Ombudsman to SC: Act on complaint vs CA justices

MANILA, Philippines — Following his call for the Supreme Court (SC) to do some “soul-searching,” Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla is seeking an update on an administrative case filed last year by his predecessor against seven incumbent justices of the Court of Appeals (CA).

During the “Executive Session” program on dzRH on Saturday, Remulla shared a report by ABS-CBN News about former ombudsman Samuel Martires who filed an administrative complaint against seven CA associate justices.

They were all facing complaints “for gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service arising from their TRO (temporary restraining order) and rulings against the ombudsman’s preventive suspension orders on Antique officials.”

“To date, there appears to be no record of the Judicial Integrity Board or the Supreme Court having acted on or resolved that complaint,” according to Remulla.

A report from Pilipino Star Ngayon in March 2025 said Martires pressed complaints for gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the public against CA Associate Justices Louis Acosta, Marlene Gonzales-Sison, Rex Bernardo Pascual, Mary Charlene Hernandez-Azura, Roberto Quiroz, Rafael Antonio Santos and Ferdinand Baylon. The names of Sison and Santos no longer appear on the list of incumbent justices in the CA website.

Martires alleged the justices issued a TRO against the ombudsman’s decision to preventively suspend local officials of Antique, even if only photocopies of the suspension order were presented when these should have been certified true copies, and that the TRO was enforced even if the suspension had already lapsed. Also, a petitioner was given a TRO despite not having yet asked the ombudsman to reconsider its decision.

Remulla argued the ombudsman has been “tallying everything,” particularly “cases dismissed by the ombudsman, but were overturned by the Court of Appeals.”

“We already have findings of fact. Now, when they dismiss that and reverse us, does that mean they have a new finding of fact? It is a question of law,” he maintained.

Remulla’s remarks came after the SC called on him or other parties to file complaints against erring judges and justices and submit supporting evidence. The latter maintained it “takes seriously” the accusations against members of the judiciary, but “cannot act on broad allegations against an entire appellate court based on public statements.”

Remulla, who urged the judiciary to “do some soul-searching” during Senate budget deliberations for the Office of the Ombudsman, emphasized the ombudsman would “inform the public” about the alleged institutional issues that disturb the credibility of the judiciary.