Seares: Daluz’s P1M inexplicable? Ha ha.

IT must be funny to many people, especially public officials who hide tens of millions of pesos and yet are not ever called to explain for the simple reason they didn’t declare their loot.

Was it for plain honesty or suspected naivete that Councilor Jose Daluz III declared in his 2007 SALN (statement of assets, liabilities and net worth) P1.029 million in personal properties?

He could’ve just stashed them away. The jewelry (P120,000) and antiques (P280,000) could’ve been kept in his house. The cash (P549,000) he could’ve spent.

Benefit of doubt

Of course, that’s hindsight prudence. Who would’ve thought the ombudsman investigator, one Carmelle Baybay-Suson, and the superiors who reviewed her recommendation would not accept Daluz’s explanation that it was proceeds from the articles that his mom, Nenita Cortes-Daluz, broadcaster and opposition leader during Marcos’s regime, left him after his mother died in 2007? Suson looked only at Daluz’s City Hall pay, not anywhere else.

What is half-a-million-peso cash in the bank? Not counting inflation but given the large sums involved in most incidents of corruption nowadays, the size of the amount must have told the ombudsman that it is not likely to be fruit of a corrupted tree.

Not pried out

That the money, along with the heirloom, was declared and not hidden by Daluz, not pried out by any government agency, should’ve prompted the anti-graft investigator to give him the benefit of the doubt.

What makes inheriting the P.5 million cash plus personal properties from Daluz’s mother so unbelievable? She should’ve left a lot more, yes, but the mother had also been known for living a simple and honest life.

The oddity is that the ombudsman could find larceny in a virtue that few public officials display: some shred of honesty.

Tell the public

If there’s more evidence against Daluz, other than not accepting the inheritance explanation, the public should be told. Telling us that the ombudsman didn’t accept his story is not enough.

The ombudsman should disclose its findings on Daluz’s lifestyle that it reportedly checked (did it, really?). If the councilor was living excessively beyond his means, that would be more persuasive than rejecting the claim that he inherited the money.

Already frustrated by the ombudsman’s lackluster record in investigating complaints filed with it, the public must wonder in the seemingly selective dispatch of cases if politics or friendship did not come into play.

Daluz’s suspension affects the political intramural in the City Council, fueling the suspicion that he must have been singled out for a reason.

Losing a voice

It is argued by Daluz’s lawyer, in his petition for review of the ombudsman’s ruling, that the district would lose a voice in the City Council if Daluz is suspended. That may strike a chord among Daluz’s constituents but it’s only partly true. There are other councilors who can speak for the district.

The more disturbing note is that a city councilor imbued with enough honesty to tell an increase of assets in his SALN would be penalized for it.