By Jose Mario De Vega

According to former Solicitor General Florin T. Hilbay: If it is true, as Ombudsman Remulla asserts, that the cases against Sen. Joel Villanueva were dismissed by former Ombudsman Martires in secret [“‘Di naman na publish yan, ‘di yan nilabas. Nobody knew about it.”], then Ombudsman Remulla should treat such order as mere internal memo subject to his reconsideration or reversal.

Though, I technically agree with his cogent contention I will further argue that that “order” or “internal memo” is void ab initio! The first question is: did that erring public official filed his Motion for Reconsideration (MR) within the reglementary period? Or to put it in another way, did the said person subject of the order of dismissal file his MR timely?

Next, it is public knowledge that it was Ombudswoman Carpio-Morales who issued that recommendatory dismissal from the service of that official. Following clearly the timeline of events, if indeed he did file; then logic will tell us that the same should have been done on Nov-Dec of 2016! Anent, how on earth did it happened that the order or the “decision” favoring the MR of that official was done by former Ombudsman Martires – when in fact it should have been filed with Ombudswoman Carpio-Morales who was still in charge of the said office up to 2018?

To refresh our minds, it was in November 2016, that Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales publicly dismissed that public official from public service for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service over alleged misuse of P10 million in PDAF funds.

This was not a rumor. It was an official, published, and widely reported act. It carried full legal force, gave notice to the nation, and invited constitutional review if challenged.

The former Solicitor General is correct in stating that:

The order of former Ombudsman Carpio-Morales dismissing Sen. Villanueva for the PDAF scam was a public act. Former Ombudsman Martires had no authority to reverse that decision in secret, thereby depriving the public or any interested party from questioning his decision before the Supreme Court. Therefore, Ombudsman Remulla can treat the secret memo as having had no effect and can proceed with his intention to request the Senate to enforce the original order of dismissal.

I concur with the position of the La Verite FB page that Hilbay’s argument rests on firm legal bedrock:

A public decision cannot be undone by a secret one.

Finality of dismissal remains unless properly reversed in valid, transparent form.

Due process demands notice, publication, and openness.

A secret memo is merely internal and has no binding public force.

The prior dismissal remains operable until lawfully set aside.

Despite all the twists and turns, in the end, any reasonable person will draw the conclusion that Villanueva failed to file his MR on time.

Nonetheless, assuming for the sake of the “argument” that he did file his MR allegedly on time, still the central question is: why the said “decision” was withheld from the public?

The misplaced whining and the emotional outbursts of former Ombudsman Martires in one TV interview saying that it is not part of his duty to tell the public everything that he is doing at his office is not only a bastardization of the Constitution, but also of all our judicial processes.

The fundamental law is clear: public office is public trust. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-building. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen.

What is at stake here is the collective interest of the public which is ironically the primordial mandate of his office and incontestably, in the greater sense, the future of our next generation.

Needless to state, it is my firm view and so hold that what Martires did is not only unconstitutional, but also a grave violation of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 otherwise known as Republic Act 6770.

It is not only Villanueva that must be investigated, Martires too, must also explain to the public his fantastic and magical “ruling”

Ergo, that “decision” or “order” or “internal memo” or whatever the hell one wish to call that is void ab initio!

Dismiss and jail them!