Former ombudsman Samuel Martires asserted Monday that he did not breach any constitutionally mandated timelines for case resolutions when he approved a petition filed by Senator Joel Villanueva almost three years after the issuance of a dismissal order against the lawmaker.
Martires’ remarks followed former Supreme Court (SC) associate justice Adolfo Azcuna’s statement that Martires could be held administratively liable for undue delay for allegedly breaching the two-year prescribed period for the disposal of cases, and risk forfeiting his retirement benefits as a result.
Azcuna said two years is the maximum reasonable time for the Ombudsman to come up with a ruling, similar to the SC.
However, Martires explained to Daily Tribune that the rules of the SC do not apply to the Ombudsman because it is an “independent body.”
“The Supreme Court doesn’t interfere in our matters, in much the same way that we don’t interfere with them, but we can investigate the justices of the Supreme Court for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,” he said in a phone interview.
“There is no reglementary period within which the Ombudsman must decide on [a motion for reconsideration],” he pointed out.
Martires has drawn backlash after recently disclosing that he granted Villanueva’s motion for reconsideration in 2019, which his successor, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla, has called a “secret” decision.
The ruling effectively reversed a 2016 dismissal order issued by Martires’ predecessor, ex-ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, against the senator, who was found guilty of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service over the alleged misuse of P10 million of his pork barrel funds during his tenure as the Cibac partylist representative in 2008.
The Senate at the time did not enforce the directive, citing the Ombudsman’s lack of jurisdiction over members of Congress.
Remulla was about to ask the Senate to enforce the dismissal order immediately, but stopped short after learning that Martires had junked Villanueva’s case in “secret” in 2019.
According to Azcuna, Martires’ decision had the “effect of an acquittal” and could not be reopened by Remulla, as it may constitute double jeopardy.
“It does not affect the validity of the decision; it only makes the person deciding it liable for possible administrative violation of a time limit for deciding cases,” Azcuna explained in an interview on Monday.