Martires: Forfeiture law being used as tool for harassment

Ombudsman Samuel Martires has proposed amendments to the Forfeiture Law, which he says is being used as a tool for harassment against politicians and government officials.

Martires made the pitch during the House Revision of Laws panel deliberations on  the proposed bill filed by Sorsogon Representative Evelina Escudero, which gives the Office of the Ombudsman 30% of  government assets acquired from the forfeiture cases that the government won in court.

“Kami po ay nagagalak na kami po ay napansin, pero ang problema po namin ngayon ay iyong Republic Acts 1379, 3019 at 6713. Iyong 1379 at 6713, nagbabanggaan po itong dalawang ito,” Martires said.

1379 is the Forfeiture Law, while 3019 is the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

6713, on the other hand, is the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which requires filing of Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).

“Ang problema natin iyong Section 6 [ng Forfeiture law]. Bakit natin ipapasa sa respondent na i-explain kung saan nanggaling iyong kanyang property. Kailangan natin ito i-reconcile sa SALN law kasi pag may diperensiya ang SALN, under 6713, the [SALN] filer can explain bakit wala ang isang property niya sa SALN," Martires said.

Section 6 of the Forfeiture Law reads, “[I]f the respondent is unable to show to the satisfaction of the court that he has lawfully acquired the property in question, then the court shall declare such property, forfeited in favor of the State, and by virtue of such judgment the property aforesaid shall become property of the state.”

The said provision also states that such will be the case as long as “no judgment shall be rendered within six months before any general election or within three months before any special election.”

“Dapat magkaroon muna ng conviction sa Anti-Graft [and Corrupt Practices law na criminal] offense before we can proceed sa [filing of] forfeiture cases para ma-identify po muna [ano ang ill-gotten wealth],” Martires argued.

Martires then said that the Forfeiture Law, like the SALN, is being weaponized against politicians.

“Ang nangyayari, ginagamit ng mga kalaban sa politika ang SALN. Iyan po ay harassment. Ayaw po namin na ma-harass ang mga congressman, mayor, mga kawani ng gobyerno…ayaw po namin na gamitin kami ng may masamang interes,” Martires said.

Sought for comment, Escudero said that Martires’ concerns on amending existing laws in combating corruption should be discussed separately from her bill seeking to provide resources to the Ombudsman out of forfeiture cases won by the government against corrupt public officials.

“This bill is to recognize the importance of helping the Ombudsman in fulfilling its mandate of combating corruption by giving them a share of the government properties acquired from the Forfeiture law,” Escudero said.

Back in September, Martires restricted the public's access to the SALNs of public officials filed in the Ombudsman by requiring the consent of the public official first.

Martires implemented the policy even if Section 8C.A of RA 6713 mandates disclosure of SALNs to the public at a certain period of time and as long as the one making the request shoulders the cost of reproduction and mailing of the SALN copies.

Under Martires' memorandum of SALN disclosure, the copy of the SALN will be furnished by the Office of the Ombudsman to the requester if: he/she is the declarant or the duly authorized representative of the declarant; the request is upon lawful order of the court in relation to a pending case; and the request is made by the Ombudsman's Field Investigation Office/Bureau/Unit (FIO/FIB/FIU) for the purpose of conducting fact-finding investigation.

Martires also stopped lifestyle checks on public officials, saying they do not prove an official is corrupt.

He later defended both orders, claiming that SALN requests and lifestyle checks are being used by politicians and media workers for extortion. — BM, GMA News