A formal motion for inhibition has been filed against Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla by Leyte Representative Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez, who claims the anti-graft office chief has demonstrated clear bias through repeated prejudicial public statements regarding pending corruption allegations.
Through legal representatives from Villaraza & Angangco, the former House Speaker submitted the April 22, 2026 letter arguing that Remulla's numerous media statements have created an atmosphere where impartial investigation becomes impossible, effectively predetermining the outcome before formal proceedings begin.
The congressional representative faces scrutiny over suspected irregularities involving flood-control infrastructure projects implemented during his leadership of the House of Representatives. His legal team contends that the Ombudsman's public declarations have violated fundamental due process protections.
Pattern of Prejudicial Public Statements
According to the legal filing, concerning statements began emerging as early as November 21, 2025, barely two weeks into Remulla's tenure as Ombudsman. During an early media engagement, the newly-installed official disclosed that his office had "been studying the Martin Romualdez case for the past forty days."
In that same interview, Remulla outlined prosecutorial approaches for plunder cases, declaring: "Ang plunder ay na-dilute by the Supreme Court decisions on plunder so we have to be more imaginative in filing these cases… People should start discussing plunder again, as a law and as it should be construed by the judiciary."
Romualdez's attorneys argue these early statements reveal the Ombudsman had already committed to pursuing plunder charges months before any official investigation commenced, compromising the appearance of neutrality required for fair proceedings.
Media Declarations Signal Predetermined Outcome
The situation escalated during Remulla's April 6, 2026 media briefing, where he announced his office had "been seriously preparing a case of plunder against former Speaker Martin Romualdez and former Senate President Chiz Escudero." The Ombudsman characterized the pending case as "flood control related in so many ways" with filing anticipated "within the month of May."
Remulla additionally suggested broader conspiracy elements, indicating Romualdez allegedly "coordinated with others in the budgetary process." He described the case as involving "conspiracy, with the element of conspiracy involved in the preparation of the complaint" and predicted "maraming madadamay" (many will be implicated), potentially including Department of Budget and Management executives.
The Ombudsman also acknowledged difficulties in establishing plunder under current Supreme Court interpretations, expressing intention to challenge existing judicial precedents before completing fact-finding procedures.
Subordinate's Inflammatory Characterization
Tensions further intensified during an April 16, 2026 press conference when Assistant Ombudsman Jose Dominic "Mico" Clavano IV, functioning as office spokesperson, publicly branded Romualdez a "master plunderer" despite ongoing preliminary procedures.
More recently, Remulla stated his office is "waiting for the Martin Romualdez cases to start rolling," identifying money laundering as the initial charge to be filed. The Ombudsman revealed he had rejected Romualdez's medical travel request abroad, stating he "did not act favorably" and expressing concerns that "baka hindi na bumalik" (he might not return), suggesting without evidence that the congressman poses flight risks.
Constitutional Due Process Arguments
The inhibition request cites established Supreme Court precedent from Ladlad vs. Velasco (513 SCRA 318, 2007), emphasizing prosecutors must avoid "giving the impression that their noble office is being used or prostituted, wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends." The High Court emphasized that strict procedural adherence enhances public confidence in prosecutorial impartiality.
Additional legal foundation comes from Tejano, Jr. vs. The Hon. Ombudsman (462 SCRA 560, 2005), where the Supreme Court established that investigating officers must maintain actual objectivity while appearing impartial. The decision stated: "A judge must not only be impartial but must also appear impartial as an assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. The same rule of thumb should apply to an investigating officer conducting a preliminary investigation."
Procedural Fairness Concerns
Romualdez's counsel maintains that given the extensive public statements by both Remulla and Clavano, there exists "reasonable certainty that any fact-finding investigation will be a mere formality, regardless of the actual evidence or the lack thereof."
The legal team argues that subordinate investigators cannot realistically deviate from positions already publicly articulated by their superiors, making genuine impartiality "practically impossible." Under these circumstances, they contend any investigation would constitute "a sham and violative of due process."
Request for Independent Review
The formal petition requests complete Ombudsman inhibition from preliminary investigation procedures, with referral to "an independent and impartial body or officer who can conduct the proceedings free from any cloud of bias or prejudgment."
Counsel emphasized their motion is "not made as a challenge to integrity, but in recognition of the high standards to which the Office of the Ombudsman is rightly held, to shield its proceedings from unnecessary questions regarding objectivity or fairness, and to safeguard our client's constitutional right to due process."
Broader Implications for Anti-Corruption Proceedings
The legal filing underscores that Ombudsman credibility "rests not only on actual impartiality, but also on the public perception of fairness and neutrality in the conduct of its investigations." The attorneys argue that sequential prejudicial statements have irreparably compromised this perception.
This inhibition request represents a substantial legal challenge to current Ombudsman practices in high-profile corruption investigations, raising fundamental questions about prosecutorial conduct standards and constitutional due process guarantees in politically charged cases.
As of April 24, 2026, the Office of the Ombudsman has not issued any public response to the inhibition motion.
Photo credit: Courtesy of Villaraza & Angangco The Firm