Violations of the anti-graft law

Those local officials who travelled abroad, despite the suspension of foreign travels by DILG Secretary Junvic Remulla should read Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Ignorance of the law excuses no one.

Section 3 of the law provides that all public officials and personnel are guilty of corrupt practices if, in addition to all acts and omissions already penalized by existing laws, they also commit the acts described under paragraph e of said section, as follows:"(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence."

In the case of Antonio Suba v. Sandiganbayan, GR No 235418, a public official, together with his immediate superior, the evidence found by the Sandiganbayan showed that the two officials travelled abroad without the required travel authority. The information against them said they committed the acts with evident bad faith by willfully and criminally requesting and for allegedly facilitating the processing of and receiving cash advances worth ?241,478.68.

The two proceeded with their foreign trip "despite fully knowing the existence of a letter/order from the Department of Transportation and Communication denying their application for a travel authority to Beijing, China, thereby causing undue injury to the government in the aforesaid amount." On September 22, 2017, the Sandiganbayan found Suba guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to a minimum of six years or maximum of 10 years imprisonment. He appealed to the highest court.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman maintained "that all the elements of the crime were established beyond reasonable doubt… As the travel was undertaken without the required travel authority, it ceased being official rendering the use of government funds to support the same as illegal."

This column is inclined to agree with the Ombudsman, as follows: "As Suba has not received or seen any actual written grant of travel authority but still pushed through with the travel and utilization of public funds, he was evidently in bad faith, or at the very least grossly and inexcusably negligent in the utilization of public funds. Suba himself narrated that he wrote on the immigration card for departing passengers that his occupation was ‘businessman’ when he knew that he was a public officer on a supposed official trip.”

We are also inclined to concur with the Ombudsman that he wasn’t deprived of his right to due process as the designation of the offense charged, the nature of the accusation and the acts and omissions constituting the offense were properly alleged in the information. Also, the settlement or restitution doesn’t extinguish criminal liability. The Sandiganbayan agreed with the Ombudsman and convicted Suba.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Ombudsman and reversed the Sandiganbayan, thus: "Contrary to the ruling of the Sandiganbayan, we find no sufficient evidence to hold Suba criminally liable under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019." While, as a professor of Law, I humbly disagree with the Supreme Court. As a member of the Bar, I have to submit to the wisdom of the Supreme Court. Besides, Chief Justice Peralta is my residential neighbor like Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, and both were my fellow Law Professors in UST and I accord them my highest respect.

The reason for the acquittal was the lack of bad faith. Peralta held for the Court: "Jurisprudence instructs that bad faith is referred to under Section 3(e) of RA. No. 3019 does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence but of having a palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do some moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive, or ill will. It connotes a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. It is a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will and partakes of the nature of fraud."

I believe however that in the courts of public opinion, the mayors and congressman who travelled to Europe at the time of their own constituencies' days of anguish and sufferings, were already "convicted" of conduct prejudicial to public interest and highly-improper behavior unbecoming of upright and ethical public servants.

They were all "weighed" and were found wanting. Tinimbang ngunit nagkulang. Mahiya naman sila.