24/10/2025
We can sometimes overlook documents, especially when records are voluminous and being “surprised” doesn’t always mean something is new, but rather that it wasn’t widely known. However, to reduce this discussion into shallow political banter is unproductive.
The real question is this: Why did Ombudsman Martires grant Senator Villanueva’s motion for reconsideration when the 2016 Dismissal Order issued by Ombudsman Carpio-Morales was based on findings of the Sandiganbayan?
If that Dismissal Order had already attained finality, then any motion for reconsideration filed beyond the prescribed period would be procedurally void, or void ab initio in principle. In such a case, the later reversal would have been issued without proper jurisdiction. A serious concern that demands legal and ethical scrutiny.
This isn’t about being “surprised.” It’s about ensuring that every decision of the Ombudsman, past or present, upholds continuity, transparency, and accountability. Values that the office itself was created to protect.
𝐏𝐚𝐠𝐤𝐚 𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐤𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐨 𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐨 𝐁𝐨𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠!
Every decision of the Office of the Ombudsman is a public document. It is neither “secret” nor “surprising,” because due process demands publication, notice, and transparency.
So when Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla says he is not anymore delivering a letter to Senate President Tito Sotto calling for the enforcement of the the 2016 Dismissal Order against Senator Joel Villanueva, claiming he was “surprised” by a supposed “secret decision” reversing the order — we are left to ask: Is this really a surprise, or a symptom of inefficiency in your new office?
The Ombudsman’s duty is to know every active case, every final decision, and every motion resolved by his predecessors. Continuity of justice cannot be lost in the shuffle of leadership.