De Lima bill seeks up to 40-year penalty for illicit enrichment

Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila De Lima has filed a bill seeking jail terms of six months to 40 years for "illicit enrichment" or the amassing of unexplained wealth, saying the proposed measure will make corruption easier to prove and punish.

Under House Bill No. 6626, or the proposed Anti-Illicit Enrichment and Anti-Illicit Transfer Act, the Revised Penal Code will be amended to include a new section on malfeasance and misfeasance in office to penalize illicit enrichment and illicit transfer.

The bill states that illicit enrichment is committed when any public officer or employee acquires unexplained wealth that is grossly disproportionate to his or her lawful income and other legitimately acquired property.

De Lima’s measure also criminalizes illicit transfer, which happens when any public officer or employee transfers or conveys any illicitly acquired property.

If enacted into law, any public officer or employee who is guilty of illicit enrichment shall suffer the following penalties:

• Arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision mayor in its maximum period (6 months to 12 years imprisonment) if the illicit enrichment amounts to not more than Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00);
• Prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period (12 years and one day to 14 years and 18 months imprisonment) if the illicit enrichment amounts to more than Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) but not more than Twenty million pesos (P20,000,000.00);
• Reclusion temporal in its minimum period to reclusion temporal in its maximum period (14 years, 8 months and one day to 20 years imprisonment) if the illicit enrichment amounts to more than Twenty million pesos (P20,000,000.00) but not more than Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00); and
• Reclusion perpetua in its minimum period to reclusion perpetua in its maximum period (20 years and one day to 40 years imprisonment) if the illicit enrichment exceeds Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00).

“In light of the serious observations about, and criticisms against the Plunder Law and the court decisions interpreting it – coupled with the view that charges for malversation, bribery, graft and corruption may not be enough given the magnitude of wrongdoings in the biggest corruption scandal in Philippine history – there is a need to come up with a new, effective legal tool to put an end to corruption and hold all those involved accountable,” De Lima said in a statement.

“Isipin  po ninyo: Iilan lang ang na-convict ng plunder, may isa pang na-pardon. Sa napakalaking corruption scandal gaya ng flood control projects controversy ngayon, na maaari pang maulit sa hinaharap, hindi tama at hindi makatwirang pahirapan pa ring mapanagot ang mga sangkot, o hindi kasing-bigat ng kanilang kalokohan ang ikakaso laban sa kanila," she added.

(Think about it: Only a few have been convicted of plunder, and one has been pardoned. In a massive corruption scandal like the flood control projects controversy today, which could happen again in the future, it is not right and unreasonable to make it difficult for those involved to be held accountable, or to charge them with a crime that is not as serious as their folly.)

"Kaya dito po natin naisip itong panukalang batas na ito, isang bagong krimen — paghahain ng mabigat na kaso na may mabigat ding parusa parang sa plunder, pero mas madaling patunayan," De Lima said.

(That is why we came up with this bill, a new crime — filing a serious case with a serious penalty like plunder, but easier to prove.)

De Lima said the bill does away with the difficulties under the Plunder Law, saying the crimes under her proposed bill would be easier to prove.

"Kung may nadiskubre halimbawa ang Ombudsman sa lifestyle check nila na lote, yate, bahay, condo, helicopter, shares of stock o business na wala sa SALN ng government official, at hindi ito maipaliwanag, maituturing na yun as illicit enrichment. Kung ang evidence of guilt is strong, at ang illicit enrichment ay sobra sa P50 million, non-bailable din ang kaso gaya sa plunder,” De Lima said.

(If the Ombudsman discovers, for example, in their lifestyle check, a lot, a yacht, house, condo, helicopter, shares of stock, or business that are not in the government official's SALN, and it cannot be explained, it will be considered as illicit enrichment. If the evidence of guilt is strong, and the illicit enrichment is more than P50 million, the case will also be non-bailable, just like plunder.)

De Lima said the bill was consistent with the Philippines’ being a signatory to the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC).

Article 20 of the UNCAC on illicit enrichment states that “Subject to its constitution and the fundamental principles of its legal system, each State Party should consider adopting such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally, illicit enrichment, that is, a significant increase in the assets of a public official that he or she cannot reasonably explain in relation to his or her lawful income.”

De Lima said that bill also addresses the tough legal requirement of proving that the ill-gotten wealth was gained through that specific offense, as in the case of money laundering and plunder.

“Illicit enrichment laws remove these barriers. In the case of public officials, prosecutors must only show that the person has assets that disproportionately exceed his or her legitimate sources of income. Also, prosecutors are no longer required to establish guilt for a "predicate" or related offense,” De Lima said. –NB, GMA Integrated News