Romualdez wants Ombudsman out of probe

By Joseph Bernard A. Marzan

TAGUIG CITY—Leyte 1st district Representative and former House speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez has asked the Office of the Ombudsman to inhibit itself from investigating against him, suggesting to let an independent and impartial body do it.

In a letter dated April 22, 2026 and addressed to Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla, the law firm of Villaraza & Angangco, which represents Romualdez said the request seeks to ensure impartiality and protect the respondent’s right to due process.

The letter argued that public statements made by the Ombudsman and Assistant Ombudsman Jose Dominic “Mico” Clavano IV indicate a “preconceived position” on the case, even before the completion of any fact-finding investigation.

“On several occasions, the Honorable Ombudsman has made public statements concerning Rep. Romualdez that evince a preconceived position on issues that are the subject of potential or ongoing inquiry,” the letter stated.

It added that these statements create the impression that the Ombudsman “has already resolved to prosecute our client for plunder, notwithstanding the fact that no preliminary investigation has yet been initiated, much less completed.”

The counsel cited remarks attributed to the Ombudsman indicating that the office had been studying the case and was preparing plunder charges linked to alleged irregularities in flood control projects.

These include previous statements made to the press, and press conferences that they organized on April 6 and 16 this year.

Among the statements referenced was that the case is “flood control related in so many ways” and would be filed “within May,” and that Romualdez “will be subjected to a case of plunder very soon.”

The letter also pointed to statements alleging conspiracy in the budget process, including claims that the case involves coordination with others and possible involvement of officials from the Department of Budget and Management.

They also pointed out that during the April 16 press conference, Clavano allegedly referred to Romualdez as a “master plunderer” even before the conclusion of any investigation.

The counsel also raised concerns over remarks suggesting interference with Romualdez’s request to travel abroad for medical purposes, including a statement implying he might not return.

“Such statements are unequivocal: the Honorable Office has already determined that our client is guilty of plunder even before any case has been filed and while it is still performing investigatory duties,” the letter read.

The filing argued that these circumstances undermine the objectivity of any investigation and could render the proceedings a “mere formality” or “fishing expedition” designed to support a predetermined conclusion.

Citing the Supreme Court cases of Tejano Jr. vs. The Hon. Ombudsman and Ladlad vs. Velasco, the letter emphasized that investigating officers must not only be impartial but must also appear impartial to the public.

Both cases stressed that prosecutors should avoid giving the impression that their office is being used for political ends and must adhere strictly to procedures to maintain public trust.

“Only by strict adherence to the established procedure may [the] public’s perception of the impartiality of the prosecutor be enhanced,” the letter stated, quoting the high court.

It added that the request is not intended to question the integrity of the Ombudsman but to “shield its proceedings from unnecessary questions regarding objectivity or fairness” and to safeguard the respondent’s constitutional rights.

The Office of the Ombudsman has yet to issue a public response to the request as of this writing.