Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla said that when it comes to the justice system and their commitment to pursuing accountability from public officials, their work was meant to prosecute any individual disobeying the law.

Remulla delivered the message during his speech before the field investigators of the Office of the Ombudsman on Tuesday, 30 June, stressing that the responsibility of their office was to certify that no official–even colleagues–were falling out of line.

“High or low ranking, they will be charged when they commit crime,” he said.

“When someone has lost their way, we need to show up and straighten out the crooked path,” he added.

The Ombudsman further stated that it was crucial for the investigations conducted with regards to the corruption of officials to remain fair and objective, particularly as it has a direct impact on the perception of the public when it comes to matters such as national issues.

“That is the duty we swore to uphold—to look after everything. To shape the public's mindset regarding the unwavering spirit required of a government servant,” he expressed.

The statements of Remulla come at a time when public interest particularly with regards to the investigations into the multibillion peso flood control scandal are at its peak.

Critics of the investigative body have recently pointed out that the officials that have been charged with criminal cases were those that publicly displayed their disapproval of the current administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

In its most recent move, the Ombudsman said that it was going to file a case of plunder against Senator Rodante Marcoleta connected to an issue that had previously been resolved under the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

The incident that had been flagged by both agencies was Marcoleta’s receipt of P75-million in campaign donations last 2025 from three private individuals, an amount that he also failed to declare under his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).

In COMELEC’s investigation, it found that the action was not necessarily an electoral offense under law. The Ombudsman, on the other hand, based its case on a section under the anti-plunder law that criminalizes public officials receiving gifts.

The development caused an uproar from his supporters, especially from members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) who staged a protest at the EDSA People Power Monument in Quezon City.

Prior to Marcoleta, the investigative body had charged Senator Jinggoy Estrada for cases of graft and plunder linked to allegations that he received P573-million in kickbacks from various infrastructure projects in 2025.

Notably, both senators were part of the group of lawmakers that were in the bloc of Duterte leaning Senator Alan Peter Cayetano.

Despite the notions, Remulla has repeatedly shut down narratives that their probe was selective.

During a recent press conference, Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano echoed that their office was focused on following where the evidence that they uncover takes them–even if it led to the President himself.

“We are not biased to anyone here. The Ombudsman has always said we will follow the evidence. So if the evidence is there, who are we to stop that from coming out?” Clavano said.

“I just also want to repeat that what our brothers at INC are fighting for through their rally about accountability and transparency, that is also what the Ombudsman is fighting for. And I think it will show through our actions that we are not really selective,” he added.

Through previous conferences, the Ombudsman affirmed that cases against Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, who they asserted were masterminds in the flood control issue, were in the preliminary investigation stage.

A separate case against Senator Joel Villanueva was also said to be in the preliminary stage, with Remulla noting that they had to create their separate case build-up as they did not accept the Department of Justice’s findings.

“We don’t make deals with anybody. We did not accept the findings of the DOJ because we felt that it was lacking when it came to the case build-up so we had to conduct our own,” Remulla said.