When Commissioner Ariel Nepomuceno issued a Show Cause Order (SCO), it was not only circulated within the Bureau of Customs but also outside its halls. The media quickly seized upon the development and, regrettably, presented the matter in a way that seemed to prejudge the officials concerned. Instead of allowing the process of explanation and verification to take its proper course, the public was led to believe that guilt had already been established. This is a sobering reminder of how trial by publicity can distort perception, undermine fairness, and erode confidence in due process.

Among the recipients of the Order is Atty. Marlon Fritz B. Broto, a figure widely respected in the Bureau of Customs and beyond. Known as a reformist and a man of integrity, his work has earned recognition not only from the Bureau itself but also from other institutions. I have followed his career since his early years under Commissioner Rey Leonardo B. Guerrero, himself an honorable man. Unlike others who aspire for titles, Broto has never been motivated by position. At one point, he was even invited back to the Office of the Commissioner, but he chose to stay in the Export Division—proof of his preference for meaningful work over prestige.

In the Port of Subic, his role was pivotal. He helped restore the once-tense relationship between the Bureau of Customs and the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA). His efforts led to the signing of an agreement that not only strengthened institutional cooperation but also secured long-term benefits for the government. These contributions earned him respect across agencies and the trust of stakeholders. And yet, despite such a record of service, he now finds himself painted in an unflattering and suspicious light.

This naturally raises difficult questions. What lies behind this sudden turn of events? Could it be that he uncovered matters that certain vested interests would rather keep buried? Is this a by-product of the entrenched “bata-bata” system, or even a loyalty test aimed at sidelining reformists? These questions deserve consideration, but what is beyond dispute is this: the truth will come to light when Atty. Broto submits his explanation.

It is crucial to underscore that a Show Cause Order is not a finding of guilt. It is merely a preliminary step, allowing the concerned officer to explain. More importantly, while a Bureau Chief may issue such an order, he has no authority to impose discipline on a Presidential Appointee. That power belongs solely to the President of the Philippines, as affirmed by the Constitution, the Administrative Code of 1987, and rulings of the Supreme Court. Thus, an SCO cannot be equated with guilt or punishment.

For now, fairness demands restraint. Let us withhold judgment until the facts are properly aired and evaluated. Atty. Broto, like all public officials, is entitled to both the presumption of innocence and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. To deny him these protections would not only do a grave injustice to the man but would also weaken the very institution of public service we are bound to protect.

Spread the news