NAAWAN, Misamis Oriental (MindaNews / 29 Oct) — Conchita Carpio Morales issued the decision on the dismissal and disqualification of Rep. Joel Villanueva on November 14, 2016, who found him guilty of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service over the alleged misuse of ₱10 million in his pork barrel funds during his tenure as a CIBAC party-list lawmaker in 2008.
There is no record that Villanueva filed an MR against Morales’ ruling within the reglementary period of 5 days.
Instead, Villanueva filed an MR in 2019, or two years after, under the new Ombudsman Samuel Martires.
Martires granted Villanueva’s petition without citing or explaining the basis and secured his standing as an elected official and restored his right to run for public office.
Former Ombudsman Samuel Martires said he ordered his media bureau not to publicize his 2019 order reversing the dismissal from government service of Senator Joel Villanueva, saying it was for the senator to announce the favorable decision that he got.
Martires’ ruling has drawn backlash because in the end neither he nor Villanueva made public the decision of a celebrated case, which prompted his successor, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla, to criticize it as a “secret” decision, a negligence for transparency, which deprives any aggrieved party from contesting it.
As always, Martires is consistent in his stand against transparency. Under his watch, during the Duterte regime, the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) was not accessible to the public.
The silence and secrecy that enveloped the issuance of the Martires ruling were clearly self-serving for himself and Villanueva. They hid them from public scrutiny.
Martires’ ruling effectively reversed the 2016 dismissal order issued by his predecessor, ex-Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, a directive that the Senate did not enforce, citing an alleged lack of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction over members of Congress.
That, unfortunately, was a misconception. Morales, of course, knew the boundaries of her office. The Ombudsman simply endorsed to the Senate the results of its investigation for its disposal. In no way did it usurp the Senate’s power to discipline its members.
Nonetheless, Ombudsman Remulla petitions the Supreme Court to clarify the boundaries of power, and resolve the issue once and for all.
(MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. William R. Adan, Ph.D., is retired professor and former chancellor of Mindanao State University at Naawan, Misamis Oriental.)