1. R EPUBLIC A CT N O. 3019 AND R EPUBLIC A CT N O. 6713 R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act) R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)

2. ORDER OF PRESENTATION 1. Salient points of Republic Act No. 3019 a. Corrupt Practices b. Prohibition on Certain Relatives c. Prohibition on Members of Congress d. SALN e. Penalties f. Prescription of Offense g. Termination of Office h. Suspension and Loss of Benefits i. Exception 2. Salient points of Republic Act No. 6713 a. Norms and Conduct of Public Officials b. Duties of Public Officials and Employees c. Prohibited Acts and Transactions d. SALN e. Penalties

3. R EPUBLIC A CT N O. 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act)

4. W HAT ARE CONSIDERED CORRUPT PRACTICES ?  Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer [Section 3 (a)] Baviera vs. Zoleta (G.R. No. 169098, October 12, 2006)Baviera vs. Zoleta

5. Baviera vs. Zoleta (G.R. No. 169098, October 12, 2006) Facts: This is a case where in a public official Ma. Merceditas N Gutierrez was charged for Violation of RA 3019 by persuading or influencing other public official (DATUMANONG) for some benefits by verbally allowing a foreign national Mr. RAMAN to travel abroad with Hold Departure Order. Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer. Ruling: The Court held that there was no violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, there was no actual or real damage suffered by any party, including the government as Mr. Raman immediately returned to the Philippines, the truth of which was not rebutted by the herein complainant in his Reply-Affidavit. Thus, the herein complainant also did not suffer undue injury as an element required by the law. By the same token, the essential ingredient of manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence required for the commission of such offense has not been proven in the instant case. The respondent has satisfactorily explicated that as Acting Secretary of Justice, she has the power and authority to perform such act. In fact, she could have even lifted the Hold Departure Order since there is no ground for its continued enforcement but did not do so in deference to Secretary DATUMANONG who consequently lifted such order. As correctly pointed out by the respondent, it was as if the Secretary ratified her act of allowing Mr. RAMAN to travel abroad despite the Hold Departure Order against the latter and there is no question that she can do or perform such act being the Acting Secretary at that time.

6. W HAT ARE CONSIDERED CORRUPT PRACTICES ? Requesting or receiving any gift:  Wherein the public officer has a duty to intervene [Section 3 (b)]  Wherein any Government permit or license is to be secured or obtained [Section 3 (c)]

7. W HAT ARE CONSIDERED CORRUPT PRACTICES ?  Accepting employment in a private enterprise [Section 3 (d)]  Causing any undue injury to the Government or any party [Section 3 (e)] Coloma vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 205561, September 24, 2014) Coloma vs. Sandiganbayan

8. Coloma vs. Sandiganbayan Coloma vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 205561, September 24, 2014) Facts: Coloma was the Director of the Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA)at the time of the alleged violation of R.A. No. 3019. On November 19, 1999, he was designated as Special Assistant and Action Officer to the Director, Logistics and Installation Services (LIS) of the Philippine Public Safety College (PPSC). Then PPSC President Ernesto B. Gimenez (Gimenez) assigned Coloma to assist in the search for a suitable construction site of the Philippine National Police Regional Training Site 9 Annex in Bongao, Tawi-Tawi (RTS 9). After inspection the constructed site which was claimed by Coloma to be 100% complete was only 90% complete and was turned to be over priced. Issue: Whether or not Coloma is culpable for Violation of RA 3019 (Causing Undue Injury to the Government). Ruling: The Court has held that there are two ways by which a public official violates Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in the performance of his functions, namely: (1) by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (2) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. The accused may be charged under either mode or both. The disjunctive term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. In other words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction. Further,the term "undue injury" in the context of Section 3(e) of the R.A. No. 3019 punishing the act of "causing undue injury to any party," has a meaning akin to that civil law concept of "actual damage." Actual damage, in the context of these definitions, is akin to that in civil law. As explained by the Sandiganbayan, the undue injury caused by Coloma to the government is based on two grounds: 1) as a co-signatory in the current accounts created for the payment of creditors, Coloma reserved to himself control over the deposits to and withdrawals therefrom, and 2) the cost of the RTS 9 as declared by Coloma in his report was significantly higher than the actual cost computed after inspection.

