MANILA – A move seeking the inhibition of Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla from the case involving former House of Representatives speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez is grounded in established law and jurisprudence, a lawyer from the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) said on Monday.
Lawyer Antonio Audie Bucoy said Supreme Court (SC) rulings, including Araullo versus Ombudsman and Soriano versus Deputy Ombudsman, recognize the applicability of inhibition rules to the Ombudsman.
“Nilatag ng Supreme Court, sinabi nila na ang batayan for inhibition ng Ombudsman, dahil ito ay executive, prosecutorial, e pwedeng i-a-apply ang rules on inhibition na ginagamit sa mga courts o husgado, subalit hindi ganoon kahigpit ang batayan. Binibigyan ng lawig ang Ombudsman kung kailan siya mag-i-inhibit (The Supreme Court laid down the basis for inhibition of the Ombudsman because this is executive, prosecutorial, the rules on inhibition used by the courts or judges can be applied, but the basis is not that strict. The Ombudsman is given leeway when he will inhibit),” Bucoy said in a radio interview.
Romualdez’s camp earlier asked Remulla to inhibit, arguing that public statements attributed to him suggested possible prejudgment and could affect the fairness of the ongoing investigation.
Inhibition is necessary to preserve due process and maintain public confidence in the probe involving the flood control controversy, Romualdez’s camp said.
Bucoy explained that there are two types of inhibition: Mandatory and discretionary, with the former covering conflict of interests such as family ties, prior legal representation or financial stake in the case.
He said most cases fall under discretionary inhibition, which depends on the Ombudsman’s judgment but is guided by the need to remain impartial.
“Kung may prejudgment na ang (If there is prejudgment by the) Ombudsman because of public pronouncements na sinasabi niya, ‘guilty na itong taong ’to’ (saying that this person is guilty), you know, prejudgment and coupled with actuation, ‘yun ang mga pagkakataon na kahit na discretionary, sinabi ng Supreme Court, dapat mag-inhibit (That’s the occasion that the Supreme Court says that even if it’s discretionary, he should inhibit),” Bucoy said.
Bucoy, however, clarified that stepping aside from a case does not mean admitting bias or wrongdoing.
“Kunwari nag-inhibit siya, ang ibig sabihin lang niya, ayaw niyang magkaroon ng kulay ang proseso, sapagkat ‘pag nagkakulay, hindi na siya (If the Ombudsman does inhibit, it only means that he does not want to put color into the process, because if there is color, he is no longer) impartial,” he said.
Bucoy added that even if the Ombudsman inhibits, the case remains within the institution and will be reassigned to another official, such as a deputy or the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, ensuring continuity of the investigation.
Precautionary HDO open to challenge
Meanwhile, Bucoy said the precautionary hold departure order (HDO) issued against Romualdez may be challenged and lifted upon motion before the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court.
“Pwede ‘yang mabaliktad kasi ex parte ito eh (it can be reversed because it is ex parte),” he said.
He said an order issued ex parte means it is filed by one party without prior notice to the other side, allowing the court to act based solely on the evidence presented by the applicant.
Bucoy said the ex parte nature of the order allows authorities to act swiftly but also gives the respondent the opportunity to challenge it once notified.
He said such an order may be challenged on grounds of lack of probable cause, prematurity in the absence of a preliminary investigation and the absence of flight risk.
He said the Sandiganbayan may lift the order if these grounds are established. (PNA)
