Being the deputy ombudsman does not deprive Pelagio Apostol the right to be entitled to his own opinion. On the other hand, being the deputy ombudsman, Pelagio Apostol ought to know enough of the sensitivity of such position as to keep his opinions on matters of law to himself.
But such does not seem to be the case with Apostol. Commenting on cases in which some Cebu officials escaped prosecution because of the Aguinaldo Doctrine, which erases administrative liabilities upon reelection, Apostol said he wished the Aguinaldo Doctrine did not exist.
But it does, and so Apostol cannot publicly assail it, or any other law for that matter, without giving the impression that any decision he may have made in the past or is still to make in the future, may be tainted by personal feelings rather than based on the evidence.
For Apostol to say the Aguinaldo Doctrine “condones the sins of reelected public officials†is to assume all public officials are guilty as charged but only managed to get off the hook because they got reelected.
That is a very unfair statement for an ombudsman to make. Not only does it set aside presumption of innocence, it ignores the possibility that even without the Aguinaldo Doctrine, an official can actually be innocent regardless of whether he gets reelected or not.
Apostol cannot say that reelection condones the misconduct of officials without running afoul of the very principle upon which all democracy rests — and that is that all authority of government emanates from the people.
What that means is if the people chose to condone official misconduct by reelecting an official, there is nothing any other official like Apostol can do about it. And if Apostol has any problem accepting direct orders from the people, then he very well must know what to do.
There is a nice little piece called Pledge of Loyalty from which Apostol can derive valuable lessons from. In crisp, clear language, it expresses the value of personal feelings and opinions, and the precise time when to express them.