A move seeking the inhibition of Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla from the case involving former House 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 rulings, including Araullo versus Ombudsman and Soriano versus Deputy Ombudsman, recognize the applicability of inhibition rules to the Ombudsman.
“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. Mandatory inhibition covers conflicts of interest 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.
“If there is prejudgment by the Ombudsman because of public pronouncements saying that this person is guilty, prejudgment coupled with actuation — 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. “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. “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.
