(Photo courtesy : Office Of The Ombudsman FB page)
There is a fine line between seeking accountability and blatant judicial intimidation.
When the country’s top graft-buster starts throwing shade at the very court where his cases are tried, we have to ask: Is this a quest for justice, or a desperate move to cover up a weak prosecution?
This, as a number of anti-corruption watchdogs were prompted to make a stand, and sought clarification after Ombudsman Crispin Remulla apparently confirmed recently what he described as “judicial corruption” in the country.
In an interview with a major daily, Remulla particularly named the Sandignbayan as “very good at acquitting” and suggested that the justices are equipped with “all the reasons” to let the accused walk free.
Remulla also urged the public to “watch the judges, watch the justices.”
In a statement, anti-corruption watchdog People for Truth and Equality (PTE) said the Ombudsman could be setting a dangerous precedent.
“As an anti-corruption advocacy group, we would love to see the conviction of those who will be proven guilty of the crimes alleged against them. But their trials should be done in accordance with the Constitutional guarantees to due process,” Mike Domingo, PTE convenor said. For its part, Filipino League Advocates for Good Governance (FLAGG) questioned the timing and motives of Remulla’s outburst against the Sandiganbayan.
It noted that the anti-graft court is currently hearing petitions for bail and conducting trial proceedings against the accused in the multi-billion-peso anomalous flood control projects. .
FLAGG convenor Aio Bautista pointed out that Remulla might not be very confident that the cases they filed would guarantee 100 percent convictions,” hence the pressure against Sandiganbayan judges.”
He explained: “These cases were filed with much fanfare, but sources say many of them were “haphazardly” put together—rushed to meet self-imposed political deadlines and to satiate a public hungry for heads to roll”.
Now that the cases are in court, the prosecution is likely realizing that “public clamor” isn’t a substitute for “admissible evidence.”
By publicly vilifying the Sandiganbayan now, Remulla is effectively cornering the justices.
He is creating a climate where if they grant bail—a basic constitutional right—or if they acquit based on a lack of evidence, they will be branded as “corrupt” in the court of public opinion.
“This is judicial gaslighting at its finest. He is pressuring the court to convict everyone, regardless of the merits, just to save the Ombudsman’s batting average.”
Ironic
The anti-corruption watchdogs noted that the most glaring part of the narrative is the Ombudsman’s apparent sudden amnesia regarding his own family’s encounter with the law.
To recall, on January 6, 2023, his own son, Juanito Jose Remulla III, was acquitted of illegal drug possession charges by a Las Piñas court.
That case moved at lightning speed—less than three months from filing to finish.
The judge cited “reasonable doubt” because the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the 900 grams of kush.
The groups were asking, when his son was acquitted, was that “judicial corruption”? Or was it the Constitution working as intended—protecting an individual when the State fails to prove its case?
They pointed out that Sandiganbayan’s job is not to be a rubber stamp for the Ombudsman.
Its job is to be an impartial arbiter. An acquittal is not a “judicial failure”; it is often a “prosecutorial failure.”
“If the Ombudsman’s office filed weak cases, they should blame their own investigators, not the justices. To suggest that the court must convict to be considered “clean” is a shortcut to authoritarianism,” Bautista stressed.
They highlighted that when we start demanding that judges satisfy public anger instead of the law, we lose the very essence of democracy.
The groups noted that it’s also another form of corruption when the Ombudsman is allowed to bully the bench into denying bail and forcing convictions without a fair trial.
