When Ombudsman Samuel Martires quietly reversed a lawful dismissal order issued by his predecessor, Conchita Carpio-Morales, against Senator Joel Villanueva in 2019, it appeared to be a routine administrative correction. In truth, it was a seismic moment for accountability that went unnoticed for years.

The reversal, made without public notice or explanation, effectively erased the penalty of dismissal, forfeiture of benefits, and perpetual disqualification that Morales had imposed in 2016 for Villanueva’s misuse of ₱10 million in pork barrel funds. It remained buried in the Ombudsman’s files until October 23, 2025, when the current Ombudsman, Boying Remulla, revealed its existence.

The question now is both legal and moral:

Can a successor Ombudsman be held liable for secretly overturning a final and executory ruling made by his predecessor?

The Power—and Its Limits

Under the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), the Ombudsman wields immense authority. He can investigate, discipline, and dismiss non-impeachable public officials for grave misconduct or corruption. His administrative decisions are final and executory unless reversed on appeal within the prescribed period.

But the same law also shields the Ombudsman from suits for acts performed in the discharge of official duties. The Supreme Court has long recognized that quasi-judicial officers like the Ombudsman enjoy functional immunity to preserve independence and protect them from harassment suits.

Yet this immunity ends where illegality begins. Acts that are patently illegal or beyond jurisdiction are not protected.

Morales’s Dismissal Order Was Final

Ombudsman Morales issued Villanueva’s dismissal order on November 14, 2016. Villanueva filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) that same month, but Morales never resolved it before her retirement in mid-2018.

Under Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 07, a motion for reconsideration only suspends finality within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court, in Republic v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 152375, July 15, 2003), held that failure to resolve a motion within a reasonable time “does not indefinitely suspend the finality of a judgment.”

In administrative practice, “reasonable time” is measured in months, not years. Morales’s inaction for more than a year and a half far exceeded that limit. Her 2016 dismissal order thus became final and executory by operation of law, long before Martires assumed office.

Martires Acted Without Jurisdiction

By law and jurisprudence, Morales’s failure to resolve the MR within a reasonable time— typically 3 months— did not suspend the finality of her 2016 dismissal order. The case had become final and executory, as Villanueva neither received a ruling nor elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals within the 15-day appeal period.

By the time Martires reversed the dismissal in 2019, the case was already closed. Once a decision becomes final and executory, the Ombudsman—like any quasi-judicial body—loses jurisdiction over the case. Any action taken thereafter is void ab initio.

As the Supreme Court ruled in GSIS v. Florendo (G.R. No. 89655, June 19, 1992):

“Once a judgment becomes final, the court or agency rendering it has no jurisdiction to alter, amend, or revoke it.”

Thus, Martires’s reversal was not merely erroneous—it was void for lack of jurisdiction. It was not a lawful exercise of administrative discretion but a usurpation of authority.

Immunity Does Not Cover Illegality

Functional immunity is meant to protect honest error, not deliberate abuse.

If evidence shows that Martires knowingly reversed a final decision without jurisdiction—or did so to favor Villanueva—his act falls outside the mantle of official immunity.

Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019) penalizes any public officer who causes undue injury or grants unwarranted benefits “through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.”

If Ombudsman Remulla’s investigation confirms that the 2019 reversal was issued despite the case’s finality, it may constitute manifest partiality or gross negligence, both punishable under the law.

Could Villanueva Have Appealed in 2019?

No. Once Morales’s decision became final, there was no longer any case to appeal.

Villanueva’s MR, unresolved for nearly two years, could not remain pending indefinitely. Had he filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals in 2019, it would have been dismissed outright for lack of jurisdiction.

The only reason his case was “revived” was that Ombudsman Martires—illegally—revived it himself.

The Dilemma of Accountability

Martires is no longer in office. He can no longer face administrative sanctions. But because the 2019 reversal was void, it can still serve as the factual basis for a criminal investigation under R.A. 3019.

Ombudsman Remulla now faces a defining choice:

• Conduct a full internal review of the reversal;
• Disclose all documents to restore transparency; and
• Refer the case for criminal investigation if illegality is found.

These steps will not only clarify the past but reaffirm the rule that no one is above the law—not even the Ombudsman.

The Larger Lesson

The Martires episode is not an administrative footnote; it is a cautionary tale.

The Office of the Ombudsman was created to be the conscience of government—the guardian of integrity. But when its own head quietly nullifies a lawful judgment, the institution itself becomes complicit in the decay it was designed to fight.

The secrecy surrounding the Villanueva reversal was not just a procedural lapse—it was a breach of public trust.

For an office that demands transparency from others, silence is betrayal.

The Final Word

The Ombudsman’s independence is sacred—but so is the people’s right to accountability.

To hold a public officer to account is not to destroy the institution; it is to redeem it.

If an Ombudsman can quietly undo justice without explanation and walk away unscathed, then the watchdog has blinded itself.

And that, in the end, is the greater danger—when the guardian of accountability becomes its own blind spot.

The header features a photo montage of the 5th, 6th and 7th Ombudsmen of the Philippines: left to right, Conchita Carpio-Morales, July 2011 – July 2018; Samuel Martires, July 2018 – July 2025; and, Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla, appointed October 2025. (credits: Rappler, PhilStar, and Wikipedia, respectively)

About the author

RAUL F. BORJAL, known as “Rolly” to his family and friends, was born in Naga City, Camarines Sur, and now resides in Parañaque City, Metro Manila. An alumnus of both Ateneo de Naga University and Ateneo de Manila University, he held senior executive roles in several domestic and multinational corporations, culminating in his retirement as Vice President and Corporate Secretary of a Filipino-owned group of companies.

He is married to the former Wenifreda D. Parma, a cum laude graduate of Ateneo de Naga University, and together they have four children. Rolly is also a co-founder and a member of the editorial board of Dateline Ibalon.