filed certificates of non-operation for several years, yet still it continues to hold office at the offices, before and today, of Carpio’s former law firm, CVC Law, which is also known as “The Firm”. Carpio had reported in his 1992, 1993, 1994 and 2011 SALNs that Megatron’s address was 138 Bunga Extension, Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. This is what Carpio has listed to be his residential address as well.

* Megatron’s corporate records, and the CVCLaw’s official website, enroll a different address for the Carpio family’s holding company.?In its 2006 General Information Sheet (GIS), Megatron said it holds office at the “5th Floor, LTA Building, 118 Perea St. Legaspi Village, Makati City, Metro Manila.” This building is owned by the family of former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo.

CVC Law had held office there for a long period of time, or until they moved to the CVC Law Center at the swanky Global City in 2009.

* In its 2010, 2011, and 2012 GIS, Megatron, listed its business address at: “11th Avenue corner 39th Street, Bonifacio Triangle, Global City 1634, Metro Manila.” This is exactly where the five-story CVC Law Center now stands.

To be sure, the amended articles of incorporation in 2001 and other records at the SEC of CVC Law reflected a divestment by Carpio from the law firm that he co-founded, within days after he was appointed associate justice by then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. – PCIJ, December 2012

NOTE: This story was the sidebar to the last part of PCIJ’s special report on “The Wealth of the ‘Gods of Faura.’”

Senate passes FOI on second reading

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

 

THE LONG-DELAYED Freedom of Information (FOI) bill breezed through the Senate floor on second reading Tuesday night, with main sponsor Senator Gregorio Honasan guaranteeing passage on third and final reading by next week.

But prospects are not as bright in the House of Representatives, as FOI advocates prepare to battle it out with the measure’s opponents in the plenary. Also on Tuesday, the House committee on public information formally approved the consolidated committee report, paving the way for debates on the House version in the plenary. The consolidated committee report had actually been approved as early as last month, but committee chairman Ben Evardone had insisted on calling another committee hearing just to formalize the approval.

In contrast, the Senate version was reported to the floor last week, after which several senators proposed amendments to the bill. Honasan said the amendments were mostly minor; Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, for example, had wanted to rename the bill to the Freedom of Information Act or FOI, after Honasan gave the measure the somewhat catchier name POGI, or the People’s Ownership of Government Information Act. POGI, of course, is a colloquial word meaning “handsome.”

In the end, Honasan said he preferred to keep the name POGI, even though advocates are more familiar with the acronym FOI.

After a brief period of amendments, Honasan moved to have the bill passed on second reading. Hearing no objections, Presiding Officer Jinggoy Estrada declared the measure passed.

Honasan said the third reading of the bill would be a mere formality in the Senate. As such, he said FOI advocates must now train their guns on the House of Representatives.

Atty. Nepomuceno Malaluan, Right to Know Right Now Coalition convenor, said the ball is now in the court of Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. and President Benigno S. Aquino III.

Malaluan said that with the FOI virtually passed in the upper chamber, it would be up to the President and the House Speaker to wield their clout and make the measure move through the House.

In particular, Malaluan said FOI advocates are still hoping that President Aquino would certify the bill as urgent. Malaluan pointed out that the President had repeatedly expressed his support for the FOI when he was still a presidential candidate. The President’s interest in the bill appear to have waned though after he assumed office.

 

The bill has met some resistance in the lower chamber, with several congressmen demanding the insertion of a provision providing for a right of reply, or ROR. The ROR rider would require media organizations to give equal time, space, and prominence to officials who feel that they were the targets of negative reportage. ROR proponents in the House of Representatives insist that this provision would curb alleged excesses within the media. Media organizations however say that the ROR proviso is unconstitutional, as it virtually legislates editorial content.

 

The rapidly rising net worth of the Supreme Court justices

mcmangahas Leave a comment

EXACTLY A year ago tomorrow, on Dec. 12, 2011, President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III marshaled votes from his Liberal Party and coalition allies in the House of Representatives to impeach then Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

The chief magistrate, it was alleged, had failed to declare the true and full details of his wealth in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).

But by most indications, many strands of Corona’s story find parallels in the state of wealth of most of his former colleagues at the Supreme Court, as of 2011.

For instance, like Corona, nearly all the justices retain sizeable caches of cash on hand and in bank. In fact, four justices have zero liabilities, as of their 2011 SALNs.

