By Lane Afable, News Editor
Leyte 1st District Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez has sought to disqualify the Office of the Ombudsman from investigating him over the alleged flood control controversy, citing that the probe is tainted by a “pattern of prejudgment” that violates due process.
Romualdez’s lawyers, in a four-page letter dated April 22, argued that public statements by Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla and his officials show that a prosecution for plunder had effectively been decided in advance despite the absence of a formal complaint or preliminary investigation.
“There is a reasonable impression that the Ombudsman has already resolved to prosecute our client,” lawyers of the former Speaker said.
The letter traces the alleged bias to as early as November 2025, when Remulla disclosed that his office had been studying the case for weeks and was already discussing possible plunder charges.
According to the lawyers, by April 2026, those statements had escalated into public declarations that a plunder case was being “seriously prepared,” possibly involving conspiracy and multiple actors.
For Romualdez’s camp, these were no longer neutral investigative updates, but “early disclosures of a prosecution theory.”
The defense lawyers also flagged statements within the Ombudsman’s ranks, including a press conference where Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano reportedly referred to Romualdez as a “master plunderer.”
They noted that even as Remulla acknowledged the difficulty of proving plunder under current jurisprudence, he continued to publicly discuss filing such charges, suggesting, they argued, that the charge had been predetermined.
Taken together, the statements create the impression that any investigation would be a “mere formality” to justify a pre-set outcome, the defense said, adding that even subordinate officials may feel compelled to align with their chief’s public position.
Invoking Supreme Court doctrine on the appearance of impartiality, the lawyers asked that the Ombudsman inhibit from the case and that any complaint be handled by a neutral, independent body.
“This is not about questioning integrity, but about safeguarding due process and public confidence in the justice system,” the lawyers said.
They said that the issue goes beyond the allegations themselves, but is about whether the country’s top anti-graft body can still conduct investigations that are not only fair, but seen to be fair.
