Against the grain

New Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla hails from a prominent Cavite political family. As a lawyer and former justice secretary, Remulla can provide valuable insights into the investigation of corruption cases involving government officials and private individuals.

However, concerns have been raised about his impartiality and accountability, especially considering the circumstances of his appointment. Notably, he stepped into the Office of the Ombudsman at the height of a widely publicized multibillion-peso flood control scandal that had implicated some members of the opposition and a presidential relative.

The criticism lobbed by the presidential sister, Sen. Imee Marcos, that Remulla was “unworthy” and “tainted with injustice” provides a glimpse into the turbulent political landscape he will be traversing. However, he is a political survivor with extensive experience with public opinion and an understanding of its volatility.

Remulla’s commitment to transparency and accountability is encouraging. However, we are all aware that investigations of complaints lodged with the Ombudsman are never conducted publicly. Consequently, many skeptics are concerned that favoritism might overshadow genuine reform efforts.

Now is the chance for Remulla to demonstrate utmost integrity and dedication if he wishes to win the public’s trust, especially given the ongoing turmoil surrounding the Duterte family and their supporters. There is a pending case before his office against Vice President Sara Duterte.

Despite Malacañang’s assurance that Remulla will spare no one in investigating corruption cases, reality often diverges from political rhetoric.

The statement by PCO Secretary Dave Gomez regarding the Judicial and Bar Council’s vetting process for selecting the Ombudsman does not ensure impartiality. Public confidence is built not merely on procedural assurances but on actions that demonstrate a genuine commitment to justice.

Remulla’s vow to avoid the “weaponization of the law” seems commendable, yet it invites skepticism, as the line between justice and political maneuvering is often blurred. The Office of the Ombudsman should not function as a tool for retribution but rather as a bastion for fairness, as he rightly points out.

Without a clear and transparent mechanism that ensures accountability for all public officials — including those in the current administration — these words risk becoming mere platitudes.

Remulla has proposed introducing crowdsourcing mechanisms, allowing the public to submit information about erring officials, which could enhance public engagement and oversight.

This initiative must be implemented with caution to prevent it from becoming another channel for misinformation or harassment against political adversaries.

We shall see Remulla’s ability to challenge conventional views and strike a balance between public involvement and ensuring fairness in determining whether cases should proceed to the Sandiganbayan.

Will Remulla’s appointment mark the beginning of a genuinely transformative era in the fight against systemic corruption, or will it reinforce the status quo? The next few months will reveal Remulla’s true character.

This is where a vigilant public must remain watchful. We hope that it does not become another pork barrel scandal in which, after the noise settles, only the small fry are held accountable and end up in jail.

As citizens, we should demand thorough investigations and insist that those in power are held accountable for their actions. Only then can justice be served across the board.