There are quite a number of misconceptions about the SALN that I want to clarify so we can all be guided accordingly.

First off, all public officials and employees are mandated under the law to file their sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. In fact, they should not only declare their properties but should likewise disclose their business interests and financial connections. The purpose of this requirement, obviously, is to promote transparency.

If an employee, for example, fails to file it on time or omits certain assets and properties that should have been included in his SALN, he would not be penalized outright. Instead, he would be given an opportunity to rectify these errors or mistakes within a non-extendible period of 30 days from notice.

In one case decided by the Supreme Court, an employee who was dismissed for dishonesty because of his failure to divulge some of his assets and financial interests was given another chance to supply his omission. Ruling in his favor, the highest tribunal reiterated the review and compliance procedure under Section 10 of RA 6713, which institutes a mechanism for review and rectification. This is mandatory. If the employee still fails to comply, that is the only time he can be disciplined either through suspension or dismissal from the service. The penalties here are imposed not because he is corrupt but because he fails to comply with the reporting requirements.

Note that just because there are irregularities in an employee’s SALN does not mean he is automatically liable for plunder or violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. If he can subsequently prove that his wealth is not ill-gotten, he does not incur any civil or criminal liability.

When former Chief Justice Renato Corona was impeached for allegedly failing to disclose his assets in his SALN, the Office of the Ombudsman filed a civil forfeiture case against him, alleging “unexplained wealth.” The Sandiganbayan dismissed it, noting that although he may have been negligent in completing his SALN, his wealth was legally accumulated over years of work. This is why the Supreme Court, in a related case, emphatically stated that the instrument is a “tool for public transparency and not a weapon for political vendetta.”

Incidentally, a SALN is considered a public document. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that while everyone has access to it, the same could not be exercised indiscriminately and should be subject to regulatory measures. This is because there is a need to protect a public official’s right to certain data privacy and to guarantee that his SALN will not be politically weaponized against him.

If you ask me, though, I sincerely believe that with respect to certain officials occupying elective posts or appointive positions at the national level, the public should have outright access to their respective SALNs regardless of whether or not they would be used politically.

At the end of the day, public office is a public trust.