SALN Compliance: Government’s Duty to Notify and Consequences of Non-Compliance

The Supreme Court has settled a critical question for public officials and employees: can an agency penalize a government worker for errors or omissions in their Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) without first giving them a chance to correct it? In Carlos v. Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (G.R. No. 225774, April 18, 2023), the Court answered with a clear no. The ruling reinforces that the review and compliance procedure under Republic Act No. 6713 is absolutely mandatory, and the government’s failure to follow it means liability cannot attach.

The Case of Jessie Javier Carlos

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 against his SALNs from 2000 to 2010. He was accused of failing to disclose a house and lot, a Toyota Innova, and his wife’s business interest, among other assets. The Office of the Ombudsman found him guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty and dismissed him from service. The Court of Appeals later modified this to a finding of dishonesty but kept the penalty of dismissal.

Carlos argued throughout that he was denied due process — he was never given the opportunity to correct his SALNs as required by Republic Act No. 6713.

The Mandatory Review and Compliance Procedure

Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, establishes a review and compliance procedure. The head of each government office must designate a committee to review SALNs and determine whether they were filed on time, complete, and 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 employee then has a non-extendible 30 days to comply.

Only if the employee fails to correct or submit their SALN within that period can disciplinary action begin. The Court emphasized that without this procedure, no violation arises — and without a violation, there is no liability.

The Government’s Duty to Notify

The Court stressed that the government cannot simply ignore its duty to notify. If the head of office fails to issue a compliance order, the law presumes that the public official properly discharged their duty to file a complete and timely SALN. The Court also noted that a head of office who fails to perform this duty may themselves be held liable for simple neglect of duty.

This mechanism serves an important purpose: it separates simple, correctible mistakes from deliberate attempts to conceal ill-gotten wealth. As the Court put it, the real evil to be addressed is the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth, not innocent lapses in filling out forms.

Overruling Previous Cases

The Court expressly abandoned earlier rulings, including Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group and related cases, which had held that the review and compliance procedure was merely internal and did not apply when the Ombudsman investigates SALN violations. Those rulings, the Court said, were contrary to the clear mandate of Republic Act No. 6713.

The Court clarified that while the Ombudsman retains its constitutional power to investigate and prosecute administrative complaints, it cannot prosecute an official for SALN errors or omissions if the official was never informed of them or given a chance to comply.

Practical Takeaways

• Government agencies must follow the review and compliance procedure under RA 6713 before penalizing employees for SALN errors, omissions, or late filing. The procedure is mandatory, not optional.
• Employees have a right to be notified and to correct. A public official cannot be dismissed for SALN defects if the agency never issued a compliance order or gave the 30-day period to fix the issue.
• The Ombudsman’s powers are not diminished, but its prosecution of SALN-related offenses must respect the mandatory procedure under RA 6713, which takes precedence over other laws for SALN offenses.
• Agencies that fail to comply may face liability. Heads of offices who neglect their duty to review SALNs and issue compliance orders may be held liable for simple neglect of duty.
• Good-faith errors are protected. The Court distinguished between innocuous mistakes and deliberate concealment, noting that casual or isolated non-declarations that do not indicate a scheme to mislead should not result in the heavy penalties meant for corrupt officials.

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