OMBUDSMAN Jesus Crispin C. Remulla on Thursday released a copy of the “secret” decision by former Ombudsman Samuel R. Martires reversing a 2016 ruling that found Senator Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva administratively liable for the alleged misuse of P9.7 million in Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocations.
In a five-page order dated Sept. 13, 2019, Mr. Martires granted the motion for reconsideration filed by Mr. Villanueva — then a congressman — and officials of the Department of Agriculture (DA), setting aside their dismissal from service and clearing them of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Last week, Mr. Remulla dropped his plan to write to the Senate leadership requesting the enforcement of the dismissal order against Mr. Villanueva, issued by then-Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales in 2016.
Mr. Remulla said he was “surprised” by what he described as a “secret decision” of Mr. Martires, who had granted the motion for reconsideration — a fact, he noted, that was not made public.
Mr. Villanueva earlier denied that he was facing renewed pressure, saying he had already anticipated possible “harassment” and “fake news.” He also shared documents showing that the case was dismissed in 2019, along with a clearance from the Office of the Ombudsman dated 2025.
The 2016 Ombudsman decision had dismissed Mr. Villanueva and several DA officials for their alleged role in the release of P9.7 million to Aaron Foundation Philippines, Inc. (AFPI), a non-governmental organization tapped by the National Agribusiness Corp. (NABCOR) to implement agri-based livelihood projects.
Mr. Martires said in the ruling that there was “no adequate evidence on record” linking Mr. Villanueva to the loss of public funds, adding that the signatures attributed to him were unverified. He also said other public officials involved in project selection and monitoring should have been investigated to determine the extent of any conspiracy.
Antonio A. Ligon, a De La Salle University professor and former executive director of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, said cases involving public officials “should be made public,” stressing that transparency is vital to accountability and considering their compensation and perks are paid for by the public.
He added that so-called “secret decisions” should not carry any legal effect, warning that such practices could undermine the fight against corruption.
“If secret decisions are allowed, then expectedly [that] it will weaken corruption cases, as respondents can easily make complicit arrangements with the judge or anyone in charge of hearing the case,” Mr. Ligon told BusinessWorld in a Viber chat.
In a separate Facebook messenger chat, Antonio Gabriel M. La Viña, constitutional law and legal philosophy professor at Ateneo de Manila University, meanwhile, said that while it is legally allowed, it is “improper from an accountability point of view. It also contradicts basic norms of transparency.” — Erika Mae P. Sinaking
