“His DOJ record, prosecuting Duterte despite past ties, proves his impartiality”
I. Battle Cry: A Reformer Under Fire
THE Judicial and Bar Council faces a defining moment: will it crown Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla as Ombudsman, a fearless prosecutor who jailed a former president, or buckle under dynastic pressure?
Remulla’s bid tests whether the Philippines’ anti-corruption watchdog will roar or whimper. The complaints against him, led by Senator Imee Marcos, conveniently surfaced after his DOJ’s arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte in March 2025.
These accusations aren’t proof of guilt—they’re badges of courage for challenging the powerful. The JBC must see through this political ambush and embrace Remulla’s independence as the Ombudsman’s lifeblood.
II. Legal Arsenal: Smashing the Opposition
The 1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 8, sets clear criteria for the Ombudsman: a natural-born citizen, at least 40 years old, a Philippine Bar member with 10 years of practice, and proven integrity.
At 62, a lawyer since 1987, and with decades as congressman, Cavite governor, and DOJ Secretary, Remulla exceeds these standards.
The Supreme Court in De Castro v. JBC (2010) limits the JBC’s role to verifying these qualifications, not inventing new barriers.
Republic Act 6770 bars candidates only if convicted of moral turpitude crimes, not merely accused. Dela Torre v. COMELEC (1996) reinforces this: pending complaints don’t disqualify without a final conviction.
Remulla faces no convictions—only allegations, protected by the Constitution’s presumption of innocence.
His DOJ record, prosecuting Duterte despite past ties, proves his impartiality. If this isn’t “probity and independence,” what is?
The opposition’s arguments collapse under scrutiny.
First, Senator Marcos’ “moral turpitude” complaints are baseless. Dela Torre v. COMELEC (1996) defines moral turpitude as proven depravity—acts of baseness or vileness.
Allegations of abuse or delay under RA 3019 are unproven, mere political retaliation for Duterte’s arrest.
Second, claims of a “conflict of interest” from Remulla’s DOJ role are absurd.
His executive experience equips him to expose corruption, not enable it.
The Ombudsman’s mandate demands fearlessness, which Remulla embodies.
Finally, the nepotism charge—citing his brother, DILG Secretary Jonvic Remulla—is a distraction. De Castro allows family ties to be considered only if they clearly compromise independence, which no evidence suggests here.
These are desperate ploys, not legal arguments.
III. SWOT Blitz: Reframing the Fight
Strengths: Prosecuted a president—undeniable proof of fearless independence. Remulla’s DOJ record is a relentless assault on corruption, targeting figures from Duterte to drug lords with unwavering resolve.
Weaknesses: Pending cases? Mere battle scars earned from challenging a corrupt system. Only a true reformer attracts such fierce opposition.
Opportunities: Appointing Remulla signals the end of impunity, forging an Ombudsman who strikes fear into the corrupt and restores trust in governance.
Threats: Allowing Imee Marcos’ vendettas to derail Remulla grants dynasties a free pass to plunder, undermining the Ombudsman’s power.
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales faced 42 complaints when appointed in 2011, yet became a beacon of integrity. Remulla’s complaints prove he’s a threat to the corrupt, not a liability.
IV. Voice of Authority
“Remulla’s enemies brand his pending cases a flaw; I call them proof he’s shaking the corrupt to their core. Only the guilty fear him.” — Kweba ng Katarungan, August 2025.
V. Battle Plan: Seizing Control
To the JBC: Shortlist Remulla or risk legitimizing complaints as vetoes, a gift to corrupt politicians. Re: JBC Shortlist for Ombudsman (2011) allows dismissing baseless claims—use it.
To Remulla: Demand a public hearing, forcing accusers to testify under oath. Submit a rebuttal with dockets and endorsements.
To the Media: Stop amplifying Imee Marcos’ complaints as fact. Demand JBC transparency on vetting criteria.
VI. Final Stand: A Legacy at Stake
The JBC’s choice is stark: elevate a reformer or bow to dynastic pressure. The Ombudsman’s chair awaits a titan who prosecuted a president—or a puppet.
This editorial is a rallying cry for the JBC to champion justice. Remulla’s bid is a chance to forge an Ombudsman who fears no one. Will the JBC rise to the challenge?
VII. The Cost of Capitulation
Excluding Remulla delivers a triumph to corruption, allowing Duterte’s allies to escape justice, granting dynasties unchecked power, enabling corrupt officials to flourish, and robbing Filipinos of a fearless champion for accountable governance.
VIIi. Red Lines: 4 Pillars the JBC Cannot Ignore
- De Castro v. JBC (2010): JBC verifies constitutional qualifications, not subjective standards.
- Dela Torre v. COMELEC (1996): Pending complaints require final conviction to disqualify. And, moral turpitude demands proven depravity.
- Re: JBC Shortlist for Ombudsman (2011): JBC can dismiss frivolous complaints.
- Gutierrez v. House of Representatives (2011): Integrity requires substantiated claims.
