The Ombudsman has sounded the alarm over what he called an unprecedented obstacle to corruption investigations, after probers were told they must secure approval from the House of Representatives’ plenary before accessing the Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) of lawmakers under investigation for alleged irregularities in flood control projects.
Speaking at a public forum on Sunday, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla said the requirement had no basis in law or established practice and risked paralysing probes into potential conflicts of interest involving so‑called “cong‑tractors” — legislators allegedly acting as or benefitting from contractors on publicly funded projects.
An unexpected barrier to investigations
Remulla said his investigators encountered resistance when they sought access to SALNs filed by members of the House linked to questionable flood control initiatives. According to the Ombudsman, the House Secretary General’s office informed his team that the documents could only be released with prior approval from the plenary.
“Recently, our team has encountered difficulties in acquiring the SALNs of the congressmen we are investigating, as the secretary general’s office has mentioned—or so I’ve been informed—that the SALN must first be approved by the plenary before it can be released,” Remulla said.
For the Ombudsman, the directive amounts to a procedural wall erected in the middle of an investigation — one that turns a routine disclosure requirement into a political decision subject to collective consent.
SALNs at the heart of transparency laws
SALNs are annual declarations required of all public officials under Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The filings are designed to expose unexplained wealth, deter corruption and flag conflicts of interest.
Access to these documents is particularly critical in investigations involving public infrastructure, where large sums of taxpayer money and private business interests often intersect. In the current probes, the Ombudsman is examining flood control projects across the archipelago, including in flood‑prone areas of Metro Manila, where allegations suggest lawmakers may have benefitted financially from projects they helped fund or influence.
“We need to resolve this matter because it presents a conflict of interest,” Remulla said. “Isn’t that right? It pertains to the code of ethics—the code of ethical standards—where one should not have any conflict of interest.”
‘That’s not how Congress worked’
Drawing on his own experience as a former congressman, Remulla pushed back strongly against the claim that plenary approval is required to release SALNs to the Ombudsman.
“They claim that permission must still be routed through the plenary. That’s not accurate—I was in Congress. I know the plenary very well. We never operated that way,” he said.
No law or formal House rule has been cited publicly to justify the requirement, raising questions about whether the procedure reflects an internal policy decision rather than a legal mandate.
Tensions with House leadership
The standoff underscores growing friction between the Office of the Ombudsman and the House leadership at a time when national attention is focused on accountability in public spending.
Remulla said he intends to raise the matter directly with House Speaker Ferdinand Martin “Bojie” G. Dy III, stressing the urgency of resolving access issues before investigations stall further.
The House Secretary General’s office, led by Cheloy Garafil, has so far maintained that routing requests through the plenary is a procedural necessity, though no detailed justification has been made public.
Why delays matter beyond politics
While the dispute plays out between institutions, its effects are felt far from the halls of parliament. Delays in accessing SALNs can slow investigations into flood control projects that directly affect communities vulnerable to seasonal storms.
For ordinary citizens — families whose homes flood during typhoons, commuters stranded by impassable roads, small businesses disrupted by water damage — accountability failures translate into real‑world costs. Without timely scrutiny of alleged kickbacks or self‑dealing, mismanaged projects risk being repeated, repaired and refunded with yet more public money.
In that sense, SALNs function less like paperwork and more like a map: without them, investigators are left navigating corruption allegations in the dark.
A broader push for openness
The controversy comes just months after Remulla moved to restore broader public access to SALNs, lifting restrictive policies imposed by his predecessor. That decision was widely seen as an effort to re‑anchor the Ombudsman’s office to its constitutional role as a watchdog.
Whether that push for transparency can extend into the legislature now depends on how the House responds. For Remulla, the principle is simple: disclosure should not depend on permission from those who stand to be scrutinised.
As investigations into flood control projects continue, the resolution of this dispute may set a precedent — either reinforcing SALNs as a cornerstone of public accountability, or turning them into documents accessible only with political consent.
