Mutual respect

I cannot understand why there is such an uproar over the new guidelines issued by the Office of the Ombudsman to govern all requests for copies of the statements of assets and liabilities and net worth of government officials.

 The usual critics of government are making it appear as if the Ombudsman has just curtailed the right of citizens to gain access to public documents when in fact nothing in the guidelines says that right has been denied.

 Politics being as dirty as it is in the Philippines, there is almost nothing that cannot be crafted or parlayed into a tool meant to destroy reputations and careers. What the Ombudsman did was simply lay down a process by which that can be minimized or discouraged.

 For it has become clear that the statements of assets and liabilities and net worth of politicians can be used in ways more devious than their true intent of affording transparency and accountability among public officials.

 The main imputation in the complaint against the new guidelines is that it is probably intended to protect the members of the First Family from further prying in face of recent developments that showed one of the presidential sons may have some undisclosed assets.

 Maybe or maybe not. Probably the timing was just propitious for malicious insinuations. But even if the timing indeed suggested some attempt to insulate the First Family, the new guidelines as they are are a pathetic and useless tool for the job.

 And that is for the simple reason that the new guidelines do not prevent anyone from gaining access to anybody’s SALN. Every Tom, Dick and Harry that wants to can still get the SALN of anyone from the Ombudsman. He just has to go through a revised process.

 Of course not everybody who is complaining about the new guidelines is fired up by some malicious inspiration. Some are complaining for no other reason that they do not want to be hampered by any process or regulation.

 These are the kind you see at the boarding gates of airports, who never see the value of forming lines. These are the kind who speed up at yellow instead of slowing down, who see order as a curtailment rather than a process for convenience.

 They are the kind who believe that as citizens, the state owes them everything — from undivided attention to prompt response at the drop of a hat, never mind if disregarding order and process the ensuing chaos can result in far worse conditions affecting all.

 These people are not unlike journalists who think a press card is a license to do anything in the name of press freedom, not realizing that others, too, have a right to their own freedoms and are just as protected by laws and social norms as everybody else.

 Along this line, I remember the uproar that ensued when Mayor Tomas Osmeña, early in his career, banned a certain journalist from his office. While every journalist ganged up on Osmeña crying press freedom, I was probably the only one who sustained what the mayor did.

 In my humble opinion, I felt that if the mayor did not like the smell of your armpits, he was well within his rights to deny you entry into his office. And cries of violation of press freedom were ridiculous if you can still get information elsewhere in City Hall.

 As I have often said, a press card can only get you up to a point, beyond which you have to submit to a process imposed by others who also have rights. In America, the bastion of democracy, you can cry tears of blood but a press card alone will not get you inside Pentagon.

 I use the press card without intent to disparage my fellow journalists. It is just the best allusion I can think of about the ferocity with which some people demand rights, and the same ferocity with which others also protect theirs. In the end, it is mutual respect we need.