Former Ombudsman Samuel Martires asserted Monday that he did not breach any constitutionally mandated timelines for case resolution when he approved a petition filed by Senator Joel Villanueva, almost three years after the issuance of a dismissal order against the lawmaker.

Martires’ remarks follow former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna’s statement that Martires could be held administratively liable for undue delay for allegedly breaching the two-year prescribed period for disposing of cases—and risk forfeiting his retirement benefits as a result.

Azcuna said two years is the maximum reasonable time for the Ombudsman to come up with a ruling, similar to that of the SC.

However, Martires explained to DAILY TRIBUNE that the rules of the SC do not apply to the Ombudsman because it is an “independent body.”

“The Supreme Court doesn’t interfere in our matters, much the same way that we don’t interfere with them, but we can investigate the justices of the Supreme Court for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,” he said in a phone interview.

“There is no reglementary period within which the Ombudsman must decide on [motions for reconsideration],” he pointed out.

Martires has drawn backlash after recently disclosing that he granted Villanueva’s motion for reconsideration (MR) in 2019, which his successor, Ombudsman Boying Remulla, criticized as a “secret” decision.

The ruling effectively reversed a 2016 dismissal order issued by Martires’ predecessor, ex-Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, against the senator, who was found guilty of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service over the alleged misuse of P10 million in his pork barrel funds during his tenure as a CIBAC party-list lawmaker in 2008.

The Senate at the time did not enforce the directive, citing an alleged lack of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction over members of Congress.

Remulla, who assumed office earlier this month, was supposed to request the Senate to enforce the dismissal order immediately, but stopped short after learning that Martires junked Villanueva’s case in “secret” in 2019.

According to Azcuna, Martires’ decision has the “effect of an acquittal” and cannot be reopened by Remulla, as it may constitute double jeopardy.

“It does not affect the validity of the decision; it only makes the person deciding liable for possible administrative violation of a time limit for deciding cases,” Azcuna explained in an interview on Monday.

Martires, who also served as SC associate justice, is no longer in government service following his retirement in late July—but his retirement benefits may be forfeited as a penalty, according to Azcuna.

Who is to blame?

Martires rigorously claimed that Villanueva filed his MR in November 2016, just days after receiving the dismissal order penned by Morales.

The timeline of the filing allegedly falls within the required 10-day prescriptive period set by the Ombudsman, but it was not immediately resolved by Morales.

Morales retired in July 2018, having completed a seven-year term. She was succeeded by Martires, who assumed office in August of that year.

Martires stated that Villanueva’s MR was pending at the Ombudsman for two years due to the failure of the concerned department to inform Morales about the petition.

“So, in this case, I suppose no one told Conchita that Joel Villanueva filed a motion,” he remarked.

Martires claimed that he only learned about Villanueva’s pending petition after launching a white inventory of cases a few months after succeeding Morales. Subsequently, he ruled in favor of granting the MR.

“So, we did not violate the two-year period,” he contended. “I did not violate anything in the Office of the Ombudsman. Let them prove it. I did not do anything wrong. I did not commit anything wrong against the Filipino people.”

The Constitution mandates courts to decide cases within a reasonable timeframe, with lower courts and collegiate courts given three months and 12 months, respectively.

The SC, meanwhile, is given two years, though delays often occur.

Martires dismissed the recent developments as mere politicking aimed at diverting public attention from anomalies in the flood control projects, which involve members of Congress, including allies of President Marcos Jr.

“They’re using it against me to shield them,” said the Duterte appointee, referring to lawmakers accused of the kickback scheme.

Remulla has been headstrong about Villanueva’s dismissal order, disclosing that his office will study what further steps can be taken regarding the nearly decade-old decision.