SINCE 2018, the extent of President Rodrigo Duterte’s wealth has remained a secret to the public—breaking an annual tradition for Philippine presidents since 1989. Though the 1987 Constitution tries to ensure accountability by requiring public officials to submit a statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN), recent requests for the president’s SALN have been denied by the Ombudsman. These were due to newer regulations that limit who can request the SALN of public officials.

These restrictions come at a time when the government insists on non-cooperation with the International Criminal Court investigation and officials are prevented from testifying in a corruption probe. Thus, the issue of transparency must not only tackle public access to tools that hold officials accountable but also question how public servants and institutions treat the pursuit for truth in the country.

An instrument of transparency

One of the primary ways that government officials maintain public accountability is through the filing and disclosure of their SALNs. This document is an annual declaration of all the wealth that public officials—from elected politicians, government employees, to uniformed personnel—must submit as mandated by Article XI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution.

This document, among other things, aids citizens and investigators in identifying wealth discrepancies and analyzing whether certain officials have been misdeclaring their assets. Wealth with unaccounted origins can be deemed as “ill-gotten” and may be confiscated in favor of the government. As such, this function of the SALN has helped investigators in the past prosecute officials who were engaged in illegal activities, such as former President Joseph Estrada’s 2007 plunder verdict.

Various laws—from R.A. 6713, Executive Order (EO) No. 2, s. 2016, to the Constitution—require the publication of SALNs for public access. However, the recent Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 1, s. 2020 from Ombudsman Samuel Martires narrowed the criteria on who can access such information. This directive allows for the SALN’s disclosure on only three occasions: If the official or their authorized representative requests for it, if a court legally requests it for a pending case, or if the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office requires it for fact-finding purposes. Otherwise, members of the public must get the consent of the said public official in order to get a copy of their SALN.

Publicly unavailable

The new and narrowed protocols arranged by the Ombudsman office have been criticized for preventing the public from accessing the SALN’s of their officials, especially those in high office. Atty. Dino de Leon, one of the lawyers who requested for Duterte’s SALN, stated that the criteria for who can access SALNs make it almost impossible for the public to acquire these and scrutinize public officials.

“If [they’re] hiding something, obviously they will not give that written authorization,” he said. “And it no longer appears to be…an information that the public is entitled to if we need the consent of the declarant himself.”

De Leon also highlighted how the administration has lacked transparency in other areas. These include the nondisclosure of Duterte’s health status as well as the barring of cabinet members from attending the recent senate probes into the Pharmally Pharmaceutical anomalies. Duterte also barred cabinet members from publicly discussing the West Philippine Sea dispute when 200 Chinese vessels entered the territory.

“It appears like this administration is allergic when it comes to disclosing certain information relating to matters of public concern,” de Leon said, pointing to the lack of the culture of transparency within the Duterte administration.

History of misuse

Despite rising concerns over non-transparency, the Ombudsman has defended the restrictions of MC no. 1—stating that the SALN has been misused before to smear government officials. Former Ateneo School of Government Dean Atty. Tony La Viña posited that discrepancies in the SALN are not absolute proof of corruption but only suggest a lack of transparency and grounds for investigation. Even then, late submissions or spikes in wealth can be explained and forgiven with justifiable reasons.

“I think that [the] mistake in our country has been to just consider any kind of flaw [in the SALN] as proof that you are corrupt… We just want to make conclusions right away,” said La Viña. He further cited the cases of both former Chief Justices Renato Corona and Maria Lourds Sereno as instances where the issue of the SALN was politicized and proved a pivotal aspect in both justices’ impeachments.

Despite acknowledging the need for stringent SALN policies that prevent its weaponization, La Viña still believed that the new guidelines were an overreach. “It bends too much backward to protect government officials,” criticized La Viña.

Instead, he advocated for a middle-ground where media, legislators, and prosecutors can examine SALNs as opposed to freely granting access to anyone who may misuse the SALN for political purposes.

In pursuing these amendments, La Viña said that only the Ombudsman has the power to correct its implementing rules and regulations. However, de Leon and a group of lawyers are planning to take MC No. 1, s. 2020 to the regular or Supreme Court in the hope of having it declared null and void.

Betrayal of public trust

Before MC No. 1, s. 2020, the public did not have to go to extreme lengths to procure an official’s SALN as the Freedom of Information Order encouraged its public scrutiny. When Duterte signed EO No. 2, s. 2016, the move signaled a hopeful future for transparency as it requires the full disclosure of many public documents.

However, de Leon stated that the administration’s continued refusal to release Duterte’s SALN exposes their aversion to releasing information for public interest. This sentiment comes after many failed attempts from de Leon and the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism to access the President’s SALN. 

De Leon also partly blames the Office Ombudsman for this failure in transparency. The unnecessary requirements in the Ombudsman’s new guidelines go against the very essence of freedom of information, making it virtually impossible to scrutinize officials’ wealth. “The Ombudsman is actually committing a betrayal of public trust,” commented de Leon.

Furthermore, de Leon remarked how the SALN debacle is also an election issue since it impedes the public’s ability to make informed voting decisions. “The sovereign people can only act accordingly if they are equipped with the proper information,” discussed de Leon.

Ultimately, curbing freedom of information and disregarding past efforts to uphold government accountability makes transparency a grave issue under the Duterte administration. Despite promises of fighting corruption, the administration’s track record of denying transparency and withholding SALNs falls short in their duty of maintaining a transparent and accountable government.