In Defense of Order: Why Ombudsman Martires Was Right About SALNs
By Anthony Ludalvi Vista
The article “Good Riddance to the Ombudsman Who Enabled Corruption” portrays Ombudsman Samuel R. Martires as an official who hid corruption behind secrecy. That portrait is false. Martires was not hiding; he was organizing. He did not weaken accountability; he strengthened its legal foundations.
Among all the criticisms against him, none is more distorted than the claim that he “locked down” the Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs). This essay explains what the law actually says, how SALNs have been abused in the past, and why Martires’s actions were both lawful and necessary. In truth, his circular did not close transparency—it restored order to it.
1. What the Law Actually Says
The Constitution requires all public officials to file their SALNs (Art. XI, § 17). It also says that these records are public. But the Constitution is silent on how the public can access them. That power—to set rules and safeguards—belongs to the agencies that keep them.
Republic Act No. 6713 (the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) explains the process. Section 8(A–C) says that each agency is the custodian of the SALNs filed with it and may regulate access to them. In other words, the SALNs are public documents, but their release must follow rules.
Using this mandate, Martires issued Ombudsman Memorandum Circular No. 1 (2020). The circular states that the Ombudsman may release a SALN only when:
1. the declarant consents in writing;
2. a court orders it; or
3. the Ombudsman needs it for an official investigation.
This is not secrecy. It is the exact procedure that R.A. 6713 authorizes.
Martires’s rule also follows the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (R.A. 10173). That law protects personal and sensitive personal information kept by both public and private agencies. A SALN contains a person’s home address, family members, income sources, and property details — all of which fall under those protected categories. Section 12 of the Act says such data may be processed or released only with consent or when required by law.
Section 5 of the Ombudsman circular reflects this rule. It treats the SALN as a public record subject to privacy safeguards. Thus, when Martires required consent before release, he was not hiding information; he was following national privacy law.
When Ombudsman Boying Remulla later nullified this circular and announced open SALN access, that act risked violating the Data Privacy Act itself — and ignored the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Biraogo v. Ombudsman, which had already upheld Martires’s approach as valid and lawful.
2. How the SALN Became Weaponized
Martires’s caution was born of experience, not fear.
When he retired as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, he filed his Exit SALN before receiving his retirement benefits. Upon his appointment as Ombudsman, he filed his Entry SALN, which included those proceeds. Naturally, his net worth rose.
He shared both his Exit and Entry SALNs voluntarily with reporters, believing transparency built trust. Yet news outlets reported that his “net worth ballooned by several millions in five months,” without explaining that the increase came from lawful retirement pay.
That episode exposed the danger of unguarded disclosure — when a document of honesty becomes a headline of suspicion. If the Ombudsman himself can be misrepresented, what protection remains for ordinary public servants?
Martires’s 2020 circular sought to prevent that. It did not hide the truth; it required discipline in its handling. His rule ensured that the right to know would not become a license to destroy reputations.
Today, with reports that SALNs may be used against certain public officials, we see exactly the problem Martires foresaw. Without safeguards, SALNs can be weaponized again. His policy was not about hiding wrongdoing; it was about keeping integrity safe from manipulation.
3. Who Actually Files SALNs with the Ombudsman
Many critics assume that the Ombudsman keeps every official’s SALN. That is wrong. R.A. 6713 § 8(A–C) divides responsibility depending on the office held.
Filed with the Ombudsman – Central Office.
The Central Records Division (CRD) of the Ombudsman keeps the SALNs of top constitutional officials: the President, Vice President, and the Chairpersons and Commissioners of the COA, CSC, COMELEC, CHR, and the Ombudsman himself. These are national and constitutional officers.
Filed with the Deputy Ombudsmen (Regional or Sectoral Offices).
Regional and local officials—such as Regional Directors, Governors, Vice-Governors, Mayors, Vice-Mayors, Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, and Barangay officials and employees—file their SALNs with their respective Deputy Ombudsman (Luzon, Visayas, or Mindanao). Specialized offices like MOLEO handle those from law-enforcement and the military.
AFP Officers – Split Rule.
Officers with the rank of Colonel / Naval Captain and above file with the Office of the President, not the Ombudsman. Those below these ranks file with their Deputy Ombudsman by region or sector. This rule is written directly in R.A. 6713 § 8(B), yet many commentators still overlook it.
Not Filed with the Ombudsman.
