Since no one knew about the reversal of former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales’ order dismissing Senator Joel Villanueva, the state prosecutor in charge of the case may have a chance to revisit it through a Motion for Reconsideration (MR).

Former Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said the prosecutor in the Villanueva case at the time may not have known about former Ombudsman Samuel Martires’ reversal of Carpio-Morales’ order, so he could not have filed an MR.

In an MR, you need a copy of the reversal order because you would not know the arguments made in the order.

In 2016, Carpio-Morales ordered Villanueva dismissed over his involvement in the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam, but the Senate refused to implement it, with the chamber’s leaders insisting they had their own system for disciplining members.

In 2019, Martires reversed the Carpio-Morales dismissal order, thereby granting Villanueva’s motion for reconsideration three years after the fact.

“If indeed the prosecutor did not receive a copy of the reversal, then he can still ask for a copy now and submit his motion for reconsideration because that is the right of the prosecution,” Carpio said.

He said Ombudsman Boying Remulla might explore this legal route, since there may have been a violation of the prosecutor’s due-process right to file an MR.

Remulla released a copy of the controversial decision of Martires, which reversed an order to dismiss Sen. Joel Villanueva from public office over the alleged misuse of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) in 2008, when he was still a member of the House of Representatives.

The reversal of the dismissal was contained in a 10-page order signed in 2019.

Carpio-Morales handed down her decision to disqualify Villanueva from government service when he was head of the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). He had been a party-list representative earlier when he allegedly committed the PDAF infraction.

Since the dismissal order on Villanueva was publicly aired and published in the press, “if I were Villanueva, if that decision was reversed, I would also have had it published to correct the misimpression,” Carpio said.

No double jeopardy

Atty. Rico Domingo, former president of the Philippine Bar Association and chairperson of the Movement Against Disinformation, also dispelled concerns that revisiting Villanueva’s dismissal order may result in double jeopardy, saying that the case was not elevated to the Sandiganbayan.

Under the law, a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense, as doing so constitutes double jeopardy.

Domingo explained that since Martires granted Villanueva’s motion for reconsideration, which led to the effective dismissal of his case, it did not reach the Sandiganbayan for trial.

Morales’ dismissal order found Villanueva guilty of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the interest of service involving the alleged misuse of P10 million in his pork barrel funds during his tenure as a Cibac Partylist lawmaker in 2008.

The ruling also carries an accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

Earlier, the senator confirmed that the Ombudsman had cleared him of all charges and that he had no pending cases in the Sandiganbayan.

Domingo stated that nothing legally prevents Remulla from reopening the nearly decade-old case and launching a new investigation because “Villanueva would not be able to invoke the doctrine of double jeopardy.”

Martires earlier told Daily Tribune that Villanueva filed his MR within the required 10-day prescriptive period set by the Ombudsman, but it was not immediately resolved because the concerned department did not inform Morales about the petition.

He also debunked insinuations by his successor that he had reversed the dismissal order in secret, dismissing it as a deliberate effort to divert public attention from anomalies in the flood control projects, which involve members of Congress, including allies of President Marcos Jr.

Nothing irregular

For his part, Father Ranhilio Aquino, dean of the Graduate School of Law at San Beda College, said Martires’ reversal of Villanueva’s dismissal was not necessarily irregular.

Whenever a decision is made, whether by the Ombudsman, a court, or a prosecutor, the person charged has the right to file a motion for reconsideration.

“And so it is my understanding that the person concerned, Senator Villanueva, filed such a motion within the prescribed period and Ombudsman Martires acted on it,” Aquino said.

“This actually happens quite often. Sometimes, even courts themselves reverse their own decisions through motions for reconsideration. So, legally speaking, it’s not surprising that a decision, whether by a court or the Ombudsman, is later reversed if convincing arguments are presented in a motion for reconsideration,” he said.