Low regard for sworn statements
In what may be considered a sign of the times, stiffer penalties await those who lie under oath or commit the crime of perjury.
President Duterte recently signed into law Republic Act No. 115941, which imposes a penalty of six years imprisonment on any person who knowingly makes untruthful statements after swearing to tell the truth, or does so on material matters in an affidavit signed before a person authorized to administer oaths.
Prior to this law, perjury drew a penalty of up to two years and four months imprisonment.
If the offender is a public officer or employee, the penalty shall include a fine of not more than P1 million and perpetual absolute disqualification from holding any appointive or elective position in government.
Sadly, the law on perjury has been ignored or observed more in breach. There is hardly any fear of retribution for giving false testimony in official proceedings, including congressional investigations, or making spurious statements in sworn statements.
In earlier times, a person’s signature in a document submitted to a government office pursuant to its regulations was considered sufficient and did not require validation.
The signature was taken at its face value and given full faith and credit. The presumption was, the signature was made in good faith and can be relied upon as to the truth or accuracy of the information that had been signed on.
Signing under oath or acknowledging a signature before a notary public or any person authorized to administer oaths was the exception then rather than the rule.
Not anymore. To my recollection, the requirement that signatures in government documents by private parties should be notarized became the standard operating procedure in the 1980s.
Since then, practically all government filings have to be acknowledged under oath before they can be officially “received” or considered compliant with the checklist of required documents.
The government offices then (and up to the present) cannot be faulted for imposing that requirement in light of numerous incidents of untruthful or false statements deliberately made in such filings.
The notarial attestation was supposed to put the signatory on notice that the document he or she has signed has been transformed to a public document and that any untruthful statement in it could make him or her liable for perjury.
In theory, the threat of prosecution for perjury should encourage him or her to write only the truth in the sworn statement.
But the fact that Congress has to enact a law imposing stiffer penalties on perjury shows that the possibility of prosecution has not produced its intended effect. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the law on perjury has become a dead law.
Recently, the Senate blue ribbon committee got a taste of the cavalier treatment of that law during its investigation of overpriced and expired medical equipment delivered by Pharmally Parmaceutical Corp.
Some witnesses gave testimonies that were either untruthful, deceptive or misleading. They were probably emboldened in doing that in light of President Duterte’s defense of the government’s transactions with Pharmally.
Taking a cue from the government, most businesses now also require that signatures by their counterparties in contracts or important communications be notarized.
As if to show the notarization is not good enough, they also require the submission of a photocopy of two government-issued identification cards and the specimen signature of the person whose signature appears in the document.
It remains to be seen whether the heavier penalties imposed on perjury would result in strict compliance with the rules on giving truthful testimony in official proceedings or in statements made under oath.
Until someone is “sampled” by the new law and word spreads that the government is serious in its enforcement, the nonchalant treatment of the law on perjury would continue. INQ
For comments, please send your email to [email protected].
