SALN Errors and Government Access: When the Ombudsman Cannot Prosecute

The Supreme Court has settled a long-standing question on how the government may hold public officials liable for mistakes in their Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs). In Carlos v. Department of Finance – Revenue Integrity Protection Service (G.R. No. 225774, April 18, 2023), the Court ruled that the review and compliance procedure under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, is absolutely mandatory. Without it, no administrative liability can attach to a public official for SALN errors or omissions.

The Facts of the Case

Jessie Javier Carlos was a Tax Specialist at the Department of Finance. In 2012, the Department of Finance – Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) investigated his lifestyle and assets compared with his SALNs from 2000 to 2010. The agency filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging that Carlos failed to disclose certain real properties, a Toyota Innova, and his wife's business interest. He was also accused of amassing assets disproportionate to his income.

Carlos argued that he completed his SALNs in good faith and should have been given the chance to correct his alleged omissions. The Ombudsman found him guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty, imposing dismissal. The Court of Appeals modified this to a finding of dishonesty but kept the penalty of dismissal.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether the Ombudsman could prosecute Carlos for SALN omissions even though the government never complied with the mandatory review and compliance procedure under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6713.

The Ruling: Mandatory Review Before Liability

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Carlos, reversing the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the review and compliance procedure is not a mere formality—it is a mandatory prerequisite before any disciplinary action may be taken for SALN-related offenses.

Under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6713 and its implementing rules, the head of each government office must designate a committee to review all SALNs. This committee determines whether SALNs were filed on time, are complete, and are in proper form. If a SALN is defective, the head of office has a ministerial duty to inform the official or employee and direct them to take corrective action. The official is then given a non-extendible period of 30 days to comply. Only if the official fails to comply within this period may disciplinary action be pursued.

The Court emphasized that the government's failure to issue a compliance order means the official is presumed to have properly discharged their duty to file a complete and sufficient SALN. Liability arises only after the official is notified and fails to rectify the error.

Abandoning Conflicting Rulings

The Court explicitly abandoned earlier decisions that had weakened this requirement. In cases like Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group and Carabeo v. Court of Appeals, the Court had ruled that the review procedure was merely internal and did not apply when the Ombudsman was investigating. The Court in Carlos found these rulings contrary to the clear text of Republic Act No. 6713 and abandoned them.

The Court clarified that this ruling does not tolerate concealment of ill-gotten wealth. Rather, it focuses on the real evil—the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth—while ensuring that simple, correctible errors are not weaponized against well-meaning public officers. A measure of leniency can be extended to casual, isolated, or infrequent non-declarations that do not point to a scheme to mislead and defraud.

Practical Takeaways

• Government agencies must follow the SALN review procedure first. Before filing administrative charges for SALN errors or omissions, the head of office must inform the official and give them 30 days to correct the defect.
• The Ombudsman is not exempt. While the Ombudsman has broad powers to investigate administrative complaints, it cannot prosecute SALN-related offenses if the mandatory review procedure was not followed.
• Public officials have a defense. If an official was never notified of SALN defects or given an opportunity to correct them, they cannot be held liable for dishonesty, grave misconduct, or gross neglect of duty based on those defects.
• The rule applies to substantive defects too. The Court rejected the earlier view that the review procedure only covers formal defects. The head of office must determine the completeness of each SALN, including its substance.
• Good faith matters. Casual or isolated mistakes that do not indicate a scheme to conceal wealth may be addressed through corrective action rather than dismissal.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.