A formal motion has been filed requesting the Office of the Ombudsman to withdraw from investigating Leyte Congressman Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez, with his legal counsel alleging that Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla has demonstrated clear bias through multiple prejudicial public statements.
The comprehensive 22-page document, submitted through legal representatives Villaraza & Angangco and dated April 22, 2026, contends that the Ombudsman's public declarations have created an environment where fair investigation has become impossible due to predetermined conclusions.
Constitutional Due Process at Center of Dispute
Romualdez's defense team emphasized that their motion stems not from questioning the Ombudsman's integrity, but from protecting constitutional due process rights. The lawyers argued that subordinate officials within the Ombudsman's office would find it "practically impossible" to conduct objective investigations when their superior has already publicly indicated predetermined outcomes.
The legal team referenced established Supreme Court precedents, including the landmark 2007 Ladlad vs. Velasco decision, which stressed that prosecutors must avoid creating impressions that their office serves political purposes. Additionally, they cited Tejano, Jr. vs. The Hon. Ombudsman from 2005, where the Supreme Court ruled that investigating officers must maintain both actual and apparent impartiality.
Pattern of Prejudicial Public Declarations
The motion documents a chronological series of statements beginning in November 2025, shortly after Remulla assumed office. On November 21, 2025, barely two weeks into his tenure, the Ombudsman publicly acknowledged that his office had been "studying the Martin Romualdez case for the past forty days."
During the same media appearance, Remulla discussed specific prosecutorial strategies for plunder cases, stating that "plunder has been diluted by Supreme Court decisions" and that prosecutors needed to become "more imaginative in filing these cases." He also suggested that "people should start discussing plunder again" and how it should be interpreted by the judiciary.
These statements, according to Romualdez's counsel, clearly indicated that the Ombudsman had already decided to pursue plunder charges before conducting any formal investigation.
Escalation Through April 2026 Announcements
The situation intensified during an April 6, 2026 press conference where Ombudsman Remulla announced his office had been "seriously preparing a case of plunder against former Speaker Martin Romualdez and former Senate President Chiz Escudero."
During this public appearance, Remulla made several specific declarations about the case's direction, including the statement "Plunder ang aming hinahandang kaso para sa kanila," based on alleged irregularities in budgetary processes related to flood-control projects. He indicated formal charges would be filed "within the month of May" and described the case as involving conspiracy elements in budget preparation.
Assistant Ombudsman's "Master Plunderer" Characterization
The inhibition request highlighted statements made by Assistant Ombudsman Jose Dominic "Mico" Clavano IV during an April 16, 2026 press conference, where he allegedly described Romualdez as a "master plunderer" while investigatory proceedings remained ongoing.
This characterization, made by the office's official spokesperson before any formal fact-finding investigation concluded, further supported arguments about prejudicial predetermination of guilt.
Travel Authority Interference Allegations
The motion also addressed Ombudsman Remulla's admission that he interfered with Romualdez's medical travel requests abroad, stating he "did not act favorably" on such applications. The Ombudsman reportedly justified this action by suggesting "baka hindi na bumalik," implying flight risk concerns without supporting evidence.
Romualdez's legal team argued this interference exceeded the Ombudsman's authority, as travel restrictions fall outside the office's mandate.
Supreme Court Precedents Support Fair Process
The formal request extensively referenced established legal precedents emphasizing the necessity of maintaining both actual and apparent impartiality in government investigations. The defense team argued that any investigation conducted under current circumstances would constitute merely "a fishing expedition to support a foregone conclusion."
Call for Independent Investigation Body
The motion concludes with a specific request for the Office of the Ombudsman to inhibit itself completely from any preliminary investigation against Romualdez, recommending that such matters be transferred to "an independent and impartial body or officer who can conduct the proceedings free from any cloud of bias or prejudgment."
The timing of this request, filed just two days before its April 24, 2026 public release, suggests urgency in obtaining resolution before formal charges are filed.
Broader Implications for Anti-Graft Proceedings
This development poses substantial challenges for the Ombudsman's approach to high-profile corruption investigations. Should the inhibition request be granted, it would necessitate transferring the investigation to alternative bodies, potentially causing delays while ensuring adherence to constitutional due process standards.
The underlying case involves alleged irregularities in flood-control project budget allocations during Romualdez's House Speaker tenure, with potential charges encompassing plunder and money laundering based on previous Ombudsman statements.
As of April 24, 2026, the Office of the Ombudsman had not issued any public response to the formal inhibition motion.
Photo credit: Courtesy of Villaraza & Angangco The Firm