The Supreme Court has called on Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla or any concerned party to substantiate allegations of partiality, misconduct and corruption in the Court of Appeals, saying it cannot act on broad allegations alone without a formal complaint and supporting evidence.
The SC made the statement after Remulla called on the judiciary to undergo “soul searching” over an alleged troubling trend of Ombudsman decisions being reversed by the Court of Appeals.
In a statement, the SC said it takes allegations of partiality, misconduct and corruption seriously but cannot investigate broad accusations against an entire appellate court based solely on public statements.
“We therefore invite the Ombudsman, or any concerned party, to file the proper complaint and submit supporting evidence,” the Court said.
The SC explained that it acts on allegations when formal complaints are filed, evidence is presented and the judges or justices involved are given an opportunity to respond.
The Court also stressed that accountability in court proceedings is required by the Constitution.
During the Senate Finance Committee’s hearing on the Ombudsman’s proposed 2027 budget, Remulla said he had raised with Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen his concerns over cases in which Ombudsman decisions were reversed by the CA.
He described the reversals as a problem for the Ombudsman’s office and said the judiciary “has to be examined closely by everybody in government.”
“They themselves should go on a soul searching so that we can be a better country,” Remulla added.
The SC said serious accusations against judges and courts should instead be subjected to proper investigation so the facts can be fairly determined and the Court can exercise its disciplinary authority when warranted.
At the same time, the Court said it welcomes fair criticism of the judiciary and its decisions.
It cited its recent unanimous ruling in In re Heydarian, Cendana, and Gadon, where it upheld the respondents’ freedom of expression, including their right to criticize the courts, despite strong statements made against the SC.
The SC said the ruling demonstrated that criticism of the judiciary is protected, while serious accusations of wrongdoing should be supported by evidence and pursued through the proper channels.#