REPUBLIC ACT NO.

6713
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees

Rule IV
Transparency of Transactions and
Access to Information

CAOILE, Phoebe
PERLADO, Erickah Fay
SANTIAGO, Meryl Grace
SUMAPIG, Ameel
5IE-B
Section 1.
Subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law, the State adopts and
implements a policy of full public
disclosure of all its transactions involving
public interest.
 Section 2.
It is the responsibility of heads of departments, offices and agencies to
establish measures and standards that will ensure transparency of and
openness in public transactions in their respective offices, such as
biddings, purchases, other internal transactions, including contracts,
status of projects, and all other matters involving public interest.

They shall establish information systems that will inform the public of
the following: (a) policies, rules, and procedures; (b) work programs,
projects, and performance targets; (c) performance reports; and (d) all
other documents as may hereafter be classified as public information.

Such information shall be utilized solely for the purpose of informing

the public of such policies, programs and accomplishment, and not to
build the public image of any official or employee or to advance his own
personal interest.
Section 1 & 2 (Example)
Corona was found guilty of Article II of the Articles of
Impeachment filed against him pertaining to his
failure to disclose to the public his statement of
assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN) last May 29,
2012.
The decision removes Corona from his post,
disqualifies him from holding public office, and opens
him to possible criminal cases.
In September 2013, Senator Jinggoy Estrada
revealed in a privilege speech that senators who
voted to convict Corona in the impeachment trial
were given an additional 50 million in discretionary
funds.
Section 1 & 2
The Delsa Flores Case
An employee of the judiciary, court interpreter Delsa
Flores, was removed & barred from further
government employment for her failure to disclose
market stall as her property in her Statement of
Assets, Liabilities & Net-worth.
Section 1 & 2
The Delsa Flores Case
Administrative Complaint
Flores, who first worked as an assessor for the
Panabo municipal treasurers office & later as court
interpreter of Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 4, was
found to have violated the law when a stall owner filed
an administrative complaint against her.
Narita Rabe accused Flores of taking advantage of
her position as a court employee by claiming a stall.
Flores initially denied illegally claiming ownership of the
said property.
Section 1 & 2
The Delsa Flores Case
Double Compensation
The Supreme Court required Flores to explain why
she had failed to declare the market stall in her SALN.
She was also asked to explain why although she was
already working for RTC from May 16 to June 17, 1991,
she continued to receive her salary from the local
government of Panabo up to June 3, 1991.
Although the salary in question was only P1,000.80,
the court had pointed out that it amounted to
dishonesty while holding a public trust, hence,
punishable by dismissal of service.
Section 1 & 2
The Delsa Flores Case
Dishonesty
Eventually, Flores admitted her wrongdoing. It was
really my fault that I did not disclose my ownership of a
stall at the Panabo public market. I regretted it. I was
found guilty of being dishonest for having received
double compensation from the municipal assessors
office &, at the same time, from the RTC. My
nondeclaration in my SALN of our stall further
aggravated it, she said.
Section 3.
Every department, office or agency shall provide official
information, records or documents to any requesting public, except
if:

(a) such information, record or document must be kept secret in the

interest of national defense or security or the conduct of foreign
affairs.

(b) such disclosure would put the life and safety of an individual in
imminent danger;

(c) the information, record or document sought falls within the

concepts of established privilege or recognized exceptions as may
be provided by law or settled policy or jurisprudence;
Section 3.
(d) such information, record or document compromises drafts or
decisions, orders, rulings, policy, decisions, memoranda, etc;

(e) it would disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure

would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(f) it would disclose investigatory records complied for law enforcement

purposes, or information which if written would be contained in such
records or information would (I) interfere with enforcement
proceedings, (ii) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial
adjudication, (iii) disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in
the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority
in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a
lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential
information furnished only by the confidential source, or (iv)
unjustifiably disclose investigative techniques and procedures; or
Section 3.
(g) it would disclose information the premature disclosure of
which would (I) in the case of a department, office or agency
which agency regulates currencies, securities, commodities, of
financial institutions, be likely to lead to significant financial
speculation in currencies, securities, or commodities or
significantly endanger the stability of any financial institution, or
(ii) in the case of any department, office or agency be likely or
significantly to frustrate implementation of a proposed official
action, except that subparagraph (f) (ii) shall not apply in any
instance where the department, office or agency has already
disclosed to the public the content or nature of its proposed
action, or where the department, office or agency is required by
law to make such disclosure on its own initiative prior to taking
final official action on such proposal.
Section 3- Example
E.O. 608, Establishing a National Security Clearance
System For Government Personnel with Access to
Classified Matters, which commands all heads of
government offices or agencies handling or having
access to classified matters shall strictly implement
and institutionalize the security clearance procedure
approved by the Office of the National Security
Adviser regarding the conduct of a comprehensive
background investigation on their personnel who by
reason of their duty or employment, have access to
classified matters
 Section 3- Example (a,b,e)
Source: The Philippine Star - July 16, 2016
Several Philippine government websites have been subjected to
various forms of cyberattacks following the release of the ruling on
the arbitration case filed by the Philippines against China.
At least 68 websites have been subjected to attacks:
attempts of hacking and defacement
slowdowns and
distributed denial of service attacks.
Department of National Defense
the Philippine Coast Guard
Department of Foreign Affairs
Department of Health
the Presidential Management Staff
gov.ph domain registry website.
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas - authorities were able to immediately
foil it.
Section 3 Example (e)
Trillanes, Gordon in verbal tussle at
Senate smuggling hearing
FROM THE STANDS By Domini M. Torrevillas (The Philippine
Star) | Updated September 7, 2017 - 12:00am
'Committee de absuwelto'
Lawmakers dig up past controversies
Argument over inviting Duterte, Carpio
Section 4.
Every head of department, office and
agency shall establish information
systems and networks that will effect the
widest possible dissemination of
information regarding the provisions of
the Code, and the policies and programs
relative thereto.
 Section 4. (Example)
In a move towards transparency and accountability in
official government acts, transactions and decisions, the
President signed Executive Order (EO) No. 2 on 23 July
2016. Local government units, government owned and
controlled corporations, and state universities and
colleges are enjoined to observe and be guided by the
Order.
While the EO expressly provides a legal presumption in
favor of access to information, it also emphasized that the
right is subject to certain exceptions and limitations. For
instance, national security and the protection of an
individuals right to privacy remain a foremost concern.
Abuse is certainly a possibility, but it should not be a
deterrent to the realization of the objectives of the Order.