Business organizations expressed displeasure over former Ombudsman Samuel Martires’ secret order that, in effect, acquitted Senator Joel Villanueva of Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) charges, saying that it flouted the Ombudsman’s constitutional mandate of transparency.

Earlier, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla revealed the secret decision that reversed the 2016 order of then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales expelling Villanueva during his term as a partylist representative over his alleged misuse of the congressional pork barrel.

“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, the Makati Business Club, Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines, and Justice Reform Initiative, jointly indicated.

Transparency not optional

The business organizations said the Constitution mandates the full public disclosure of all transactions involving the public interest (Article II, Section 28), and guarantees the people’s right to information on matters of public concern, including access to decisions, as a safeguard of public accountability (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 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 maintained.

On the other hand, the groups lauded Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla for disclosing the alleged secret decision.

“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 as motions for reconsideration or reinvestigation, appeals to the Court of Appeals, or petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, it deprived the rightful beneficiaries of the PDAF of resources that were allegedly misappropriated.

“Such secrecy undermines confidence in the justice system and sends a dangerous signal that decisions affecting public accountability may be quietly undone. The people can be kept in the dark,” the groups emphasized.

Uphold law

With this, the groups urged the Ombudsman to uphold the rule of law and proceed with the investigation and prosecution of all public officials found culpable, stressing that “jurisprudence is clear that the Ombudsman possesses the authority to revisit prior rulings where justice may have been compromised, to ensure that the guilty do not go unpunished and the innocent are protected.”

“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 said.

The organizations underlined that the Ombudsman’s role is crucial, noting that democracy and public accountability can only work if there are consequences for violating the law.

“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 business groups stressed.