ON Monday this week, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla publicly made two decisions that raise serious and probably unresolvable doubts about his fitness to continue serving in that office. Remulla should, of course, be given every opportunity to defend his actions, but at this point, the best venue for that may be an impeachment court.
The first decision Remulla made was to file a motion to discharge former Public Works secretary Manuel Bonoan as an accused in two graft cases filed on May 28 in connection with the flood control scandal, so that Bonoan can serve as a state witness. Bonoan was charged in one case along with Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, who is in detention after his arrest, and with Estrada and three former officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)-National Capital Region office in a second case.
The cases stem from the discovery of a complicated scheme of illegal budgetary insertions and project allocations in 2025 while Bonoan was DPWH chief. This allegedly resulted in P573 million in kickbacks being paid to Estrada, though all involved in the case have denied any wrongdoing.
Remulla’s excuse for the baffling decision to give Bonoan a free ride was that, “The knowledge that he has about the whole institution (DPWH) is something very important to us to be able to prove many cases. We will be benefiting from his testimony with regard to so many of the cases that we are filing.”
Not only does that smack of sheer laziness, and the unwillingness or inability of Remulla to lead a proper forensic investigation and case buildup, it defies all logic. By giving Bonoan immunity, Remulla hands control of the case narrative in court to the man with command responsibility over DPWH’s actions in the large-scale corruption operation. At the time of his resignation, Bonoan had been employed more or less continuously by the DPWH for 58 years. There is no way that he could argue that he was unaware of corruption in the department he led, unless he was to plead utter incompetence.
The standard for a criminally accused being granted status as a state witness is that he should not be the “most guilty.” Being the secretary of a department engaged in massive fraud and embezzlement automatically fails that standard. Either Bonoan was involved; or he was aware of the corruption and took no steps to report or stop it; or he was so incompetent that he did not know what his own office was doing, and was unable to control his people. The first two are grave crimes; the latter is grave dereliction of duty. And so is Remulla’s ignoring all that to petition to release Bonoan from liability.
The second decision by Remulla on Monday was to announce that he intended to file plunder charges against Sen. Rodante Marcoleta, former legislator Mike Defensor, and others. At first, this just seemed like poor judgment and indiscretion, and Remulla was immediately called out for it by netizens who questioned why he would give advance warning to people who were about to be charged and subject to arrest warrants. However, as things have developed, the decision to tip off the accused has begun to look more sinister. Before dawn on Tuesday, a mob organized by the Iglesia Ni Cristo religious organization — of which Marcoleta is a prominent member — moved to block EDSA near the People Power Monument, ostensibly in a protest for “accountability and transparency.” The gathering grew throughout the day and well into Tuesday evening, and it quickly became clear that the rally was less about “accountability and transparency,” and more about “protecting Senator Marcoleta from arrest” and “prevent the upcoming impeachment trial of Vice President Duterte.”
Despite the “rallyists” having no permit and not otherwise having coordinated with public safety authorities as required by law, they were afforded the kid gloves treatment by the Philippine National Police and Local Government Secretary Jonvic Remulla, and allowed to paralyze a large section of the metropolis, to the growing fury of much of the public.
Was Remulla’s premature announcement of pending charges against Marcoleta and Defensor a signal for the start of destabilizing civil unrest? Remulla would undoubtedly deny that was his intent, and it truly may not have been. The result, however, was the same, intended or not, and that is unacceptable. Whether he is merely incompetent or actually subversive, Remulla must go.
