Manila: A move seeking the inhibition of Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla from the case involving former House of Representatives speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez is grounded in established law and jurisprudence, a lawyer from the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) said on Monday.
According to Philippines News Agency, Lawyer Antonio Audie Bucoy stated that Supreme Court rulings, including Araullo versus Ombudsman and Soriano versus Deputy Ombudsman, recognize the applicability of inhibition rules to the Ombudsman. Bucoy explained in a radio interview that the Supreme Court laid down the basis for inhibition of the Ombudsman because it is an executive, prosecutorial position. Therefore, the rules on inhibition used by the courts or judges can be applied, but the basis is not that strict. The Ombudsman is given leeway regarding when he will inhibit.
Romualdez's camp earlier requested Remulla to inhibit, arguing that public statements attributed to him suggested possible prejudgment and could affect the fairness of the ongoing investigation. They emphasized the necessity of inhibition to preserve due process and maintain public confidence in the probe involving the flood control controversy.
Bucoy elaborated that there are two types of inhibition: mandatory and discretionary. Mandatory inhibition covers conflicts of interest such as family ties, prior legal representation, or financial stake in the case. Most cases fall under discretionary inhibition, which depends on the Ombudsman's judgment but is guided by the need to remain impartial.
If there is prejudgment by the Ombudsman due to public pronouncements indicating bias, Bucoy noted that the Supreme Court advises inhibition, even if it's discretionary. Bucoy clarified that stepping aside from a case does not mean admitting bias or wrongdoing but rather aims to maintain the process's impartiality.
He added that even if the Ombudsman inhibits, the case remains within the institution and will be reassigned to another official, such as a deputy or the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, ensuring continuity of the investigation.
In a related matter, Bucoy addressed the precautionary hold departure order (HDO) issued against Romualdez, stating it may be challenged and lifted upon motion before the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court. Bucoy explained that the ex parte nature of the order allows swift action by authorities but also provides the respondent the opportunity to challenge it once notified. Grounds for challenging such an order include a lack of probable cause, prematurity in the absence of a preliminary investigation, and absence of flight risk. The Sandiganbayan may lift the order if these grounds are established.
