The Ombudsman and SALN

GOVERNMENT officials are required to produce, annually, a statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN). Failure to do so can result in serious consequences. We recall that former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno who allegedly, many years before, had failed to provide her SALN data, found herself in hot water as a result of this omission. Whether this contributed to the majority decision of her peers in the Supreme Court to cause her dismissal is unclear, however.

***

Last week, it was reported that Ombudsman Samuel Martires is proposing some serious amendments to the ‘Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees’ which would include a five year jail sentence for anyone who would issue ‘further commentaries’ on the required SALNs.

This is disappointing.

Our newspapers would not be worth reading if ‘further commentaries’ were forbidden. I do not see why SALN’s should be sacrosanct. Those of us who have a vicarious state of mind are interested in the fortunes (or otherwise) of senior officials. We empathize with those of limited net worth (such as Neri Colmenares) and envy those who combine government service with a successful business career.

***

Article III of our 1987 Constitution specifies the Bill of Rights. Section 17 says ‘No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself’. This is our equivalent to the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment which mentions that we have the right not to incriminate ourselves.

I sometimes wonder whether our SALN law can, on occasions, come close to infringing Article III Section 17 of our Constitution.

***

It was interesting to read in Lapsus Calami at the weekend of the reappearance of former Iloilo City mayor Jed Patrick Mabilog. He reportedly joined the Zoom meeting “Pink Iloilo: A Conspiracy of Hope for the Future” in support of the presidential bid of current vice-president Leni Robredo.

I recall that some years ago, Mabilog fell foul of the Ombudsman’s office over his declared SALNs for 2012 and 2013. It was asserted that the gap between the reported 2013 net worth of Mabilog and his wife (a senior finance executive in Canada) exceeded their 2012 net worth by an amount which could only be explained by hocus-pocus.

Does this come within the definition of “further commentaries” which the Ombudsman considers should be subject to a five-year (“no more, no less”) jail sentence?

 I think not. Accountants, when calculating net worth over a period of time, take into account a gain or loss of asset values. Property, for example, may be re-evaluated. This can result in a substantial gain in net worth when, as often happens, properties increase in value.

Initial opinions on net worth can result in rejoinders which may or may not support a justification of an increase in net worth.

In a democracy, such discussions are acceptable – indeed necessary.

Our media is replete with “further commentaries”. We need these to amplify our national conversation.

To ban “further commentaries” whether in respect of SALNs or indeed anything else, would be contrary to democratic discourse./PN