‘Boying’ takes back call for Villanueva’s Senate ouster

Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla on Thursday retracted his statement that he would ask Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III to enforce a 2016 dismissal order against Senator Joel Villanueva, following the revelation that the case had been dismissed in 2019 by his predecessor, Samuel Martires.

Remulla had initially said he would write to Sotto to implement the dismissal order issued by former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, who had found Villanueva guilty of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in the alleged misuse of P10 million in Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocations during his term as Cibac Party-list representative in 2008.

However, after Villanueva showed official documents from both the Office of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan clearing him of all the charges, Remulla acknowledged that the case was no longer active and he would not send the letter to the Senate.

Nonetheless, Remulla criticized Martires for what he called a “secret decision” to quietly junk the case without public disclosure.

“It only came out when I said the Ombudsman would act on the matter. So it was a surprise — a secret decision,” he said.

He noted that the 2019 ruling was never made public. “Nobody raised that issue before. Joel Villanueva kept quiet over the years. Ombudsman Martires never spoke about it. Did you know about it? Nobody knew about it,” he said.

Remulla emphasized that his earlier statements were not meant to harass Villanueva but were based on the belief that the dismissal order issued by Morales was still valid.

“It wasn’t published, it wasn’t released. Nobody knew about it. Even in the Senate, they didn’t know about it. Don’t you call that a secret decision?” he said.

“It is not harassment. It is what everybody thought was still valid, but it turned out to be not valid anymore due to a secret decision,” he added.

No pending cases

Villanueva, for his part, described Remulla’s initial move as “harassment.”

The senator said he had long been cleared of the charges and provided copies of the Ombudsman’s dismissal order dated 31 July 2019, and the Sandiganbayan’s clearance issued on 10 September the same year. Both documents affirmed that he had no pending administrative or criminal cases.

“We already anticipated a possible harassment, plus fake news,” Villanueva said in a Viber message, adding that he intends to file cases against those spreading false claims about the case.

The 2016 dismissal order signed by Morales had accused Villanueva and nine others of misusing his PDAF allocation through bogus non-government organizations.

The Senate, however, did not act on the order at the time, citing legal advice that said the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction over members of Congress under Section 20 of Republic Act 6770.

Remulla had earlier argued that the Ombudsman’s authority extended to all public officials but later conceded that Villanueva’s case had been rendered moot by Martires’ 2019 ruling.

While acknowledging the closure of the case, Remulla maintained that such “secret” decisions undermined transparency. “What is the meaning of this office if people will just ignore its orders?” he asked.

He said the controversy underscored the need for greater openness and accountability in the handling of high-profile corruption cases.