A formal motion demanding the Office of the Ombudsman withdraw from investigating him has been filed by Leyte Congressman Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez, who claims Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla has publicly exhibited prejudice through various statements that suggest guilt before any formal proceedings.
The comprehensive 22-page document, submitted through legal representatives Villaraza & Angangco and dated April 22, 2026, contends that multiple public declarations by the Ombudsman reveal “a preconceived position” regarding the former House Speaker, undermining the integrity of any potential investigation.
Romualdez’s attorneys maintain that the anti-graft office chief has repeatedly made pronouncements that create a compelling impression of predetermined guilt, violating fundamental principles of impartial investigation and due process.
Stay informed with our free weekly newsletter. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
Pattern of Public Declarations Questioned
The motion documents a sequence of public statements beginning in November 2025, shortly after Remulla assumed his position. On November 21, 2025, merely two weeks into his tenure, the Ombudsman publicly acknowledged that his office had “been studying the Martin Romualdez case for the past forty days.”
In the same media appearance, Remulla discussed tactical approaches to plunder prosecutions, declaring: “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.”
Defense counsel interpreted these remarks as clear evidence that the Ombudsman’s office had already resolved to pursue plunder charges against their client as early as November 2025, well before any formal investigative process commenced.
Public Announcement of Charges Preparation
The controversy intensified following an April 6, 2026 press conference where Ombudsman Remulla declared his office had “been seriously preparing a case of plunder against former Speaker Martin Romualdez and former Senate President Chiz Escudero.”
Remulla provided specific details about the anticipated charges, stating “Plunder ang aming hinahandang kaso para sa kanila,” referencing alleged irregularities connected to flood-control project budgeting processes.
The Ombudsman projected filing the case “within the month of May” while suggesting Romualdez “coordinated with others in the budgetary process.” He characterized the matter as involving “conspiracy, with the element of conspiracy involved in the preparation of the complaint.”
Controversial “Master Plunderer” Designation
Additional concerns arose from an April 16, 2026 press conference where Assistant Ombudsman Jose Dominic “Mico” Clavano IV, acting as office spokesperson, allegedly referred to Romualdez as a “master plunderer” while investigatory proceedings remained active.
This designation occurred before completion of any fact-finding investigation, reinforcing defense arguments about conclusions being reached prematurely.
Travel Authority Interference Allegations
The inhibition request also addressed recent admissions by Ombudsman Remulla regarding interference with Romualdez’s medical travel requests abroad, stating he “did not act favorably” on such applications.
Defense lawyers argued this action exceeded the Ombudsman’s jurisdictional authority, as travel restrictions fall outside the office’s mandate. Remulla reportedly justified his position by saying “baka hindi na bumalik,” suggesting without foundation that Romualdez represented a flight risk.
Supreme Court Precedents Supporting Recusal
The motion extensively referenced Supreme Court decisions establishing requirements for both actual and apparent impartiality in government investigations. The 2007 Ladlad vs. Velasco case was cited, where the Supreme Court stressed that prosecutors “should not allow, and should avoid, giving the impression that their noble office is being used or prostituted, wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends.”
The 2005 Tejano, Jr. vs. The Hon. Ombudsman decision was also referenced, establishing that investigating officers must maintain both objective impartiality and “appear impartial” to preserve public confidence in proceedings.
Due Process Constitutional Arguments
Defense counsel argued that the Ombudsman’s public positions make it “practically impossible for subordinate officials not to conform to the official position already taken,” potentially reducing any investigation to “a mere fishing expedition to support a foregone conclusion.”
The legal team emphasized their motion was “not made as a challenge to integrity, but in recognition of the high standards to which the Office of the Ombudsman is rightly held” while protecting their client’s constitutional due process rights.
Call for Independent Review
The formal submission concluded by specifically requesting the Office of the Ombudsman recuse itself from conducting preliminary investigations against Romualdez, with matters transferred to “an independent and impartial body or officer who can conduct the proceedings free from any cloud of bias or prejudgment.”
The strategic timing of this request, released publicly on April 24, 2026, just two days after its formal submission, suggests urgency in seeking resolution before formal charges materialize.
Broader Anti-Corruption Implications
This challenge represents a substantial test of the Ombudsman’s approach to prominent corruption investigations. Granting the inhibition would necessitate transferring the case to alternative oversight bodies, potentially causing delays while ensuring adherence to constitutional due process standards.
The underlying investigation involves alleged budgetary irregularities in flood-control projects during Romualdez’s House Speaker tenure, with potential charges encompassing plunder and money laundering based on the Ombudsman’s previous public statements.
As of April 24, 2026, the Office of the Ombudsman had not issued any public response to the formal recusal request.
Photo credit: Courtesy of Villaraza & Angangco The Firm
Stay informed — get Negros Oriental news weekly
Free newsletter, no spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 04
