SALN Violations and Perjury: Prescriptive Periods Explained

The duty to file truthful Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) is a cornerstone of accountability for public officials in the Philippines. But how long do authorities have to prosecute violations? The Supreme Court's ruling in a case involving a Bureau of Customs employee and the Department of Finance – Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) provides clear guidance on the prescriptive periods for SALN violations and perjury.

The Legal Framework: RA 6713 and Act No. 3326

Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, requires all public officials and employees to file under oath their SALN and a Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections. This requirement promotes transparency and helps prevent corruption by making officials declare their assets, liabilities, and net worth.

For violations of RA 6713, the prescriptive period is governed by Act No. 3326, which sets an eight-year limit for offenses punishable by imprisonment of two to six years. This means the government has eight years from the filing of a SALN to prosecute an official for non-disclosure or false declarations.

For perjury under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the prescriptive period is ten years. The clock starts running from the time of filing the document containing the false statement.

The Germar Case: A Timeline of Events

Clemente del Rosario Germar worked as a security guard at the Bureau of Customs from 1979 until his resignation in 2015. In 2015, DOF-RIPS conducted a lifestyle check on Germar, uncovering several properties in Bulacan that he had not disclosed in his SALNs from 2002 to 2014.

The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) found probable cause to charge Germar with violations of RA 6713 for the years 2008 to 2014, as well as perjury for falsely stating in his 2014 Personal Data Sheet (PDS) that he had not been criminally charged. However, the OMB dismissed charges for earlier years, citing prescription.

DOF-RIPS challenged these dismissals through a Petition for Certiorari, but the Supreme Court upheld the OMB's decision. The Court emphasized that the prescriptive period for violations of RA 6713 is eight years under Act No. 3326. Regarding perjury, the Court clarified that discovery should be reckoned from the time of filing the SALN or PDS, because upon filing, perjury is deemed consummated.

Why the Ruling Matters

This case reinforces several important principles:

• Strict timelines apply. Government agencies cannot indefinitely delay prosecution of SALN violations or perjury. Once the prescriptive period lapses, the offense can no longer be pursued.
• Filing triggers the clock. For perjury, the prescriptive period begins at the time of filing the false document, not when the falsehood is discovered.
• Timely monitoring is essential. Agencies responsible for enforcing SALN compliance must act promptly upon discovering discrepancies.

Practical Takeaways

• Public officials must accurately and timely file their SALNs. Non-disclosure or false statements carry legal consequences within strict timeframes.
• Government agencies should conduct regular reviews of SALN filings and act swiftly when discrepancies are found, to avoid prescription issues.
• Citizens and businesses who suspect SALN non-compliance should report their concerns to the Office of the Ombudsman or other appropriate agencies as soon as possible, so that investigations can proceed within the legal timeframe.
• Understanding prescription periods helps both officials and complainants know their rights and obligations under the law.

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