The newly appointed Customs Commissioner wasted no time making waves. He recently issued a Memorandum requiring all Bureau of Customs (BOC) officials and employees to disclose any association with individuals within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity engaged in brokerage or related activities.

At its core, the directive is both bold and brilliant. It aims to curb conflicts of interest, address long-standing ethical concerns, and reinforce transparency in an agency that has long been a lightning rod for controversy. For this, the measure deserves praise. It reflects governance with foresight—a move that sends a strong message: the culture of impunity in customs must end.

But as the ink on the memorandum dries, a series of unsettling questions linger.

What happens next after an employee or official makes the required disclosure? Does admission of such ties automatically invite punitive action? Will the person be charged with an administrative offense? Will they face reassignment to another post, be asked to resign, or quietly be relegated to the dreaded Customs Management Unit (CMU), which is often seen as a bureaucratic purgatory?

And more fundamentally, is there even a crime in being related to someone engaged in a legitimate business? After all, kinship is not a choice, and brokerage—while regulated—is not illegal.

The ambiguity becomes even more pronounced in gray areas that, while uncomfortable, cannot be ignored. Consider this: what if an official with close ties to the Commissioner is revealed to be interested in a brokerage company—perhaps as a silent partner or consultant—yet his name does not appear on any official documents? What if the registered owner of the firm is not related to him by blood or marriage?

Would the rules apply with equal force, or would they bend under the weight of influence?

These questions cut deeper than policy—they strike at the heart of fairness and accountability. A memorandum that begins as a stroke of governance genius risks being reduced to mere optics if it lacks clear guidelines, safeguards, and enforcement mechanisms.

Only Commissioner Ariel can provide the clarity that the agency and the public demand. Specific, transparent guidelines must be followed, defining not just the act of disclosure but also the consequences, exemptions, and measures to prevent selective enforcement.

Until then, the Bureau of Customs remains in suspense: applauding a reform that promises change while quietly wondering if the silence that follows will swallow its noble intent.

Spread the news