IN THE ongoing discourse on accountability and governance, the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) stands as one of the simplest yet most powerful tools for public trust. It is both a mirror and a measure reflecting how faithfully public officials manage the people’s trust and how transparently they live by the law’s demand for honesty.
Under Article XI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, every public officer and employee is required to submit a true, detailed, and sworn SALN. This constitutional provision is strengthened by Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which gives citizens the right to access these documents in the spirit of transparency. It is a principle anchored on a simple truth: public office is a public trust, and those who hold it must be open to scrutiny.
Yet over the years, this safeguard has grown increasingly fragile. What was once a cornerstone of good governance has been reduced to a guarded file, accessible only through layers of bureaucracy or subject to selective release. Instead of a document of transparency, the SALN has become a symbol of institutional hesitation. It is a reflection of how far we have drifted from the ideals of openness.
The recent controversies in Philippine politics – from alleged “ghost projects” and questionable government contracts to unexplained increases in wealth – have reignited calls for greater disclosure. When public officials are accused of amassing assets disproportionate to their lawful income, the first and most natural question arises: What do their SALNs show? Unfortunately, that answer has become increasingly difficult for citizens to find.
The public’s right to access SALNs is not a matter of curiosity but of constitutional oversight. The document allows both government agencies and citizens to detect patterns of enrichment, conflict of interest, or misuse of public funds. In many instances, the failure to disclose or the filing of falsified SALNs has led to administrative or criminal charges. It only proves that the system works when transparency is allowed to function.
But transparency requires consistency. When access is restricted, when procedures become cumbersome, or when high-ranking officials are exempted from the same standards imposed on others, the credibility of the entire system weakens. The SALN ceases to be a tool of accountability and becomes a mere formality.
Restoring trust in public institutions begins with restoring transparency. The law already provides the framework; what is needed is the political will to uphold it uniformly and without favor. Making SALNs accessible again in a manner that respects both privacy and the public interest would send a clear message: that accountability is not selective, and integrity remains the foundation of governance.
Ultimately, the SALN is more than a form to be filed. It is a covenant between officials and the people they serve. It is a written reminder that those entrusted with power must never fear the light of public scrutiny. Because in a true democracy, transparency is not optional; it is the oxygen that keeps trust alive./PN
