Secreting SALN

The proposal by the current ombudsman, Samuel Martires, to imprison us ordinary citizens who dare to comment on the Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) filed by public officials in the course of their public lives is jaw-droppingly inane.

While I may lose the ability to comment on SALNs soon, if his proposal is adopted by the self-serving members of Congress who stand to benefit from his idiotic idea, today at least, I can still freely grouse about how stupid his idea is.

What is so objectionable about commenting on SALNs anyway? So what if people misconstrue the details they find there? So what if people are envious, or are shocked, or even offended, by the ginormous wealth flashed by the humble servants of the people?

What’s so morally wrong about digesting all that data and then spouting out one’s conclusions, that Martires has to make it criminal? So what if the information is weaponized by political rivals? Wouldn’t that be an opportunity to engage in debate over wealth --the morality of it, the utility of it, or the destructiveness of it?

As a better morsel for thought, let’s try this: So what if kibitzers probe SALNs even deeper and further, and draw logical conclusions about how staggering the increases a kleptocrat may have enjoyed over the course of a few short years in the public eye? Is drawing fact-based conclusions and publicizing alarming findings, an evil we have to penalize?

So what if SALN diggers compute the income expected to be earned by an official, and measure that against the gain in his assets or his net worth, and then reach the inescapable conclusion that there is unexplained wealth? So what if they demand for an accounting, or an explanation, or even for an escheat proceeding?

Aren’t these the very purposes of having a SALN requirement? So public officials will know they are under the gaze of a critical public? That the expectation is, they should not be involved in hanky-panky shenanigans while warming the plushy seats paid for by the ordinary, sweaty taxpayer?

And if commentary will no longer be allowed and if commentators are brought to prison then what would be the teeth of SALN as a legal requirement? Public officials will duly file their SALN, and us, the public, would be expected to look at their contents only mutely. We will look askance, but we will not be able to open our indignant mouths. Instead of public officials being put to task, it will be us who are vigilant who will be hauled before a judge and asked to explain ourselves. And then spanked very thoroughly.

What will happen to the less analytical among us? Who will interpret the dense information in this and that particular SALN, and provide the more digestible bits to us, the less mathematically-inclined? We will be unable to get some structured sense of the mass of information if the smarter ones don’t break it down for us. Yet that is what Martires’ proposal will result in. It will gag the smart, so the not-so-smart will be kept dumb.

The essence of a democracy is leaving its citizenry free to express ideas on how to better govern themselves. Hence, that crucial principle of “freedom of expression”. But Martires seeks to limit that freedom. He wants the governed to keep quiet, while the governors continue governing their merry way.

So who will protect the governed from those in the government? Oh right, the Office of the Ombudsman. And how are we doing in that chair, Mr. Ombudsman?