Ombudsman Boying Remulla still has a slim chance of pulling the rug out from under Senator Joel Villanueva, who has been flashing a reversal of a 2016 dismissal order.

In 2019, Ombudsman Samuel Martires junked the directive of his predecessor, Conchita Carpio-Morales. He did this through a mysterious process in which the decision appeared to be known only to him and the senator.

The Senate refused to implement the Carpio-Morales order, saying the chamber had its own method of disciplining its members.  

Remulla had indicated a plan to enforce with Senate President Tito Sotto the dismissal order on Villanueva, which was when the latter pulled out the reversal order.

Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna underscored the legal processes involved in the promulgation of decisions, saying it was up to Martires to check if the proper processes were followed.

“You have to attach your decision to the rolio. Every case has a rolio. And if it is not attached to the rolio, then it is not really promulgated. It’s still a draft. So, it must be signed and promulgated,” Azcuna explained.

The rolio or record of law and internal operations is the official compilation of all case records. The rolio is open to the public and the media could review it since this was a very high-profile case.

“The media should have followed up and found out if the rolio contained a reconsideration of the decision. If it was not attached to the rolio, I believe it was not valid. It was not properly promulgated,” Azcuna said.

He said the failure to attach it to the record is the only way that Martires’ decision can be challenged; otherwise, the acquittal of Villanueva is final.

Martires did not violate any procedures when he chose not to announce the decision to the public.

“If it was silently promulgated, that’s unusual, but it was still valid as long as it was attached to the rolio and it was open to the public,” Azcuna indicated.

For a decision to be valid, what is essential is the promulgation. And promulgation is effected by attaching a signed decision to the rolio.

“Technically, it was not really secret because the rolio is open to the public. They don’t have to invite attention to it. It is a matter for the public to track, as long as it is open to the public and not a secret document,” the former magistrate said.

Since Villanueva is a prominent figure with a controversial case involving the misuse of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), withholding information about his exoneration is indeed strange and suspicious.

Not announcing it allowed time to lapse and prevented a motion for reconsideration. Then, the 2019 acquittal was issued, which remains in effect, according to Azcuna.

Reopening the dismissed case would constitute double jeopardy, but an investigation into the procedure can still be undertaken to ensure it will not be repeated.

There’s nothing illegal in the Villanueva case, yet everything smells fishy.