MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has urged the Office of the Ombudsman to file a complaint regarding court proceedings on all levels for accountability.
In a statement issued Thursday night, lawyer Camille Sue Mae Ting, the high tribunal’s spokesman, said the Court acknowledged and affirmed the Ombudsman's assertion that judicial proceedings at every level must be responsible to the people.
Ting stressed that this was not merely a procedural preference—it was a constitutional imperative that lay at the very foundation of the democratic system of governance.
The Court does not take lightly any allegation of judicial bias, misconduct, or corruption. Such accusations strike at the heart of public confidence in the judiciary, and we treat them with the gravity they deserve, she said.
The high court official said further that when formal complaints were properly filed, supported by competent evidence, and afforded the judges or justices concerned their fundamental right to be heard, “the Court does not hesitate to act.”
However, Ting said the Court could not—and would not—proceed upon broad, unsubstantiated accusations directed at an entire appellate court, particularly when those allegations rest solely upon public statements made outside the established judicial processes.
“We therefore extend a formal invitation to the Ombudsman, and to all concerned parties, to file the appropriate complaint and submit supporting evidence,” she said.
She added that only through such proper channels could the Court ascertain the truth of the matter and, where circumstances warrant, exercise its constitutionally mandated disciplinary authority over members of the judiciary.
The high tribunal recalled its recent unanimous decision in re Heydarian, Cendana, and Gadon, a ruling that reaffirmed the fundamental right to freedom of expression—including the right to critique the courts and their decisions.
Despite the sharp and strongly worded statements directed at the Court regarding one of its rulings, the tribunal chose to uphold the respondents' constitutional right to free speech and declined to hold them in contempt.
In doing so, the Court demonstrated its unwavering commitment to the principles of openness and tolerance that define a vibrant democracy, Ting said.
The Court reiterated that it welcomed fair and constructive criticism. It is through such discourse that institutions are refined and strengthened.
Yet, serious allegations against judges and courts demand more than rhetoric—they require the rigor of formal proceedings, where evidence is tested, due process is observed, and the truth can be pursued with the fairness and impartiality that the public deserves, according to the Court’s spokesman.
On Thursday, Ombudsman Jose Crispin Remulla said at a Senate finance committee deliberations on the Ombudsman’s proposed 2027 budget, that the judiciary needed to undergo soul-searching to address long-standing problems in the country’s justice system.
“It’s just probably unfortunate that I have to mention this. Many of those that we have dismissed in the Office of the Ombudsman institutionally, in many cases, we’re talking about many, many cases, that were reversed by the Court of Appeals,” Remulla was quoted as saying.
“It’s very discouraging to be conducting all of these activities only to be reversed by the Court of Appeals' decision that came out of nowhere,” he added.
