One would suppose that there is no need for a law or rule in order for a head of state (especially one in the third world country) to avoid an unseemly extravagance as dining out in fancy restaurants (and spending USD15,000 and USD20,000) while the people go hungry or while the nation mourns a beloved president. Indeed, no one probably thinks there are laws applicable in such a situation. But interestingly enough, the New Civil Code covers such a circumstance, its drafters foolish though in believing that the government would be the one to take up the cudgels on behalf of the people:
“ARTICLE 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution.”
The framers did not seem to think that it would be the government’s executive herself who would violate this statute. Of course, no court order should be necessary where a semblance of a good conscience would ordinarily take over.
Modest Lives and Simple Living
Republic Act No.6713 or "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" further provides:
“Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public service. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest.”
Having steaks, caviar and fine wine are not modest by any standard. Section 4 of the same Act further provides:
“Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. - (A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:
xxx
(h) Simple living. - Public officials and employees and their families shall lead modest lives appropriate to their positions and income. They shall not indulge in extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth in any form.”
Bribery
A case can even be made for the illegal receipt of gifts or possibly indirect bribery. The same Act provides:
“SECTION 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. — In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx
(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. — Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office.”
The Revised Penal Code bars gifts given to a public officer by reason of his office:
“ARTICLE 211. Indirect bribery. — The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, suspension and public censure shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 871, approved May 29, 1985.)”
For some, it appears that no controversy seems too great now, as if they will never be called to account for their ways. It should not matter who gave the dinner and that no taxpayer’s money was spent. The appearance of it all should be reprehensible enough for a country with so many people who go hungry. For as a people’s rage has shown once before, there will come a time of reckoning for such dinners and other mockeries. And they will learn that crime does not pay, not even for dinner or for the just desserts they will have to face.
And just as a worthy footnote, Republic Act No. 6713 was signed into law by President Corazon C. Aquino.
No comments:
Post a Comment