Republic ofthe Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

House Bill No. 847

Introduced by Honorable Roilo Golez

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Notwithstanding the passage of a multitude of laws aimed at addressing and curbing corruption,
the Philippines remains ever vulnerable to corruption and the concomitant evils that escort it. This, in turn,
results in the pilferage of significant government resources. In fact, the Philippine Public Transparency
Reporting Project boldly estimates that at least P280B of government funds is lost to corruption every year
in the Philippines. This money could have otherwise been allocated and used for the country’s educational,
health, and other basic needs.

The Philippines is often cited by various intemational surveys as a country where corruption plays a
starring role in inhibiting foreign and domestic investment. Corruption erodes the country's competitive
position, thereby impeding economic growth as well as social well-being. For instance, the 2009
Corruption Perceptions Index of the Transparency International ranked the Philippines at 139% out of 180
countries (rank 1 being the least corrupt country). This is an improvement from our 141st ranking in 2008,
but a steady decline from our 2006 and 2007 rankings, which placed us at and 121s and 131s,
fespectively. Similarly, in a 2010 survey conducted by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy on the
most corrupt countries in Asia, the Philippines ranked 4%, next only to Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam.
This indeed is deplorable considering that the factor of corruption has become a critical intemational
criterion for allocating scarce development aid resources, and countries will increasingly be judged by their
actions in combating corruption.

Republic Act No. 1379 on asset forfeiture is an example of a good law that the Philippines has
passed in its effort to curb public sector corruption. Indeed, asset forfeiture has been regarded as a potent
anti-corruption tool, both locally and intemationally, as it targets the very incentive for the commission of
corrupt acts — ie., the proceeds. By “following the money’ and making it impossible for the perpetrator of
corruption to avail of the benefits of his or her criminal act, the law, principally through the Office of the
Ombudsman, hopes to disincentivize corruption.

Unfortunately, an truly effective asset forfeiture mechanism is one that is not only actual and real, but
is prompt. Any delay in the seizure of these target assets will provide a window, no matter how narrow, for
the same to be dissipated and placed beyond the reach of the law enforcers. At that point, the once potent


tool that is asset forfeiture is immediately rendered inutile.

The proposed legislation aims to aid the Office of the Ombudsman, he principal and constitutional
anti-corruption law enforcement agency, maximize its ability to resort to asset forfeiture by enabling it to
freeze assets in a more timely manner. The ultimate objective is to be able to freeze the proceeds even
before they are dissipated and eventually ost.

Passage of this measure is earnestly requested.

JROILG GOLEZ


Republic ofthe Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session
847

House Bill No.

Introduced by Honorable Roilo Golez

AN ACT
‘STRENGTHENING THE FORFIETURE POWERS OF THE STATE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1379, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “AN ACT
DECLARING FORFEITURE IN FAVOR OF THE STATE ANY PROPERTY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED BY ANY PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AND PROVIDING FOR THE
PROCEEDINGS THEREFOR”

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of Philippines in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Section 2 of R.A. No.1379 is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 2. Filing of petition. [Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired
during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his
salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income
from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have
been unlawfully acquired] The [Solicitor General] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
MOTU PROPRIO OR upon VERIFIED complaint by any [taxpayer to the city or provincial
fiscal who] PERSON shall conduct aN [previous] inquiry similar to preliminary
investigations in criminal cases TO DETERMINE IF [and shall certify to the Solicitor
General that] there is reasonable ground to believe that there has been committed a
Violation of this Act and the respondent is probably guilty thereof. IT [] shall file, in the
fame and on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, [in the Court of First Instance of the
city or province] WITH THE SANDIGANBAYAN OR THE APPROPRIATE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT where said public officer for employee] resides or holds office, a petition
for a writ commanding said officer or employee to show cause why the property aforesaid,
or any part thereof, should not be declared property of the State: Provided, That no such
petition shall be filed AGAINST A CANDIDATE within THE ELECTION PERIOD FOR
WHICH HE/SHE IS SEEKING ELECTORAL OFFICE [one year before any general
election or within three months before any special election].

The resignation, dismissal or separation of the officer or employee from his office
‘or employment in the Government or in the Government-owned or controlled corporation
shall not be a bar to the filing of the petition [Provided, however, That the right to file such
petition shall prescribe after four years from the date of the resignation, dismissal or

3


separation or expiration of the term of the office or employee concemed, except as to
those who have ceased to hold office within ten years prior to the approval of this Act, in
which case the proceedings shall prescribe after four years from the approval hereof)”

SEC. 2. Insert new Sections 3, 4, and 5 to R.A. No.1379, to read as follows:

“SEC. 3, PRESUMPTION. FAILURE OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
TO FILE A STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND NETWORTH PURSUANT
TO SECTION 8 OF R.A. 6713 WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM DATE OF ASSUMPTION
TO OFFICE SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT SAID PUBLIC OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE HAS NO PROPERTY, ASSET OR BUSINESS INTEREST TO DECLARE AT
THE BEGINNING OF HIS/HER PUBLIC SERVICE.

