Sole searching
Of course, Boying Remulla, whose definition of ‘judicial misconduct’ is any court ruling that does not agree with his opinion, would not shut up.
Text size
Of course, Boying Remulla, whose definition of ‘judicial misconduct’ is any court ruling that does not agree with his opinion, would not shut up.
The current Ombudsman never fails to bewilder.
During a legislative hearing on the P7 billion-plus budget for his office, Boying Remulla suddenly told the senators the judiciary had to do some “soul-searching” and should be “examined closely by everybody,” decrying the reversal of certain Ombudsman decisions by the courts that he claimed “came out of nowhere.”
It was, however, Remulla’s accusations that “came out of nowhere,” as the Supreme Court (SC) itself could not help but notice. The propriety of the head of a supposedly independent constitutional body making a pointed but vague critique of another independent body aside, the High Tribunal pushed back — in a statement that is a masterpiece of subtlety — saying that while the SC takes allegations of misconduct “seriously,” it nonetheless “cannot act on broad allegations against an entire appellate court based only on public statements.”
It thus “invit(ed) the Ombudsman xxx to file the proper complaint and submit supporting evidence.” In other words, the High Court basically told Remulla to “put up or shut up.”
Credit the Supreme Court spokesperson, the comely Camille Sue Mae Ting, for the beautifully crafted response. If diplomacy is defined as “telling someone to go to hell in a way that he actually looks forward to the trip,” then she is the consummate diplomat.
Miraculously, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) somehow got its atrophied balls back in action and, supporting the SC, urged Remulla to “formalize” his complaints against judges whom he feels are misbehaving.
Of course, Boying Remulla, whose definition of “judicial misconduct” is any court ruling that does not agree with his opinion, would not shut up. Unfortunately for him, he has no cases of his own to file. But to save face — though there is very little to save — he pointed to complaints filed by his predecessor. In effect using the actions of former Ombudsman Samuel Martires — a man he has often sharply criticized — to avoid embarrassment.
To many, though, it is quite rich for the sitting Ombudsman to chide the Judiciary to do some “soul searching” when it is his office — and the present administration — that has much soul-searching to do.
Did the Ombudsman do its own soul-searching when it stubbornly pressed for the discharge of former public works Secretary Bonoan as an accused in the trillion-peso-plus Floodgate scandal — effectively acquitting him of plunder — in the face of a valid public perception that he (Bonoan) was acting under instructions from the real mastermind(s)?
Or did Remulla search his soul when he — as Justice Secretary — sanctioned a “restitution” as a prerequisite for becoming a state witness (a practice he brought to the Office of the Ombudsman), notwithstanding its lack of statutory support and great susceptibility to further corruption?
Did Remulla tell the National Bureau of Investigation chief to search his soul in his selective filing of cases against government critics and the political opposition? I bet not.
All these protestations on the part of the Ombudsman can only show that he is solely looking for a scapegoat for the Judiciary’s disapproval of his “bend the law” acts, and solely as a transparent attempt at gunboat diplomacy directed at judges who do not see things his way.
In which case, it is destructive of the concept of checks and balances and judicial independence which are the heart and soul of a democratic and tripartite system of government.
