LISTEN TO ARTICLESynthesized Narration • 0:00 / 0:00

Under his tenure, former ombudsman Samuel Martires restricted access to the SALNs of government officials. He ordered that obtaining these records require the consent of the official or require a court order. Martires argued that SALNs are weaponized against politicians, claiming that malicious figures use them to discredit their opponents unfairly. Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, or better known as SALNs are documents that lay out a politician’s financial and business interests. Assets include property and investments; liabilities are composed of debts; and lastly, a net worth is a person’s total assets minus their liabilities. SALNs give a clear view of a politician’s financial transactions, shedding light on possible anomalies and corruption. As said, Martires opposed making these records public. Harassment is unwarranted and there is no denying that urgent steps must be taken to prevent it from plaguing the public discourse. However, achieving this should not come at the expense of necessary policies. Public scrutiny is a significant aspect of public service, and in return for their seats in office, officials should have the initiative to disclose not just what they advocate for, but also their own background. The country’s leanings toward personality-based politics already undermine the call for strong principles, and thus, the least that politicians could do is show that there is depth in their platforms and that the image they present to the public is supported by integrity. Restricting SALNs, on the other hand, erodes accountability and pushes us further away from a fundamental trait in governance—transparency. Martires’ concern to suppress does not stop there. Newly appointed ombudsman Boying Remulla recently said that the former ombudsman made a “secret decision,” where he silently reversed an order requesting the ouster of Senator Joel Villanueva, without disclosing the pronouncement to the public. In 2008, when Villanueva was a congressman in the House of Representatives, he requested P10-million from his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) for what was soon deemed as a nonexistent project. Then, in 2016, Martires’ predecessor former ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales ordered the dismissal of Villanueva’s seat in the senate over the misuse of pork barrel funds. Villanueva filed a motion of reconsideration, which was granted by Martires in 2019—once again, without making the decision public. Martires’ grant was deliberate, and he himself admitted that he chose not to publicize the reversal to “protect a person’s dignity.” He further said that he “did not want to be glorified at the expense of people whose guilt is not yet determined by the court.” But this goes back to the previous point. As politicians, they have the obligation to face what is thrown against them and clear up uncertainty. Their duty is just as much to hold themselves accountable as to fight for justice. But Villanueva remained silent, and Martires merely tolerated this. The ombudsman is supposed to investigate and prosecute corruption within the government. But the former leadership’s priorities contradicted this mandate and compromised the institution, possibly benefiting the same actors they are thought to have been fighting against. Appointed by former president Duterte, Martires left a legacy that brings into question whether justice was truly upheld. What Martires failed to see was that accountability must come first before preserving one’s dignity.