FILE

When Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla went on national television last week to announce that he would ask the Senate to enforce the 2016 dismissal order against Senator Joel Villanueva, it took less than two hours for a new twist to surface.

As soon as he arrived at the office, a 2019 resolution signed by former Ombudsman Samuel Martires appeared, quietly reversing the 2016 finding of former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.

Morales had declared Villanueva guilty of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the service over his ₱10-million PDAF allotment when he was still a CIBAC party-list congressman.

According to news reports, Villanueva's motion for reconsideration (MR) was filed on time and within the reglamentary period.

The sequence of events deserves a closer look.

In November 2016, Ombudsman Morales issued the dismissal order against Villanueva.

That same month, the Senate, under the leadership of Senate President Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, received the Ombudsman’s dismissal order.

The Senate leadership asked its legal counsel, which ruled that the Ombudsman had no disciplinary jurisdiction over senators.

On that basis, the Senate refused to implement Morales’ directive.

Lawyers we consulted said Morales could have done two things: act on Villanueva’s MR to resolve the case within her term, or seek Supreme Court clarification on whether the Senate could lawfully refuse to enforce an Ombudsman’s order.

Apparently, she did neither.

For nearly two full years, 21 months to be precise, until her retirement in July 2018, Villanueva’s MR remained pending in Morales' office with no visible action: no clarification, no motion, no public explanation.

This raises an intriguing question. Could it be that no MR existed during Morales’ term, leaving her nothing to act upon?

Or was it quietly inserted after she left, raising the unsettling question of ghost petitioners in the Ombudsman’s own corridors?

We cannot believe that someone with Morales’ reputation and track record could have simply let it gather dust on her desk.

Her inaction left the matter in limbo, allowing the next Ombudsman, Martires, to inherit and eventually grant the MR in 2019, effectively voiding her own earlier decision.

We are not legal experts; we write this purely in the public interest and as observers of institutional accountability.

We also agree with our lawyer friends that, at the very least, Morales could have asked the Court to settle, once and for all, the extent of the Ombudsman’s disciplinary power over members of Congress.

Adding to the unease, the Martires resolution was never made public, even though Villanueva is a sitting senator.

The official explanation is that there is no law requiring the Ombudsman to publish such rulings. But legality is not the same as transparency.

Since Martires’ decision granting the MR was not made public, the aggrieved party cannot even question or appeal his decision before the proper court, denying them remedy.

Public trust demands clarity, especially when powerful legislators are involved.

Perhaps Ombudsman Remulla can order a probe into this so-called “secret” MR, or even ghost MRs and petitioners, since it’s almost Halloween. After all, if there are ghost projects in the DPWH, who is to say there aren’t ghost petitioners and MRs in the Ombudsman’s own corridors? Just asking.

The message to lawmakers could not be clearer. The combination of Senate defiance and Ombudsman inaction raises doubts about accountability.

For legislators facing an Ombudsman ruling today, the lesson is unmistakable: discipline may be deferred, overturned, or quietly buried, sometimes giving the powerful a convenient shield.

Morales’ reputation for courage and integrity remains intact; she has faced down some of the most powerful figures in Philippine politics.

Yet this episode leaves a glaring question mark.

Was it oversight, prudence, political timing, or mere institutional restraint? We may never know.

One thing is certain: when those tasked to uphold accountability hesitate, impunity expands. Justice delayed is justice denied, especially when silence becomes the most convenient refuge of power.

Who knows, maybe if someone shouted loud enough, even the MR might have moved or maybe not.

Either way, gaya ng sabi ng lolo at lola natin: “Kapag tahimik ang tagapangalaga, ang mga magnanakaw, tiwali at buwaya sa lipunan ay malaya.”

Ed Javier

Ed Javier is a veteran communicator with over 35 years of experience in corporate, government, and advocacy communications, spanning the terms of seven Philippine presidents. He is also a political analyst, entrepreneur, and media professional. Drawing on this experience, he delivers clear, accessible analysis of political, governance, and business issues.