SEC. 4. PRIMA FACIE UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED PROPERTY. WHENEVER
ANY PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE HAS ACQUIRED DURING HIS INCUMBENCY
AMOUNT OF PROPERTY WHICH IS MANIFESTLY OUT OF PROPORTION TO HIS
SALARY AS SUCH PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AND TO HIS OTHER LAWFUL.
INCOME AND THE INCOME FROM LEGITIMATELY ACQUIRED
PROPERTYSOURCES, SAID PROPERTY SHALL BE PRESUMED PRIMA FACIE TO
HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED.

SEC. 5. FREEZE ORDER. WHEN IT APPEARS UPON THE FILING OF
THE COMPLAINT PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 2 OF THIS ACT THAT AN
UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED PROPERTY OR PROPERTIES EXIST AS DEFINED IN
SECTION 4 HEREIN, THE OMBUDSMAN MAY, MOTU PROPRIO OR UPON MOTION
OF THE COMPLAINANT, ISSUE A FREEZE ORDER ON THE AFORESAID PROPERTY
OR PROPERTIES WHICH WILL BE VALID FOR NOT MORE THAN THREE (3)
MONTHS.”

SEC. 3. Section 3 of R.A. No. 1379 is hereby renumbered to Section 6.

SEC. 4, Section 4 of R.A. No. 1379 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SEC [4] 7. Period TO [for the] answer PETITION. The respondent shall have a
period of fifteen days FROM NOTICE within which to present his answer.”

SEC. 5. Section 5 of R.A. No. 1379 is hereby renumbered to Section 8.
SEC. 6. Section 6 of R.A. No. 1379 is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. [6] 9. Judgment. If the respondent is unable to show to the satisfaction of
the cour 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: Provided, That no judgment shall be
rendered within six months before any general election or within three months before any
special election. [The Court may, in addition, refer this case to the corresponding
Executive Department for administrative or criminal action, or both J"

4


‘SEC. 7. Section 7 of R.A. No. 1379 is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. [7] 10. Appeal. The parties may appeal from the judgment of the
SANDIGANBAYAN OR THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [Court of First Instance] as
provided in the Rules of Court for appeals in civil cases.”

‘SEC. 8. Section 9 of R.A. No. 1379 is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. [9] 12. Immunity. The [Solicitor General] OMBUDSMAN may grant
immunity from criminal prosecution to any person who testifies to the unlawful manner in
which the respondent has acquired any of the property in question in cases where such
testimony is necessary to prove violations of this Act.”

‘SEC. 9. Section 10 of RA 1379 is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. [10] 13. Effect of record of title. The fact that any real property has been
recorded in the Registry of Property or office of the Register of Deeds in the name of the
respondent or of any person mentioned in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) of
section one hereof shall not prevent the rendering of the judgment referred to in section
EIGHT [six] of this Act.”

‘SEC. 10. Section 11 of RA 1379 is hereby renumbered to Section 14.
SEC. 11. Section 12 of RA 1379 is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. [12] 15. Penalties. Any public officer or employee who shal, after the
effective date of this Act, transfer or convey any unlawfully acquired property shall be
[repressed] PENALIZED with imprisonment for a term OF not LESS THAN SIX [exceeding
five] years AND ONE DAY BUT NOT MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS, for a fine not
exceeding ten thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine] PERPETUAL
DISQUALIFICATION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE, AND CONFISCATION OR FORFEITURE
IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ANY PROHIBITED INTEREST. [The same
repression shall be imposed upon any person who shall knowingly accept such transfer or
conveyance.]

THE SAME PENALTIES SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON ANY PERSON WHO.
SHALL KNOWINGLY ACCEPT SUCH UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OR CONVEYANCE.
ANY SUCH CONVEYANCE SHALL BE VOID AB INITIO.”

SEC. 12. Rules and Regulation. The Ombudsman shall issue within ninety (90) days after the
approval of this Act, the necessary rules and regulation relating to the administrative aspects of the
provisions of this Act


SEC, 13. Separability Clause. If for any reason, any section or provision of this Act is declared to
be unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall
continue to be in full force and effect.

SEC. 14. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, orders or rules and regulations, and other
issuances which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified
accordingly.

SEC. 15, Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fiteen (15) days after its publication in the
Official Gazette or in two newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,