NEARLY a decade has passed since Enrique Manas Sr. was ambushed and killed in a small town in Samar province. A criminal complaint was promptly filed in 2017 against alleged suspects Emilio Zosa, Joel Calagos, Arturo Deborbon, Sofronio Meduranda Jr. and Reymart Antivo, yet the case has still not gone to trial.
The delay is no longer just a procedural hiccup — it is a stark example of what happens when Department of Justice (DOJ) directives, meant to move a case forward, remain unexecuted.
On Jan. 16, 2025, then-justice secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla issued a resolution ordering the Office of the Prosecutor General to file the necessary information in court within 10 days.
The order was clear, binding and actionable. More than 415 days later, the information has still not been filed. Today, Acting Justice Secretary Fredderick Vida oversees the very office charged with carrying out that directive.
The situation raises a fundamental question: Does authority fade with the change of leadership, or does institutional responsibility persist?
The DOJ itself determined probable cause in the Manas case. The Jan. 16, 2025, directive was notable for its clarity and decisiveness. It set a clear, legally sound path for action, emphasizing that the next step — filing the information — was both necessary and firmly supported by evidence. Its design ensured that the case could proceed to trial efficiently, underscoring the department’s commitment to the integrity of the prosecutorial process.
The directive also made clear that defenses such as alibi or denial are matters for the trial court, not for preliminary investigation. In essence, the DOJ had already found enough basis to proceed with prosecution. Filing the information would simply allow the court to hear the case and rule on the evidence.
After all, any experienced litigator knows that when a life has been taken, the proper course is to allow the court to determine the truth through a full trial.
Yet, despite these facts, the order has not been implemented. The reasons for this delay remain opaque, leaving the public to ask whether bureaucratic inertia or external influence is at play.
The irony is notable. The justice secretary who issued the directive is now the Ombudsman. In this role, he oversees government compliance with laws and regulations, including monitoring offices such as the DOJ. The very official who issued a binding order can now ensure that it is respected.
The scenario underscores a central test of institutional accountability: Do government directives carry weight regardless of personnel changes, or can inaction prevail without consequence?
Silence from the DOJ sends a subtle, troubling signal: Even clear orders may be disregarded.
Acting Secretary Vida now faces a defining choice. He may cite a legitimate legal impediment preventing immediate action. If such an impediment exists, transparency will reinforce public confidence. But if there is no legal obstacle, the department is bound to act. Ignoring the order risks signaling that administrative authority is optional and undermines trust in the DOJ’s ability to enforce its own resolutions.
For the Manas family, the goal is procedural. They are not calling for a conviction, that responsibility lies with the trial court, but for the information to be filed, so the legal process can take its course.
For the broader public, the stakes are significant. Departmental orders must retain authority, and administrative delay cannot become a default. The Manas case is emblematic: It highlights what happens when directives remain in limbo, when oversight exists but is not exercised, and when institutional decisions are left unimplemented.
Almost 10 years have passed since the ambush. More than 415 days have gone by since the DOJ was ordered to act within 10 days. Yet, the information remains unfiled. The question is clear: Will Acting Secretary Vida ensure that departmental orders are executed, or will administrative inertia quietly override formal authority?
For the Manas family and countless others waiting for justice, enforcement is more than a procedural formality. It is a test of institutional credibility.
Implementation of the Jan. 16, 2025, DOJ resolution would send a clear signal that administrative authority is meaningful, the law is actionable, and justice, though delayed, is not abandoned.
Acting Secretary Vida must now act — not only as head of the department, but honoring the oath he took as lawyer and as justice secretary to protect justice and the people — by ensuring the information is filed and the department’s directives are enforced.