Some officials file elsewhere: Senators and Representatives with their respective Secretaries in Congress; Justices and Judges with the Clerk of Court or Court Administrator; Cabinet Secretaries and Undersecretaries with the Office of the President.
How the Ombudsman Manages SALNs.
Within the Ombudsman, the CRD keeps constitutional officials’ SALNs, while CREMEB units in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao handle local ones. Sectoral offices such as MOLEO keep those from law enforcement. Access is limited to:
• the declarant or an authorized representative;
• a court handling a case; or
• an Ombudsman investigator for an official inquiry.
Others must have the declarant’s notarized consent. Direct viewing or photography is not allowed to prevent tampering. Records are kept for ten years and may be destroyed afterward unless needed in an ongoing case (R.A. 6713 § 8[C]).
This system shows that Martires did not centralize control—he simply applied the structure already written in the law.
4. The Judiciary’s Example: A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC (2012)
Martires’s approach followed a precedent set by the Supreme Court itself.
In the Alejandrino request (1989) and later in A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC (Re: Request for SALNs of Justices, June 13, 2012), the Court adopted strict rules on SALN access. The Court said that although the SALN is a public record, access must be regulated to protect judicial independence and the privacy and security of justices and their families. Requests must be specific, written, and justified, and any release requires en banc approval.
The Court also clarified that the constitutional right to information (Art. III, § 7) is not absolute and yields to the need for confidentiality in sensitive government functions. The Court used these same principles when it later handled requests from media organizations such as PCIJ and Rappler.
Thus, when Martires issued his 2020 circular, he was not creating new secrecy rules—he was applying the same standard the Supreme Court had already set: openness balanced by responsibility.
5. Congress’s Own Rules: House Resolution No. 2467
Congress followed a similar path.
During the 17th Congress, the House adopted House Resolution No. 2467, which governs requests for the SALNs of its members. The rule was issued after members complained of harassment and online attacks using their financial disclosures.
The Resolution requires all requests to be in writing, to state a legitimate purpose, and to undergo review by the Office of the Secretary General. It allows redactions—such as addresses and the names of minors—and limits use of the SALNs to official purposes only.
These rules remain in force because the House continues them in each succeeding Congress. The Senate also practices controlled access, often releasing a SALN only with the Senator’s consent. These are not laws but internal rules under Article VI, Section 16(3) of the Constitution, which authorizes each chamber to set its own procedures.
The takeaway is clear: every branch of government regulates SALN access. The Ombudsman’s 2020 circular simply aligned its policy with those of the Supreme Court and Congress.
6. Protecting Fairness, Not Concealment
Martires’s critics often combine the SALN issue with his order on lifestyle checks, claiming he ended them. He did not. Under Ombudsman Memorandum Order No. 1, lifestyle checks continue, but only when supported by verified information or a sworn complaint.
Before this reform, anyone could demand a lifestyle check, even without evidence. Many requests were anonymous or malicious. The order now requires that a requester file a formal complaint so the Ombudsman can hold the person accountable for truthfulness. This change prevents abuse while allowing genuine investigations to proceed.
The policy also reflects the legal framework in R.A. 1379 (Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Property) and R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Both laws require proof of unlawful acquisition—not mere speculation about how much someone spends. Martires redirected the office’s manpower toward cases with solid evidence, not gossip.
This same principle guided his SALN policy: access with accountability. The consent requirement under MC No. 1 (2020) stems from the Data Privacy Act, protecting the filer’s right to privacy while preserving the public’s right to information.
7. Quality Over Quantity in Prosecutions
Critics often point to fewer cases filed before the Sandiganbayan during Martires’s term as proof of inaction. But fewer cases do not mean less work — it means smarter prosecution.
The Constitution and R.A. 6770 (Ombudsman Act) require the Ombudsman to file only when evidence is strong enough for conviction. As a former Sandiganbayan justice, Martires knew that weak cases waste government time and public trust. He valued proof over publicity, preferring ten solid convictions to a hundred dismissed complaints.
Republic Act No. 10660 (2015) narrowed the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction to high-ranking officials and sent lower-level cases to Regional Trial Courts. Although passed before Martires’s term, its effect appeared only from 2018 onward when those investigations ripened into charges. Critics who count only Sandiganbayan cases ignore the many filed in lower courts. The work continued where the law required it to be.
