Crucial file

Crucial file | Daily Tribune

The idiomatic expression “the devil is in the details” will show if there was hanky-panky in former Ombudsman Samuel Martires’ “secretive” dismissal of Senator Joel Villanueva’s pork barrel case.

Days after a flabbergasted Ombudsman Boying Remulla learned of his predecessor’s “secret” reversal, Martires nonchalantly dismissed Remulla’s suspicions by claiming there was no secrecy in what he did.

“I don’t know what’s secret about our work. It was in our system that I dismissed that case. The decision was handed over to the complainant, even to Senator Joel — maybe he has a copy. I did not do any secretive act, I had always been transparent,” Martires claimed.

The system Martires was referring to is the Ombudsman’s Complaint and Case Management System (CCMS), which, if fully publicly disclosed, as Martires seems to suggest, would let him off the hook.

It turns out, however, that mention of the CMMS file raises even more questions and suspicions.

News reports so far indicate that Villanueva’s CCMS file isn’t about to be made public, leading to widespread suspicions that the file does not exist.

Remulla, for his part, did not say if he had the CCMS file or only the Villanueva documents signed by Martires on his desk when he decided not to pursue the dismissal of Villanueva from the Senate.

He only told reporters last Thursday, “To my surprise, when I got to the office, I was confronted with the decision signed by former Ombudsman Martires dated July 2019.”

But for whatever reason, the CCMS file was not fully disclosed; it is now clear that it contained revealing details about the dismissal of Villanueva’s case.

Crucial details like when Villanueva filed for a reconsideration of former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales 2016 order to dismiss him, the legal reasoning and facts behind Martires’s reversal, and who was notified of the reversal and when.

In fact, knowing these relevant details would likely provide further clarity on Martires’ other significant claims.

Martires, for instance, dismissed Villanueva’s case after the NBI reported that Villanueva’s signature was supposedly forged. Is the NBI report in the file?

Similarly, Martires’ 2019 reversal was contentious. Per Ombudsman rules and procedures, if Villanueva had indeed filed for a reconsideration, this should have been done within five days of the promulgation of Carpio-Morales’ decision.

Was this done by Villanueva? Carpio-Morales hasn’t revealed if Villanueva had filed for a reconsideration during her term. For his part, Martires claimed he could not remember when Villanueva had filed for reconsideration.

And if Villanueva did file for a reconsideration, did he file it later than the rules allow?

The “secret” CCMS file should answer these crucial questions.

Martires also claimed the Senate of the 18th Congress received his decision. But critics pointed out the Senate would have then revealed that fact. Again, the secret CCMS file should have a record of when the Senate received the Martires reversal.

The current Senate hasn’t disclosed if it did have Martires’ decision in its records. It was only Villanueva who released a copy of Martires’ clearance.

In sum, the only conclusion left is this: Dishing out murky general details won’t sufficiently clear a controversial sitting senator; only specific details contained in a “secretive” CCMS file will be able to do that.