Former House Speaker and Leyte 1st District Representative Martin Romualdez has formally requested the Office of the Ombudsman to inhibit itself from investigating the ongoing flood control controversy, alleging a “pattern of prejudgment” that compromises his right to due process.
In a four-page letter dated April 22, legal counsel from the Villaraza & Angangco law firm argued that public remarks made by Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla and other officials indicate that a plunder case has been effectively decided before the commencement of a formal preliminary investigation.
Claims of Prejudgment
The lawyers asserted that there is a “reasonable impression that the Ombudsman has already resolved to prosecute our client.”
They traced the alleged bias back to November 2025, when Remulla first disclosed that the office was studying a case involving Romualdez, a cousin of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
The letter highlighted specific comments regarding prosecutorial strategy:
“Ang plunder ay na-dilute by the Supreme Court decisions on plunder so we have to be more imaginative in filing these cases… People should start discussing plunder again, as a law and as it should be construed by the judiciary,” the letter quoted Remulla as saying.
Allegations of Direct Labels
The legal team also pointed to an April 6 press briefing where Remulla reportedly stated the office was “seriously preparing a case of plunder against former Speaker Martin Romualdez and former Senate President Francis Escudero.”
Furthermore, they cited remarks by Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano, who allegedly referred to the former Speaker as a “master plunderer.”
According to the counsel, such statements are “unequivocal” and demonstrate that the office has already determined guilt.
“They unmistakably demonstrate prejudgment and in the minds of reasonable observers render Rep. Romualdez’s participation in the flood control anomalies a forgone conclusion,” the lawyers argued.
Demand for Impartiality
Invoking Supreme Court doctrines on judicial and quasi-judicial impartiality, the defense requested that any complaints be handled by a neutral and independent body to ensure a fair trial.
The firm clarified that the move was intended to uphold the integrity of the legal process rather than attack the institution itself.
“This request is made not as a challenge to integrity, but in recognition of the high standards to which the Office of the Ombudsman is rightly held to shield its proceedings from unnecessary questions regarding objectivity or fairness, and to safeguard our client’s constitutional right to due process,” the letter concluded.
The Ombudsman’s office has yet to issue a formal response to the request for inhibition.