THE COMPLAINT filed by Manases Reyes Carpio would have us believe this is a simple case of violated rights on bank secrecy and data privacy. On paper, it sounds serious.
But let’s ask the question many Filipinos are already asking: is this really about protecting rights, or avoiding the real issue?
Carpio has gone after officials from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the Anti-Money Laundering Council for disclosing alleged bank transactions linked to him and Vice President Sara Duterte. The defense quickly points to the Bank Secrecy Law and the Data Privacy Act.
True, these laws exist to protect citizens.
While the complaint talks at length about how the information was revealed, it remains silent on the most basic questions. Are the accounts real? Did billions of pesos actually move through them?
That silence speaks volumes.
Instead of clear answers, we are given a familiar script. Die-hard supporters step in, armed with legal jargons. The issue is reframed as “political persecution” or “privacy violation.” It sounds technical and complex but avoids the core issue.
Let’s simplify it.
The Anti-Money Laundering Act exists precisely to examine large and suspicious financial transactions. That is its purpose. When public officials especially those facing impeachment are involved, the standard shifts. It is no longer just about privacy but about accountability.
Lest we forget, the Constitution is clear. Public office is a public trust.
While privacy is a right, it is not absolute. It cannot be used as a shield against legitimate scrutiny, especially when public interest is at stake.
Still, the distractions continue.
Now we hear claims that “Cash on Hand” and “Cash in Bank” can simply be lumped under “Others” in the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN). This sounds convenient but misleading. The SALN exists to make things clear, not vague. It is meant to show, in plain terms, what a public official owns and controls.
That is why experts like Heidi Mendoza have been explaining how inflows, outflows, and declared assets must align. These are not political opinions but basic rules of transparency.
And yet, instead of listening, some choose to attack the messenger.
It is a tactic that has become all too familiar. Confuse the issue, shift the focus, question the critics and then repeat until the real question gets buried.
But the public is not asking for complicated answers.
The public is asking simple ones: Are the accounts real? Did the transactions happen? Where did the money come from? Where did it go? Why are they not clearly reflected where they should be?
There is a simple way for the Vice President and her husband to end all this.
If they have nothing to hide, then they should open the records. Start by signing the bank waivers, and allow full and independent scrutiny. Let the facts and numbers decide, not narratives.
Because transparency is not a threat to their innocence as they claim. It is actually their strongest defense.
Until then, all this talk about privacy sounds less like a defense of rights but more of a carefully crafted distraction.