9. W HAT ARE CONSIDERED CORRUPT PRACTICES ?  Neglecting or refusing to act within a reasonable time [Section 3(f)] Republic Act No. 9485 (Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007)Republic Act No. 9485 (Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007)  Entering contract manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the Government [Section 3(g)]

10. W HAT ARE CONSIDERED CORRUPT PRACTICES ?  Prohibited financial or pecuniary interest [Section 3(h)]  Interested in any transaction requiring the approval of a board of which he is a member [Section 3(i)]

11. W HAT ARE CONSIDERED CORRUPT PRACTICES ?  Granting any license or permit to person not qualified [Section 3(j)]  Divulging confidential information [Section 3(k)]

12. A private individual can be liable if he: a. Takes advantage of such family or close personal relation; and b. Knowingly cause a public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3. (Section 4)

13. P ROHIBITION ON C ERTAIN R ELATIVES Who? A : Spouse or Relative by consanguinity or affinity, within the third civil degree Of whom? A :President, Vice-President, President of the Senate Speaker of the House of Rep To what? A : Intervene, directly or indirectly, in any business, transaction, contract or application with the Government. (Section 5)

14. P ROHIBITION ON M EMBERS OF C ONGRESS Personal pecuniary interest in business enterprise benefited by any law authored by him. (Section 6)

15. All government employees must file their Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SALN) (Section 7)

16. P ENALTIES (a) Violations of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6- 1) 1-10 years imprisonment; 2) Perpetual disqualification from public office; and 3) Confiscation/forfeiture of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth. (b) Violation of Section 7 (SALN) 1) Fine Php 100-1000; or 2) Imprisonment not exceeding one year; or 3) Both. (Section 9)

17. P RESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES 10 years from the commission of the violation or discovery thereof. (Section 11) Republic vs. Cojuangco ( G.R. No. 139930, June 26, 2012)Republic vs. Cojuangco

18. Republic vs. Cojuangco (G.R. No. 139930, June 26, 2012) Facts: This case, involves another attempt of the government to recover ill-gotten wealth acquired during the Marcos era, resolves the issue of prescription. On March 1, 1990 The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) 3019 against respondents, the 1979 members of the UCPB board of directors, before the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). The OSG alleged that UCPB’s investment in UNICOM was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government since UNICOM had a capitalization of only 5 million and it had no track record of operation. In the process of conversion to voting common shares, the government’s 495 million investment was reduced by 95 million which was credited to UNICOM’s incorporators. The PCGG subsequently referred the complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-0-90-2810 in line with the ruling in Cojuangco, Jr. v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, which disqualified the PCGG from conducting the preliminary investigation in the case. Issue: The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not respondents’ alleged violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 already prescribed.. Rulings: Notably, Section 11 of R.A. 3019 now provides that the offenses committed under that law prescribes in 15 years. Prior to its amendment by Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 195 on March 16, 1982, however, the prescriptive period for offenses punishable under R.A. 3019 was only 10 years. Since the acts complained of were committed before the enactment of B.P. 195, the prescriptive period for such acts is 10 years as provided in Section 11 of R.A. 3019, as originally enacted. Now R.A. 3019 being a special law, the 10-year prescriptive period should be computed in accordance with Section 2 of Act 3326, which provides: Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The above-mentioned section provides two rules for determining when the prescriptive period shall begin to run: first, from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, if such commission is known; and second, from its discovery, if not then known, and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. Thus, the action has been prescribed, the case should had been filed on or before February 8, 1990, 10 years after the discovery of the offense on February 8, 1980.

19. T ERMINATION OF OFFICE Public officer shall not be allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation or prosecution of any offense under R.A. No. 3019 or a Bribery case under the RPC. (Section 12)

20. S USPENSION AND LOSS OF BENEFITS If convicted -public officer shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law If acquitted -entitled to reinstatement, salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension. (Section 13)

21. E XCEPTION Unsolicited gifts of small or insignificant value given as a mere ordinary token of gratitude or friendship according to local customs or usage (Section 14)

22. Republic Act No. 6713 The "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees"

23. N ORMS OF C ONDUCT OF P UBLIC O FFICIALS AND E MPLOYEES (a) Commitment to public interest; (b) Professionalism; (c) Justness and sincerity; (d) Political neutrality; (e) Responsiveness to the public; (f) Nationalism and patriotism; (g) Commitment to democracy; and (h) Simple living. (Section 4)

24. D UTIES OF P UBLIC O FFICIALS AND E MPLOYEES (a) Act promptly on letters and requests; (b) Submit annual performance reports; (c) Process documents and papers expeditiously; (d) Act immediately on the public's personal transactions; (e) Make documents accessible to the public. (Section 5)

25. P ROHIBITED A CTS AND T RANSACTIONS (a) Financial and material interest (b) Outside employment (1) In private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office; (2) Private practice of profession; or (3) Recommend another in a private enterprise which has a regular or pending official transaction with their office.

26. P ROHIBITED A CTS AND T RANSACTIONS (c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential information. (1) To further private interests or give undue advantage to anyone; or (2) To prejudice the public interest. (d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. (Section 7)

27. Public officials and employees are obliged to submit under oath their SALN. (Section 8) S TATEMENT OF A SSETS, LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH

28. PENALTIES Fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense.

29. PENALTIES If the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. For violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 -Imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, if proper, disqualification to hold public office.

30. PENALTIES (b) Any violation proven in an administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted

31. PENALTIES (c) Private individuals who participate in conspiracy shall be subject to the same penal liabilities as the public officials or employees. (Section 11)

32. Thank you and Good day!