And the results speak for themselves. In the first nine months of 2023, the Ombudsman’s conviction rate soared to 78.89 percent with 1,005 convictions out of 1,274 decided cases (Malaya Business Insight, 2023). For the full year, the rate remained high at 73.4 percent, representing 1,242 convictions out of 1,692 cases (Rappler, 2024). In the first half of 2025, the rate stood at 61.36 percent, up from 48.51 percent in the same period of 2024 (Malaya Business Insight, July 2025). These figures rank among the highest in Ombudsman history and prove that Martires valued strong cases over sensational filings. He did not chase headlines; he secured convictions.
Martires did not slow down the fight against corruption — he refined it. By following the law, prioritizing evidence, and avoiding showy prosecutions, he made the system more credible and results-driven.
8. The Supreme Court Affirms Martires’s Policy: Biraogo v. Ombudsman Martires (2021)
In 2021, the Supreme Court directly upheld Ombudsman Samuel R. Martires’s policy on SALN access. Lawyer Louis “Barok” Biraogo had asked for the SALN of then Vice President Leni Robredo. When the Ombudsman denied the request under Memorandum Circular No. 1 (2020), he claimed that Martires had hidden a public record.
The Court rejected the claim. In G.R. No. 254516 (February 2, 2021), it ruled that the right to information is not absolute. Article XI, Section 17 of the Constitution and R.A. 6713 guarantee public accountability, but they also leave the power of regulation to the custodian. The Ombudsman may lawfully restrict release to protect privacy, avoid harassment, and ensure that requests are made for legitimate purposes. Disclosure is therefore discretionary, not automatic—no one can compel it through a writ of mandamus.
The Court referred to earlier rulings that established this rule, such as Re: Request for Copy of 2008 SALN and Personal Data Sheet of Justices and Court Employees (A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC, June 13 2012) and Subido v. Ozaeta (80 Phil. 383 [1948]). These cases recognized that record custodians may control access to prevent misuse or invasion of privacy. Transparency, the Court said, cannot mean unrestrained fishing expeditions for political ends.
By upholding Memorandum Circular No. 1 (2020), the Court confirmed that Martires’s rules were consistent with R.A. 6713 § 8 and the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (R.A. 10173). SALNs contain personal and sensitive data—such as family details, home addresses, and income sources—that the government must protect. The consent, court-order, or official-investigation rule reflects that duty.
In short, Biraogo settled the issue. Martires’s circular did not hide information; it enforced accountability within the limits of law. The Supreme Court itself declared that regulated disclosure preserves both transparency and fairness—the very balance that keeps justice from turning into spectacle.
9. Why the Criticisms Fail
When the full body of law is read together, the attacks on Ombudsman Martires lose force.
The Constitution (Art. XI § 17) requires public officers to file SALNs and calls them public records, but it leaves access to the custodian agency. R.A. 6713 § 8 empowers that custodian to set disclosure rules. The Data Privacy Act of 2012 (R.A. 10173) reinforces this by treating SALNs as documents containing sensitive personal data, which may be released only with consent, a court order, or a lawful investigation.
The Supreme Court, in A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC (2012), Subido v. Ozaeta (1948), and Biraogo v. Ombudsman Martires (2021), confirmed the same principle: transparency must coexist with privacy and institutional independence. Requests made in bad faith or for political purposes may rightly be denied.
Congress follows identical safeguards. The House’s Resolution No. 2467 (17th Congress) requires written requests stating a legitimate purpose and allows redactions for privacy and security. The Senate also requires the member’s consent before release. These internal rules, issued under Article VI § 16(3) of the Constitution, remain in effect today.
Within the executive branch, Martires’s Memorandum Order No. 1 on lifestyle checks applies the same discipline: investigations continue, but only upon a sworn complaint or verified information. This ensures that accountability is built on fact, not speculation.
Taken together, these measures show that Martires’s policy was not an act of concealment but part of a consistent national standard. The Ombudsman simply aligned executive oversight with the judiciary and legislature.
Critics mistake structure for secrecy. They forget that unrestricted disclosure can destroy reputations and turn accountability into performance. Martires’s policy protects both transparency and justice by making sure that every request is grounded in law, not politics.
He did not hide the truth—he defended it from distortion. By uniting the Constitution, R.A. 6713, the Data Privacy Act, and the Supreme Court’s own rulings into one coherent policy, Martires restored balance between openness and fairness—the foundation of genuine public accountability.
