The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday welcomed criticism of the judiciary but challenged Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla to substantiate his sweeping allegations against the courts, saying accusations of partiality, misconduct and corruption must be brought through formal complaints supported by evidence.

In a statement issued by the Office of the Spokesperson in response to Remulla’s remarks during the Senate Committee on Finance hearing on the Ombudsman’s proposed 2027 budget, the SC agreed with the Ombudsman on one fundamental point: court proceedings at every level must be accountable to the public.

“This is not simply a matter of policy; it is required by the Constitution,” the Court said. But the SC drew a firm line between criticism of judicial decisions and allegations of wrongdoing by judges and courts.

“The Court takes allegations of partiality, misconduct, and corruption seriously,” the statement said. “It acts on such allegations when proper complaints are filed, evidence is presented, and the judges or justices concerned are given the opportunity to respond.”

The statement came hours after Remulla told senators that the judiciary needed “soul-searching” and should be “examined closely by everybody in government.”

Remulla complained that many decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman were subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA), describing the reversals as a trend known throughout the agency.

Out of the blue?

He said the reversals were “very discouraging” because some decisions appeared to have “come out of nowhere.”

Remulla also said the judiciary was the “biggest elephant in the room” in the country’s justice system and claimed that it had never been adequately held to account despite the political upheavals that had occurred since the 1980s.

The Ombudsman separately told senators that it takes an average of 15 years for the Sandiganbayan to resolve a case. Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian agreed that delays in the justice system undermine accountability and said the “wheels of justice” appeared to be stuck.

The Supreme Court, however, said it could not act on broad allegations against an entire appellate court based solely on public statements.

“We therefore invite the Ombudsman, or any concerned party, to file the proper complaint and submit supporting evidence,” it said. “This will allow the Court to determine the facts and, when warranted, exercise its disciplinary authority.”

The Court also stressed that criticism of the judiciary itself enjoys constitutional protection.

Not onion-skinned

It cited its unanimous April 2026 ruling, in which it dismissed indirect contempt petitions against political analyst Richard Heydarian, lawmaker Perci Cendaña and former government official Larry Gadon over strong criticisms of the Court’s ruling dismissing impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte.

The Court held that criticizing its decisions and policies is among the most protected forms of political expression and that the respondents’ statements did not meet the threshold for contempt.

“Despite the strong statements made against the Court concerning one of its rulings, the Court upheld the respondents’ freedom of speech and did not hold them in contempt,” Thursday’s statement said.

It concluded with an invitation that was both conciliatory and pointed: “The Court welcomes fair criticism. At the same time, serious accusations against judges and courts should be raised through the proper processes so they can be fairly investigated and resolved.”

The Court’s response also comes against a backdrop of documented delays in anti-graft proceedings. Supreme Court rulings have found cases in which lengthy delays were attributable to the Ombudsman itself, including preliminary investigations that took years.

At the same time, the Sandiganbayan reported a 45 percent case disposition rate in 2024, the highest among the Judiciary’s appellate-level courts that year.