Worthy challenge

Even if it came from the accused Chief Justice who was convicted and removed from office because he did not fully disclose his assets in his SALN, even if it is mere theatrics and even if it was made too late as he had already admitted having dollar and peso deposits amounting to millions, the unconditional waiver executed by Corona on the secrecy of his bank deposits is not useless. It is so far the most innovative move to promote more transparency and accountability in public service. Indeed it can be said that it is one of most beneficial side effects of the impeachment case. It sets a new standard for all those in public service. All public officials starting from the President down to the Barangay leaders should also sign the same kind of waiver without any condition. This is a challenge undoubtedly coming from the silent majority. In fact even some Senators who convicted Corona like Alan Peter Cayetano and Chiz Escudero also hurled the same challenge.

Refusing to accept the challenge will certainly raise more doubts about the public officials’ sincerity in adhering to the constitutional declaration that “public office is a public trust” (Article XI, Section 1). Accepting it on the other hand is a big step towards more accountability and transparency in public service. It is thus quite disappointing and distressing that two of our highest leaders, President P-Noy and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile ran away from this challenge simply because Corona’s waiver is a mere “palabas”.

More distressing is P-Noy reason articulated by one of his spokespersons Abigail Valte who said that he refused to sign the waiver because “no one is saying that his disclosures in his SALN are incomplete or are inaccurate”. Such reasoning is not expected from one like P-Noy who has repeatedly vowed to clean and reform our government. It is a more reactive than pro-active stance similar to the attitudes of past administrations which have been mired in graft and corruption precisely because of lack of transparency and accountability.

PNoy’s second reason is even more disturbing. He claimed that there is no need to sign the waiver because he had already signed one when he filed his SALN and authorized the Ombudsman to look into pertinent government documents on his wealth. Apparently PNoy or his advisers advertently or inadvertently failed to see that the waiver contained in the SALN authorizes examination of government documents on his wealth and does not cover the examination of private bank records of his deposits. Definitely they are different waivers and therefore signing the SALN does not mean that he also waives the secrecy of his bank deposits.

Aggravating PNoy’s stand is his campaign promise during the 2010 presidential elections that he would sign a waiver on the secrecy of his bank deposits once elected. That was one of the first moves he should have taken upon assuming office two years ago. So with more reason he should do so now when there is a challenge for him to sign such waiver. What happened to that campaign promise? What could be the reason for the change of mind?

In this connection allow me to cite portions of an e-mail I received from one of my readers in reaction to my column “Ironies and Lessons” that appeared in the Phil Star last Friday June 1, 2012. Apparently he is a government official because he requested that his identity be held “confidential” if I will publicize his reaction for it may jeopardize his position. But he said that he cannot “just sit down and watch and not give (his) feedback to something very good that you have started doing”. So, this is what he further said and suggested:

“Can we really expect our government officials and politicians to come forward and do what Corona did? Would they not think that doing so will bring them to where Corona ended?

I am no Corona fan nor am I a PNoy diehard. But a lot has been written with regards to how our public leaders (do they really want to be called servants?) should take the moral high ground on transparency. What Corona did makes a lot of sense and is the real test or measure as to who our honest officials are and who are just taking advantage of their powers. They should accept the challenge and sign their waivers. It is a no brainer to understand that those who immediately refused to openly and publicly sign similar unconditional waiver could be the ones hiding a lot of things. I remember Corona refusing to reveal his properties. What he said is it will happen at the right forum at the right time. And when he did it, it led to his downfall.

Can we expect most of our public leaders to learn from this impeachment case? Should we not exert all our efforts to ensure that there is a follow-through to everything that had happened and use this as the spring board to sustain the campaign on transparency down to the lowest level of our government agencies particularly the LGUs? Who are really after serving our people and who are after power and more? It could be a good campaign in the coming elections that Filipinos should elect only those who are willing to sign and in fact can show to the people that they have signed an unconditional waiver so that the voters can take a look at their properties/wealth in whatever form. The waiver should be valid and effective as long as they are in office and not just for a specific period. Only those who sign should be voted to public office. No waiver, No vote”.

Most Filipinos are really hoping and praying that PNoy will change his stand on this waiver. He will be setting a good example in promoting transparency if he will do it subject to certain guidelines that will prevent abuse. Other officials will certainly follow. Never mind if he will be stooping to the same level as ex-Chief Justice Corona if he accepts this challenge. He should look at the challenge not the challenger.

Our email address: [email protected]