Several law experts have urged Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla to issue preventive suspension orders on members of the Senate implicated in the flood control scandal to test the resolve of the chamber in dealing with its members accused of irregularities.

The proposal was an offshoot of Remulla’s frustrated effort to enforce a 2016 order of a former Ombudsman, Conchita Carpio-Morales, recommending the removal from office of Senator Joel Villanueva and his permanent disqualification from holding public office.

Remulla had indicated his plan to write to Senate President Tito Sotto to enforce the order, which was not implemented after the Senate voted in 2016 under then Senate president Koko Pimentel not to implement the Carpio-Morales ruling.

Following Remulla’s plan, Villanueva pulled up the 2019 decision of Ombudsman Samuel Martires that reversed Carpio-Morales’ order, thus clearing him of all charges.

Law deans weigh in

University of the East–College of Law dean Amado Valdez issued a challenge to Remulla to suspend some members of the Senate.

Valdez said there is a pending case over anomalous flood control projects where the senators alleged to be involved are “principals by indispensable cooperation.”

“It means you can’t make an insertion if you’re not a senator. So this matter could serve as a good basis for filing a case with the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman can test the Senate by issuing preventive suspensions,” he said.

Asked what it would take for Remulla to issue the mass suspension orders, Valdez said “if he has the balls” for it.

University of Santo Tomas law dean Nilo Divina said that Remulla can’t revive the complaint against Villanueva since it had attained finality.

Nonetheless, Divina said an Ombudsman had never issued preventive suspension orders against legislators, “but it does not mean it cannot be done.”

“It has to be acted upon by SP Tito (Senate President Sotto) and requires the concurrence of the majority of the Senate to implement the preventive suspensions,” he explained.

“This will be interesting,” Divina added.

How secret was Martires ruling?

Malacañang also expressed concern over reports that the complaints against Villanueva related to the PDAF misuse were dismissed in a “secret decision.”

“If it is indeed true, then this is alarming because the public should not doubt our justice system, considering that this is the most relevant agency to prevent and address corruption issues,” Palace Press Officer Claire Castro said in a briefing, emphasizing that the justice system should remain transparent and trustworthy.

Castro underscored the importance of public confidence in institutions like the Office of the Ombudsman, which plays a critical role in preventing and addressing corruption.

She also stressed the need for thorough investigations to ensure accountability if any laws were violated.

Remulla had revealed that Villanueva’s PDAF case was dismissed in a “secret decision,” noting that it was difficult to believe a resolution of such public interest could be withheld from the public.

Martires disputed this, however, insisting that the decision was not secret.

Martires explained that the dismissal was entered correctly into the Case Management System in July 2019 and copies were provided to both the complainant and Senator Villanueva.

“It was given to the complainant; it was given to Senator Joel. So I don’t understand why they would say that I did something secret? I’m not doing anything secret in my work, everything is out in the open,” Martires said.