Leyte Representative Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez has formally requested the Office of the Ombudsman to inhibit itself from conducting any preliminary investigation against him, citing public statements by Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla that allegedly demonstrate prejudgment and bias.
According to a formal letter dated April 22, 2026, obtained through legal firm Villaraza & Angangco, Romualdez's counsel argued that the Ombudsman has made several public statements that "evince a preconceived position" on issues involving the former House Speaker, creating a reasonable impression that guilt has already been determined before any formal investigation has begun.
The 22-page formal request, addressed directly to Ombudsman Remulla, details multiple instances where the anti-graft body's head allegedly made statements indicating a predetermined outcome regarding potential plunder charges against the Leyte congressman.
Timeline of Alleged Prejudicial Statements
The letter outlines a series of public statements made by Ombudsman Remulla beginning in November 2025. On November 21, 2025, less than two weeks after assuming office, Remulla publicly confirmed that his office had "been studying the Martin Romualdez case for the past forty days."
During the same media interview, the Ombudsman discussed prosecutorial strategy specific to plunder cases, stating: "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."
Romualdez's legal team argued these statements "plainly demonstrate that the Office of the Ombudsman was already determined to file plunder charges" as early as November 2025.
April 2026 Press Conference Statements
The situation escalated during a press conference held on April 6, 2026, where Ombudsman Remulla announced that his office had "been seriously preparing a case of plunder against former Speaker Martin Romualdez and former Senate President Chiz Escudero."
During this conference, Remulla made several specific statements regarding the case, including that "Plunder ang aming hinahandang kaso para sa kanila," supposedly based on alleged irregularities in the budgetary process connected to flood-control projects.
The Ombudsman indicated the case would be filed "within the month of May" and suggested Romualdez "coordinated with others in the budgetary process," describing the case as proceeding "as conspiracy, with the element of conspiracy involved in the preparation of the complaint."
"Master Plunderer" Label Draws Strong Objection
The request for inhibition also cited statements made during an April 16, 2026 press conference, where Assistant Ombudsman Jose Dominic "Mico" Clavano IV, serving as the office's spokesperson, allegedly labeled Romualdez as a "master plunderer" before any fact-finding investigation was concluded.
This characterization occurred while investigatory proceedings were still ongoing, further supporting the defense team's argument about predetermined conclusions.
Travel Restriction Controversy
The letter also addressed recent statements where Ombudsman Remulla admitted to interfering with Romualdez's request to travel abroad for medical purposes, stating he "did not act favorably" on such requests.
Romualdez's counsel argued this action was beyond the Ombudsman's authority, as travel restrictions fall outside the office's mandate. The Ombudsman reportedly said "baka hindi na bumalik," insinuating without basis that Romualdez posed a flight risk.
Legal Precedent Supporting Inhibition Request
The formal request extensively cited Supreme Court precedents supporting the need for both actual and apparent impartiality in government investigations. The letter referenced the 2007 case Ladlad vs. Velasco, where the Supreme Court emphasized 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."
Another key citation was the 2005 case Tejano, Jr. vs. The Hon. Ombudsman, where the high court ruled that investigating officers must not only be objective and impartial but must also "appear impartial" to ensure public confidence in the process.
Constitutional Due Process Concerns
Romualdez's legal team argued that the Ombudsman's public statements make it "practically impossible for subordinate officials not to conform to the official position already taken." This situation, they contended, would render any investigation "a mere fishing expedition to support a foregone conclusion."
The lawyers emphasized that their request 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" and to safeguard their client's constitutional right to due process.
Request for Independent Investigation
The formal letter concluded with a specific request that the Office of the Ombudsman inhibit itself from conducting any preliminary investigation that may be commenced against Romualdez, and that such matters be referred to "an independent and impartial body or officer who can conduct the proceedings free from any cloud of bias or prejudgment."
The timing of this request, coming just two days before its public release on April 24, 2026, suggests the defense team is seeking immediate action before any formal charges are filed.
Implications for Anti-Corruption Proceedings
This development represents a significant challenge to the Ombudsman's handling of high-profile corruption cases. If granted, the inhibition request would require transferring the investigation to another body, potentially delaying proceedings but ensuring adherence to due process requirements.
The case involves alleged irregularities in flood-control project budgeting during Romualdez's tenure as House Speaker, with potential charges including plunder and money laundering based on the Ombudsman's previous public statements.
The Office of the Ombudsman has not yet publicly responded to the formal inhibition request as of April 24, 2026.
Photo credit: Courtesy of Villaraza & Angangco The Firm