Probing public officials’ lifestyles

At long last, corruption in the government has been explicitly admitted. The recent order of the President for a lifestyle check of all Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, bureau chiefs, executives of government corporations and financial institutions as well as military and police officers, confirms that finally this chronic problem long accepted as a harsh reality in public life is getting the needed attention from no less than the Chief Executive, just like the peace and order problem. It is a good and encouraging sign, although it also indicates that the government recognizes the difficulty of establishing corruption and pinpointing its perpetrators by direct evidence; little realizing that proving it by mere circumstantial evidence of change in lifestyle is equally, if not more difficult, especially if the due process requirement of guilt beyond reasonable doubt has to be satisfied. Besides, a lifestyle check would have been more effective and credible if it is done discreetly without any public announcement and if it covers all public officials instead of being limited to a specific group.

If the lifestyle check is limited to those who serve at the pleasure of the President, then it must be primarily for the purpose of determining only whether they should continue in office or be asked to resign for loss of confidence. The function of evaluating their lifestyle for the evidentiary purpose of prosecuting them for corruption and establishing their guilt beyond reasonable doubt should be left to the Ombudsman. The Presidential Anti Graft Commission (PAGC) should mainly concern itself in finding out and informing the President whether she could still rely on the integrity and uprightness of the officials in the executive department for purposes of undertaking a revamp, if called for.

Using the Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) is not that practical in probing the required lifestyle of a government official. The constitution says that public officers and employees must at all times "lead modest lives". So even if a government official has a net worth showing him a millionaire many times over, it does not entitle him to flaunt his wealth and live extravagantly while in the government. He should exercise restraint and moderation in his way of life as a public servant because he is called to serve rather than to be served. Besides, it is so easy to file a bloated SAL for a position that is a sure "money maker". So the SAL should not be made the basis in justifying the kind of lifestyle a government official should lead. In fact even a public official living within his means as reflected in his SAL with a modest net worth may not really be as "clean" as he appears to be. Such lifestyle may just be a front. The modesty of his life as a public official is better gauged by the manner he handles the power that goes with his position. If he uses that power as a tool to impose his unbending will upon others or to create a perception of self-importance and ascendancy, then he is not actually leading the "modest life" contemplated under the constitution. What invariably comes to mind are those officials in flashy cars making known their "exalted" positions by sporting special car plates and having several back up vehicles and motorcycle cops parting the traffic for us ordinary mortals to give way. Or those functionaries in various government offices whose salaries are definitely not commensurate with the signature clothes they wear and the glittering jewels they flaunt. Everytime I encounter such spectacle, I always tell myself that in all likelihood, power will corrupt these officials, if they are not yet corrupted.

Who are really the corrupt officials in the government? This is a question as hard to answer as proving their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe it is easier to single out the officials who are not corrupt by the simple process of elimination. Of course there are shady deals in all levels but anomalies in the rank and file and clerical or purely ministerial positions are comparatively negligibly taken in the context of the billions lost through corruption. So it is safe to say that corrupt officials are found almost entirely in elective or appointive positions that carry some decision-making powers or exercise of discretion, great or small. The broader the power, the more probable and bigger the corruption.

The next question to ask is how these officials enter the government or attain their positions. If the positions are appointive, are they career officials rising from the ranks or are they "outsiders" chosen by the powers that be? Career officials are generally less prone to corruption especially if they have clean service records. Among the "outsiders", there are those who assumed their posts by lobbying hard to get them, personally or through padrinos. Usually they are jobless politicians or political proteges rewarded with the spoils of political victory and therefore generally susceptible or really geared to make hay while the sun shines. To be sure however, there are also outsiders who don’t need government jobs either because they already have lucrative income in the private sector or are already affluent in their own right. Still, they enter public service out of a sense of devotion to serve the country. It is therefore safe to assume that they will not commit graft and corruption barring intervening events that constrain them to protect some business interests or unforeseen situations where they find themselves unable to strictly adhere to their principles for considerations other than money.

The grafters easiest to pinpoint are of course those in the elective positions high or low. Spending enormous amount of money just to win the posts with salaries and emoluments so meager and so insufficient even to sustain their family, gives us millions of reasons and circumstantial evidence to conclude that after winning they will have to recover their "investments" from sources other than their salaries; or that they are out to protect some personal business interests. Rare are the candidates purely motivated by public service. They are the ones who spend within legally allowable limits in winning the election.

So it is not really necessary to conduct a lifestyle check to find out the grafters. We will know them by just conducting a search for those who are not grafters; for the rare breed of public officers who stand out because they are serving with utmost integrity, loyalty and efficiency.

* * *

E-mail us at [email protected]