‘In-sid-i-ous’

After reading about the controversial statement of Ombudsman Samuel Martires where he reportedly suggested that the Commission on Audit should not publish or publicly share COA findings or reports, the term “Insidious” crept into my consciousness. Although I had an idea of what the term meant, I still went online to get the definition.

In-sid-i-ous: (adjective) proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects. Treacherous; crafty. Working or spreading in a hidden and usually injurious way.

The definition of the term was also accompanied with medical examples such as “sexually transmitted diseases can be insidious and sometimes without symptoms.” The other example was: “Glaucoma is an insidious disease.” Or like the word treacherous:“Tangible proof of an insidious alliance.” If you want to be a little positive, we could say, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Whether you agree or disagree with his methods, whether you like him or not, the Ombudsman despite his mild manner has a way of getting under people’s skin. His very appointment as Ombudsman raised a few eyebrows as people suspected that his “political appointment” would benefit key players of the Duterte administration. Just after that blew over, the Ombudsman crossed swords with many when he insisted that the SALN or Statement of Assets and Liabilities should not be public or publicized unless required by a court order.

In hindsight, that controversy may have been moot, given how today’s crop of corrupt government officials have managed to utilize tools that were once only available to the Mafia or Yakuza. Unless a mistress, disgruntled wife or employee spills the beans, the chance of finding evidence is slim. Just having a SALN is not enough. Then there are also the hordes of unprincipled professionals in law and accountancy who will build a wall greater than the Great Wall of China to delay, hide or bury the truth.

After the SALN controversy, two high profile cases put the Office of the Ombudsman on the radar of unpopularity. First was his suspension of ARTA or Anti-Red Tape Authority officials, which was followed by the dismissal of the NAIA general manager and associate from office, which I understand has been brought to court.

Based solely on his word, you get the impression that the Ombudsman is being “logical,” perhaps “practical” to a fault. If you list down his major pronouncements and actions, view them separately, you might be tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt or right to decide. But when you watch the “train of events,” one is tempted to ask; What is his agenda?

We always looked up to the Office of the Ombudsman as the crime fighting superhero against corrupt government officials. So why is the Ombudsman paring off or suggesting we do away with established practices such as posting of SALNs and Annual Audit Reports of COA? These “tools” are there to help track and alert the public as well as the Ombudsman of irregularities.

The Ombudsman argues that the audit reports should not be published or shared publicly because they are still subject to consideration or correction. In effect, what the Ombudsman may be suggesting is that publication would be premature and judgmental. The problem is the audit reports are all based on the submissions of the agencies and government officials concerned. Audit reports are based on internal audits conducted by their offices and often even assisted by “in-house” COA personnel assigned to them.

Once the agencies submit their expenditure reports, the COA sifts through what was submitted, cross checks with budget requests and releases, informs the agencies of initial findings or needed clarifications and once the deadlines come, that’s it. The books are closed, and the Annual Audit Report released.

It is no different in the Supreme Court or in the Office of the Ombudsman. All parties present their petitions, evidence, conduct their arguments, the justices make inquiries or examines witnesses, etc. What the court decides on is all based on submissions and presentations and the law. The court works on what is before them. Same with COA.

One point that critics raised is the fact that COA reports are none of the Ombudsman’s business or area of responsibility. The Annual Audit Reports of the COA, more than anything, give ordinary citizens some assurance that “some-body” is watching government expenditures, that we have some form of control or oversight on the billions of pesos spent. To be blunt, it is the deodorant that keeps corruption in check and the government cannot live without it in terms of accountability as well as public perception.

For the branches of government and its agencies, the Commission on Audit does so much of the work in terms of accountability, monitoring financial integrity and the mountain of work collecting financial data needed in budget determination, performance evaluation as well as keeping expenditures on track. We generally pay attention to waste, but the COA also points out underspending which is equally bad for government.

At this point in our history and lives, so many Filipinos are looking for a reason to trust government. So many Filipinos are seeking justice and equality between them and those in government. At a time when government officials have used their office to indulge themselves in perks and lifestyle, in contrast to ordinary Filipinos trying to make ends meet, the Office of the Ombudsman has the unique opportunity and responsibility to correct this social injustice.

Justice is so expensive for many Filipinos, and some have lived without. But to forego “hope,” to lose sight of what duty is and miss the chance to do both, that would be a sin we cannot forgive ourselves for.

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]