Various business organizations in the country have expressed dismay over the alleged reversal of the case involving Senator Joel Villanueva by former Ombudsman Samuel Martires, saying the move violates the Office of the Ombudsman’s constitutional duty of transparency.

Earlier, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla disclosed the alleged secret decision reversing the 2016 ruling of then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, which had recommended charges against then Congressman Villanueva over the alleged misuse of Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocations.

“This unpublicized reversal by former Ombudsman Martires of the 2016 order, if true, contravenes the constitutional mandate of transparency and the Ombudsman’s own Rules of Procedure, which echo this constitutional duty to publicize matters when warranted,” the Management Association of the Philippines, Makati Business Club, Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines, and Justice Reform Initiative said in a joint statement on Wednesday.

‘Transparency not optional’

The business groups emphasized that the Constitution requires full public disclosure of transactions involving public interest (Article II, Section 28) and guarantees the public’s right to information on matters of public concern (Article III, Section 7).

“These mandates also apply to the Office of the Ombudsman, which is vested with the authority to investigate any act or omission by public officials that appears illegal, unjust, or improper,” the groups said. “The Ombudsman not only has the power but also the duty to ‘publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence.’”

The groups, however, lauded Ombudsman Remulla for disclosing the alleged reversal.

“In this case, public disclosure was clearly warranted. Not doing so deprived the public of access to vital information, and the parties involved of their lawful remedies… Such secrecy undermines confidence in the justice system and sends a dangerous signal that decisions affecting public accountability may be quietly undone, and the people can be kept in the dark,” they said.

The groups also urged the Office of the Ombudsman to continue investigating and prosecuting officials found liable, noting that existing jurisprudence allows the reopening of previous rulings where justice may have been compromised.

“We also advocate for the establishment of a technology-enabled public registry of decisions and resolutions involving public officers and personnel as part of a broader modernization of the justice system to promote transparency,” they added.

They stressed the Ombudsman’s central role in enforcing accountability.

“The Ombudsman, by standing by its sworn duty, can stop the impunity of corruption, be a champion of justice, and deliver on the promise of a government for the people,” the groups said.