Much ado about SALNs

Much ado about SALNs | Daily Tribune

Former Ombudsman Samuel Martires had his reasons for being firmly against unbridled access to the Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) to harass public officials.

Martires, a former Supreme Court Associate Justice, was so adamant about Memorandum Circular 1 imposing restrictions on the release of SALNs that he said he was willing to risk being removed from office over it.

“I will not yield to public opinion. Public opinion or yielding to it is not part of my job description. So I will not give in to public pressure to release the SALN of any official in violation of the very Memorandum Circular No. 1 that I issued,” he said.

While it is a transparency tool, SALNs are the primary instrument used in partisan demolition jobs.

Under the provisions of Republic Act 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, making public comments on SALNs is not allowed.

RA 6713 states that a SALN is only for publication without any commentary. “That is the kind of transparency that we need,” according to Martires.

He recalled the exploitation of the SALN during the term of the late President Noynoy Aquino, where it showed an increase in the President’s wealth, and people made adverse comments about it.

Martires even proposed heavier penalties for anyone who comments on the SALN of a government official or employee. Moreover, he questioned the focus on the President’s and the Vice President’s SALNs.

“What I find puzzling is — why are we so interested in the SALNs of the President and the Vice President? Why are we not equally interested in the SALNs of other government officials? I really do not know what the purpose is of those asking specifically for the SALNs of the President and Vice President. Are they the only ones capable of corruption?”

Martires’ circular limited SALN releases to requests by the official concerned or their authorized representative; lawful court orders tied to a pending case; or internal Ombudsman investigations for fact-finding purposes.

Critics said these effectively barred public and media access without the official’s consent or a judicial mandate, reversing decades of open policy.

The Supreme Court upheld the circular in a 2021 resolution, citing the need for guidelines on access while noting that other custodians of SALNs, such as the Supreme Court for judicial SALNs, also imposed restrictions on the release of the document from their offices or the House of Representatives’ internal protocols for lawmakers’ declarations.

Martires defended the circular as not meant for opacity but as a refined tool to prevent SALNs from devolving into instruments of division.

The recent decision to rescind the Martires circular carries the danger of feeding more strife as the document is abused for political ends.

In a hyper-polarized landscape, SALNs could be selectively leaked or distorted to fuel harassment campaigns, doxxing, or even physical threats to officials and their families.

Selective scrutiny turns transparency into a partisan weapon, eroding public trust rather than building it.

Martires’ circular intended to require consent or judicial oversight and to ensure that disclosures serve legitimate anti-graft purposes.

Peeking into SALNs of top officials has become an obsession not for establishing integrity but to nitpick on their financial state, the disclosed figures usually being farthest from the truth.