Miriam pushes tougher graft law

MANILA, Philippines - Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago has filed a bill that would make public officials liable for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act even if they are elected to a fresh term or a new position.

In filing Senate Bill 2716, Santiago sought to address what she said was the doctrine of condonation in Philippine jurisprudence brought about by the 2010 case of Salumbides vs. Ombudsman.

Santiago also cited the older case of Pascual vs. Hon. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija that prohibits the disciplining of an elective official for a wrongful act committed during his immediately preceding term of office.

Santiago said it was very disturbing that the Pascual ruling was reiterated in the 2010 case, saying this “provides a blanket defense for elected officials to evade liability just by securing a reelection, considering that the term of a local elective official is only three years.”

“By merely asserting the doctrine of condonation, erring elective officials are automatically given a clean slate once reelected,” she said.

Santiago noted this doctrine was once again cited, this time by the camp of Makati City Mayor Jejomar Erwin Binay Jr. in his defense over a complaint lodged against him over the alleged anomalies in the construction of the parking building by the city government, which it now calls the Makati City Hall Building II.

The camp of Binay argued the mayor should not be prosecuted over the alleged overpricing of the parking building because the said anomalies occurred during his previous term of office.

“That is a cross-eyed simplification of the problem. The first qualification for a public office should be honesty or integrity. It is wrong to equate the reelection of a public official to condonation of his past criminal offenses,” Santiago said.

“The result would be ludicrous. Any public official will feel free to commit any crime, including plunder, and thus winning reelection, if it automatically means that his previous crimes are condoned,” she added.

Santiago said this would also run counter to the State’s duty to maintain honesty and integrity in public office and to keep officers accountable to the public.

“The very object of removal is to rid the community of a corrupt, incapable or unworthy official. Reelection does not condone the offense. Misconduct may not have been discovered prior to the election and in any event, had not been established in the manner contemplated by the statute,” Santiago said.