Romualdez urges Ombudsman to inhibit from investigating him to avoid 'prejudgment'

MANILA, Philippines — Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez filed a motion to the Office of the Ombudsman to inhibit from investigating him over the alleged flood control scandal, noting that the probe is tainted by a "pattern of prejudgment" that violated his due process. In a four-page letter dated April 22, 2026, Romualdez's counsels, Villaraza and Angcangco, argued that the public statements by Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla and his officials showed that a "prosecution for plunder had effectively been decided in advance—despite the absence of a formal complaint or preliminary investigation." The lawyers who signed the letter were Alejandro Navarro, Augusto San Pedro, Ruth Nichole Ureta, and Via Monina Valdepenas. “There is a reasonable impression that the Ombudsman has already resolved to prosecute our client,” they added. The letter traced the alleged bias to as early as November 2025, when Remulla disclosed that his office has been studying the case for weeks and was already discussing possible plunder charges. By April 2026, these statements had escalated into public declarations that a plunder case was being “seriously prepared,” possibly involving conspiracy and multiple actors. His camp believes that these statements are no longer neutral investigative updates—but early disclosures of a prosecution theory. They also flagged statements within the Ombudsman's ranks, including a press briefing by Assistant Ombudsman and Spokesman Jose Dominic Clavano IV that referred to Romualdez as a "master plunderer." Taken together, according to his counsels, the statements create the impression that any investigation would be a “mere formality” to justify a pre-set outcome. They even warned that even subordinate officials may feel compelled to align with their chief’s public position. Invoking Supreme Court doctrine on the appearance of impartiality, Romualdez asked that the Ombudsman inhibit from the case and that any complaint be handled by a neutral and independent-minded official. “This is not about questioning integrity, but about safeguarding due process and public confidence in the justice system,” the letter said.

Go to News Site