Only two justices have loans or liabilities of around P5 million, and only one with P16-million liabilities on account of his wife’s business ventures. The rest of the justices have a little less or more than P1 million in loans.

Like Corona as well, land or real assets remain the pivot or bulk of the assets of at least four justices. All the rest, except for one, have land estates accounting for 30 to 50 percent of their assets. The seemingly basement prices at which some justices acquired their houses and lots and agricultural land are incredible to say the least.

Unlike Corona though, several of the justices have fairly robust portfolios of equity interest in family corporations and holding companies, and in sundry stocks in corporate entities they did not identify in 2011 but had revealed in their previous SALNs.

PCIJ’s review of the data enrolled in their SALNs through the years, however, yields a number of disparities that beg further explanation from the justices. Our findings include:

  • A largely sharp uptick in the net worth of invariably all the justices across a decade. For eight justices whose 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2011 SALNs are available, PCIJ found that the rise in their net worth ranged from P6.75 million to P81.65 million, or from 58 percent to 558 percent more, across a decade.
  • Some justices have reported changing or rising acquisition costs, as well as static fair market values, for their properties; the others did not even disclose the acquisition costs of their real assets.
  • A number of corporate interests are not disclosed in the SALNs of some justices but in which, SEC records show, they still retain equity interest as incorporators, shareholders, or officers.
  • Conflict of interest situations – in law, could either be real, potential, or apparent – confront three justices because of loans that they had acquired for companies in which their spouses have interests, or for a family holding firm with office addresses at the old and new offices of one justice’s former law firm.
  • Twelve justices have brought in two to six relatives as executive assistant, judicial staff, legislative staff or consultant in the Supreme Court and the electoral tribunals. They include the spouse, children, siblings, nephews, nieces, and in-laws of the justices. At least four have at least six relatives each in government, majority employed by the high court and the electoral tribunals.
  • Bad math marks the SALN of two justices who apparently failed to derive the correct sums of their assets, thus pruning the value of their true net worth.

Read Part 3 of our report on The Wealth of the ‘Gods of Faura’ here.

PNoy gov’t pushes Cyberlaw, asks SC to lift TRO, junk pleas

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

BAD TIMING for a bad law?

As the world marked International Human Rights Day, Dec. 10, the government of President Benigno Simeon Aquino III asked the Supreme Court to lift the temporary restraining order (TRO) it issued in October against Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

The government insisted that the law does not regulate or punish free speech, contrary to the claims of Netizens and media groups that have filed 15 various petitions against the law.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has submitted a 148-page comment to the Supreme Court asking the high tribunal to junk the petitions.

Media and civil society organizations had succeeded in getting a TRO against the Cybercrime law last October, citing that the law curtailed free speech and increased the penalties and jail terms for the crime of libel.

In addition, lawyers’ groups have expressed concerns that the law will allow government greater latitude in gathering data on internet use.

In a report published by GMANewsTV, the online news portal of television network GMA, the OSG is asking the Supreme Court to allow the law to be implemented immediately.

The OSG has argued, however, that the petitioners have not presented any evidence to support their opposition to the law; instead, the OSG said the oppositors to the law have only made legal arguments against the measure.

The OSG also said that libel has already been defined as a criminal act by the Revised Penal Code, and as such is “unprotected speech” that cannot be shielded by the freedom of the press.

GMANewsTV said the OSG questioned the inclusion of President Aquino as a respondent in at least five of the 15 petitions, citing that the President enjoys immunity from suit during his tenure in office.

 

Fat allowances of Corona not taxed: Happy days linger at SC?

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

IN THE SECOND installment of the PCIJ’s four-part report on the self-appointed perks and privileges of the “Gods of Padre Faura,” the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism looks at how special and redundant allowances and honoraria bloat the take-home pay of the justices of the Supreme Court.

More tellingly, this story by PCIJ Executive Director Malou Mangahas shows how sundry allowances, bonuses, and fringe benefits of the Supreme Court justices had not been not taxed — a matter that had been verified in the case of impeached chief justice Renato C. Corona.

This is according to the reports submitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue by the high court’s finance and accounting office. But the situation seems to linger still for the most senior justices of the land who continue to receive an excess of extra pay, while other public officials and employee who don’t get as much, fork out more of their hard-earned money to the taxman.

Read Part 2 of the PCIJ special report here.