By Mark Joseph M. Sanchez
CLAIMS of judicial misconduct should be tested through the records and legal reasoning of specific cases rather than inferred from the number of appellate reversals, analysts said, as the Supreme Court (SC) called for evidence to support allegations against the Judiciary.
The issue arose after Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” C. Remulla told senators that the Court of Appeals (CA) had repeatedly reversed the dismissal of government employees by the Ombudsman, which he described as a trend known to the anti-graft body.
Ephraim B. Cortez, president of the National Union of People’s Lawyers, said allegations should be tested through the records of specific cases rather than the number of reversals.
“The Ombudsman should file specific complaints about specific cases and submit proof of any irregularities in those cases,” Mr. Cortez told BusinessWorld.
Such an examination could determine whether the reversals lacked legal basis or resulted from errors in the Ombudsman’s prosecution of cases, he said.
“That is a trend… that’s known to the whole Office of the Ombudsman,” Mr. Remulla said during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on the Ombudsman’s proposed 2027 budget on Sept. 3. He said it was “institutionally” discouraging to pursue cases only to have them reversed by CA decisions that “came out of nowhere.”
Mr. Remulla said the Judiciary “has to be examined closely by everybody in government” and that judges and justices should “go on a soul-searching.” He also said the Judiciary had not been held accountable despite the country’s political upheavals.
“If there’s one thing that was never touched with all the EDSAs that happened to this country, it’s the Judiciary,” he said. “Never has the Judiciary accounted for everything that they’ve been doing. It’s actually a problem that has been there for the longest time, but it has to be said openly.”
The Supreme Court (SC) said it agreed that court proceedings at all levels must be accountable to the public, but broad allegations against an entire appellate court cannot be acted upon without specific complaints and evidence.
“The court takes allegations of partiality, misconduct and corruption seriously,” the SC said in a statement. “However, the court cannot act on broad allegations against an entire appellate court based only on public statements.”
The SC invited Mr. Remulla or any concerned party to file a complaint and submit supporting evidence so it could determine the facts and, when warranted, exercise its disciplinary authority.
Mr. Remulla on Saturday said a pending administrative complaint against seven CA justices, filed by his predecessor Samuel R. Martires in March 2025, has yet to be resolved.
The complaint accuses the justices of gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and stemmed from the CA’s reversal of an Ombudsman preventive suspension order involving Antique officials.
“To date, there appears [to be] no public record of the Judicial Integrity [Office] or the Supreme Court having acted or resolved that complaint,” Mr. Remulla said on his Saturday radio program on DZRH.
Mr. Cortez said an appellate reversal should not automatically be treated as evidence of corruption. Investigators would have to determine whether substantive or procedural issues were overlooked during trial and whether any omission by prosecutors was accidental or intentional.
“The Ombudsman should also investigate its own prosecutors for possible complicity in creating such loopholes to ensure reversals on appeal,” he said.
“If intentional on the part of the Ombudsman prosecutors, this may also be proof of corruption,” he said.
Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco, a senior research fellow at the Ateneo Policy Center, likewise said a pattern could only be established through a detailed examination of the decisions.
“The only way to do it is to conduct a rigorous study of the cases,” he told BusinessWorld in a Facebook Messenger chat, adding that the review should focus on the legal reasoning supporting each ruling. “Simply isolating the outcome of the decision is not enough to make a conclusion about fraud, corruption, or anything else.”
“Judicial independence is not the courts functioning in an ivory tower,” he said. “It’s a constitutional duty that judges must perform at all times. And civil society must remind them of this duty all the time as well.”
Mr. Yusingco also said the Ombudsman’s aggressive stance should not become a political exercise.
“Hopefully, this public display of outrage against judicial corruption and ineptitude is not just bravado to push a political agenda,” he said.
Mr. Cortez said the issue should likewise not be confined to the Judiciary, arguing that possible corruption must be examined throughout the justice system.
“If the intention is to curb corruption in the legal system, all the stakeholders should be investigated — from law enforcement, [the Department of Justice and Ombudsman] prosecutors, and judges and justices,” he said.
Dennis C. Coronacion, chairman of the University of Santo Tomas Political Science Department, said the public confrontation between the Ombudsman and the courts could have broader implications for confidence in the justice system and the government’s anti-corruption efforts.
“An unresolved public standoff risks eroding trust in state institutions, fostering perceptions of impunity, corruption in the Judiciary and triggering institutional gridlock,” he said via Viber.
“The public argument between Ombudsman Remulla and the courts creates a double-edged risk,” Mr. Coronacion said. “On one hand, demanding broad scrutiny of the Judiciary can look like political pressure, which might scare judges or unfairly influence sensitive cases.”
“On the other hand, protecting judges too much in the name of independence can make the courts look like an untouchable group that is hiding from real accountability,” he added.