What are the Ombudsman’s functions? As enshrined in the 1987 Constitution and detailed in Republic Act 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), he serves as the people’s protector against corruption in government. He is tasked primarily with investigating and prosecuting cases against public officials and employees, preventing and correcting abuses in government, and handling complaints of illegal, unjust, and/or improper acts by public officials.

That’s pretty clear-cut, but something’s off. Where it concerns what it means to be an Ombudsman and the man who formerly occupied the position — Samuel Martires — it seems he had put one over his successor, Crispin Remulla.

Remulla, perhaps eager for concrete results on the scandalous collusion between public officials and legislators in the flood control mess, zeroed in on Senator Joel Villanueva.

Then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales in November 2016 issued a ruling ordering Villanueva’s permanent dismissal from public service for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Her ruling was based on the release in 2008 by Villanueva, then a member of the House as Cibac party-list representative, of P10 million of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF or pork barrel) to a bogus NGO with non-existent projects.

Villanueva, already a senator in 2016, was saved from Morales’s ruling when his colleagues in the Senate refused to implement her dismissal order, insisting that only Congress can discipline its own members.

Villanueva was left to his own devices, and today he is alleged to be involved in corrupt practices stemming from the flood control project mess.

Remulla was about to ask Senate President Vicente Sotto III to implement former Ombudsman Morales’s 2016 order to dismiss Villanueva, only to find out that the latter can’t be evicted from the Senate because of — lo and behold — a “secret” order issued in 2018 by Samuel Martires clearing Villanueva of Morales’ charges.

No one but Villanueva and Martires, it seems, knew about Martires’s reversal of Morales’s ruling.

An incredulous Remulla could only shake his head in disbelief, calling Martires’ decision “very mysterious.”

Martires, who was Sandiganbayan associate justice from 2005 to 2017, was appointed by former president Rodrigo Duterte to the Supreme Court.

Some Sandiganbayan decisions he signed off on drew controversy, e.g., that involving then AFP comptroller, retired Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia.

Garcia faced plunder raps before the Sandiganbayan after a lifestyle check showed he had managed to accumulate P300 million in cash and property, including a Trump Plaza condominium unit in New York.

The Sandiganbayan came up with a plea bargain deal which dismissed the original plunder case slapped on Garcia, reducing this case to direct bribery and money laundering, and he was released — a free man — after pleading guilty to lesser offenses and surrendering half — P150 million — of the loot he had plundered.

Duterte then made Martires Ombudsman, the protector of the people against corrupt public officials, in 2018. Among his first official acts was to issue a memorandum banning the public release of SALNs (statement of assets, liabilities and net worth) of government officials, unless they gave their consent.

Martires had even proposed strict penalties, including five years’ imprisonment, for persons making derogatory comments against public officials in connection with their SALN.

That was incredible! Whose interest was he protecting? The people’s, or the crooks in government?

And now comes the Martires ruling reversing his predecessor’s order and shielding Villanueva from ejection from the Senate, a ruling that was not made public and not issued via the usual channels. A ruling that a frustrated Remulla said, “Di naman na publish, di naman nilabas (wasn’t published, wasn’t released), nobody knew about it.”

Observers weighing in on the matter said Morales’s 2016 order against Villanueva had been well-documented, that is, “recorded, reported, and meant to be enforced.”

One wondered then if another Ombudsman (Martires) had reversed Morales’ order surreptitiously, without publication or notice, wouldn’t that reversal be considered an illegal act?

For former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, “If the (Morales order of Villanueva’s) dismissal was reversed in secret, that’s not a decision; it is an internal memo. And (the current Ombudsman) Remulla can treat it as having no effect.”

That’s a valid point to ponder, yes?