MANILA – Former Ombudsman Samuel Martires has refuted the claim of incumbent Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla that a 2016 dismissal order against Sen. Joel Villanueva remains enforceable, saying the case was voided six years ago.
Martires said the sanction had long been lifted after he granted Villanueva’s motion for reconsideration in 2019, effectively nullifying the earlier order issued by former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.
“The dismissal order was already rendered void when I granted the motion for reconsideration,” Martires confirmed in a statement, stressing that the case was closed during his tenure.
Remulla earlier announced plans to ask the Senate to implement the 2016 order against Villanueva, who was then accused of misusing P10 million in pork barrel funds during his term as CIBAC party-list representative.
Villanueva, however, released copies of Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan clearances confirming he has no pending criminal or administrative cases. He also cited excerpts from a 2019 ruling stating that “there is no probable cause against Villanueva… The signatures appearing on top of his name were obviously forged.”
The senator said he secured the clearances ahead of time “anticipating that misinformation about [his] legal standing might resurface.”
The revived issue has once again reignited the debate on whether the Ombudsman can remove sitting lawmakers.
In 2016, Senate legal counsel Atty. Maria Valentina Cruz clarified that the Ombudsman’s authority “does not extend to members of Congress,” citing Section 21 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and Senate rules giving the chamber exclusive disciplinary power over its members. Then-Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III backed that opinion, preventing the enforcement of the dismissal.
Remulla’s statement has since puzzled political observers, given that Martires—his direct successor—had already voided the order years earlier. The incident now raises new questions about coordination and continuity within the Office of the Ombudsman and underscores persistent tension between the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and the Senate’s institutional independence./PN
