Why does the government always seem to be so apologetic when dealing with issues that involve persons or entities perceived to be powerful or influential. If the government is merely doing its job, there is no need for it to be apologetic. Or is there?
Recently, the BIR disclosed that many of those who normally make it to Forbes Magazine's stratospheric ranks of wealthiest Filipinos did not seem to rate correspondingly when it comes to paying taxes.
But even as it was making this disclosure, the BIR itself, acting like the spokesman for these wealthy individuals, explained in the same breath on their behalf that the agency does not tax assets but incomes. So there should be a difference, the BIR chief said, possibly in tears.
Then, on the heels of this report came the disclosure that many ranking police officers are millionaires. Of course a million pesos nowadays is not something to collapse over, more so if you are, well, a police officer.
Most people would not take a second look at the report. It sort of comes as a given that when you are a police officer, and you do not become a millionaire, there must be something wrong somewhere. You must be in the wrong career.
Yet, rather than letting the report run its due course toward forgetfulness, the Office of the Ombudsman suprisingly stepped into the picture. And even more surprisingly, it took upon itself the task of trying to explain the riches.
Maybe, the police officials already had money before they joined the service, the Office of the Ombudsman explained. And as if its explanation on behalf of the police officials was not enough, the anti-graft office pleaded for people not to jump to conclusions based on the figures.
Wow, one would have thought that it was enough for government agencies such as the BIR and the Office of the Ombudsman to do their jobs without having to explain away the consequences of their actions. If they have to be so apologetic, why do their jobs at all?