Former Ombudsman Samuel Martires said he ordered his media bureau not to publicize his 2019 order reversing the dismissal from government service of Senator Joel Villanueva.
He said Villanueva should have been the one to announce the favorable decision that he got.
“In the case of Villanueva, I was asked actually by the media bureau,
‘Are we going to publish this?’ I said no,” he said in an interview with Bilyonaryo News Channel on Monday.
“Why not? (Because) if I publish it, if I talk about it, people will say, I am siding with Joel Villanueva, that I am favoring Joel Villanueva,” Martires said.
“At the time I approved that resolution, I didn’t even know who Joel Villanueva was. The decision might be politically colored (if I publicized it).”
But on Tuesday, Martires said in an interview with dzBB that he could no longer recall why his decision was not published.
“I cannot recall since it has been a long time ago. I cannot recall the reason why it was not published. Maybe because I was also overwhelmed with cases,” he said.
Still, Martires said there was nothing anomalous or irregular in his decision, which he stressed was not a “secret” reversal.
“They were telling us that we should publish it because it was our obligation to do so. (But) the law only states that publication is necessary if circumstances warrant,” he said.
“Based on the (Ombudsman) perspective, there is no need to publish. Why publish it? That is the problem,” Martires added.
Martires’ predecessor, former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, issued the dismissal order against Villanueva, then Cibac party-list representative, in 2016 over the alleged misuse of his Priority Development Assistance Fund.
On Monday, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla said his office is eyeing to refile the graft case against Villanueva over the alleged misuse of his P10-million “pork barrel” or PDAF. Martires reversed the dismissal order in 2019.
“We will review it. We might have to refile the case. There is no double jeopardy here,” Remulla said. “For now, we will have to study. We have to study again.”
Former solicitor general Florin Hilbay earlier said the “secret” reversal could be treated as a memo and not a valid reversal as it was never made public.
“Former Ombudsman Martires had no authority to reverse that decision in secret, thereby depriving the public or any interested party from questioning his decision before the Supreme Court,” Hilbay said.
“Therefore, Ombudsman Remulla can treat the secret memo as having had no effect and can proceed with his intention to request the Senate to enforce the original order of dismissal,” he added.
