IN that beautiful cinematographic take on Umberto Eco’s “The Name of the Rose” that starred Sean Connery, there was portrayed the dangerous zealotry of the Inquisition’s prosecutors and judges. A black cat, a woman with peculiar physical features, and a man suffering from some physical deformity — all were taken to be evidence of trafficking in the diabolical.
There is no doubt that the Inquisitors believed in the righteousness of their actions. The problem was that they believed themselves so right that there was no occasion for critical questions that should have unveiled that they were actually peddlers of superstition. And witch-hunts would recur throughout history — and many would suffer horrible deaths because their executioners were so convinced that burning them at the stake was the right thing to do in the name of righteousness.
I fear that because of the firestorm ignited by congressional inquiries into anomalous infrastructure projects — a sorely needed ferreting out of corrupt deals and perfidious transactions — we conjure ghosts where there are none and throw such a wide net of suspicion that we not only victimize the guiltless but also nudge the nation closer to despairing completely about our institutions.
The public has a right to information. The State policy is “full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.” If, as the primordial rule of legal hermeneutics holds, words are to be assigned the meanings they have in ordinary discourse, “transactions” contemplate dealings with private individuals, natural or juridical, involving the expenditure of public funds. What the Bill of Rights guarantees is “access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions…”
When a public officer is under investigation, the public has a right to access the resolution that disposes of the investigation. It is the same thing with courts of law. When they try public officers for crimes they commit in relation to their office or that cast a pall of suspicion on their probity, and they render judgments of acquittal or, on motion, dismiss the case, the public has a right to the resolution or judgment of the court.
Get the latest news
delivered to your inbox
Sign up for The Manila Times newsletters
By signing up with an email address, I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
When submissions, decisions or resolutions form part of the records of the case, to all this, the public has a right of access. It would certainly violate the guarantee were the decisions or resolutions deliberately concealed from public view, or, worse, when express instructions are given by the judge, the prosecutor or the ombudsman, not to disclose the records.
It does not follow, however, that when the public is unaware that a judgment has been rendered or that a resolution disposing of a case has been issued, there has been concealment, or that the decision or resolution was “secret,” suggesting subterfuge if not even malice. There is no obligation on the part of prosecutors, judges, justices or the ombudsman to call a press conference to publicize every disposition made.
Advertisement
Once more, it is a matter of vigilance on the part of citizens on whom is vested the right of access to public records. In fact, the Office of the Ombudsman is not the only office in a position to render binding opinions affecting public officers. Disallowances by the Commission on Audit and subsequent resolutions of appeals to the commission itself, or the decisions of the Court of Appeals in respect to expenditure disallowed — nobody demands of this office the unreasonable obligation of issuing regular press releases. How many acquittals does the Sandiganbayan render and how many of these are publicly known? But nobody will accuse the Sandiganbayan of rendering a “secret judgment” of acquittal just because the media did not catch wind of such a judgment.
Justice Samuel Martires can very well defend himself, but it profoundly disturbs me that a man who has served as justice of the Sandiganbayan and later of the Supreme Court should, in his twilight years, be demonized because of a misapprehension of the public right to information and the correlative obligations of his office as ombudsman.
