The Senate’s power of the purse gave Senator Dante Marcoleta the ideal platform to underscore the Judiciary’s responsibility in safeguarding the integrity of notarial practice.

During plenary deliberations on the Judiciary’s 2026 budget on November 18, Marcoleta used the opportunity to ask the courts themselves to help resolve the alleged falsification of Mr. Orly Guteza’s sworn testimony.

As the Senate evaluated how much trust and public funding the Judiciary deserves for the coming year, Marcoleta laid bare a real-time example of systemic weaknesses long plaguing notarial practice in the Philippines. He stressed that Guteza’s notarized statement—complete with a seal, document details, and proper formatting—was now in question, given that the supposed notary denied ever signing it.

Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, personal appearance is mandatory, and the notary must personally sign and affix their seal on every document. The Supreme Court has repeatedly disciplined notaries public for allowing staff to sign documents, for failing to secure their seals, and for maintaining incomplete or inaccurate notarial registers.

Against this backdrop, Marcoleta emphasized that whistleblower Guteza had acted in good faith. The Blue Ribbon Committee itself deemed his testimony relevant and properly sworn. Yet Guteza now faces falsification and perjury charges, a situation Marcoleta warned resembles past cases where whistleblowers who tried to assist the government ended up exposed to prosecution rather than protected.

Marcoleta disclosed that he had written the Court Administrator requesting sample notarized documents from the lawyer involved to verify signature patterns. Although the Executive Judge granted the request, she selected which samples would be released, an exercise of discretion that, Marcoleta argued, undermined transparency. He insisted that his staff should be allowed to inspect the full notarial books from January to September 2025 to accurately determine whether forgery occurred.

Here, the Judiciary’s response proved significant. According to Senator Pangilinan, sponsor of the Judiciary’s budget, the Court Administrator confirmed that full access can indeed be granted, provided the inspection is supervised and compliant with the Data Privacy Act.

And this, ultimately, is the heart of Marcoleta’s message: if the Judiciary seeks greater resources to strengthen efficiency, digitalization, and access to justice, it must likewise demonstrate vigilance against abuses that corrode the instruments of truth. A notarial seal should not be so easily forged. A whistleblower should not fear retaliation because of lax record-keeping. And access to notarial logs should not be restricted when a legislator is seeking the facts in aid of investigation.