The recent appointment of Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla as the Philippine Ombudsman has sparked intense public debate. Many questions have been raised, particularly regarding pending cases and his political background. While the appointment is legally valid, it highlights structural challenges in the system designed to safeguard integrity and independence.
Why the Appointment Is Legal
The 1987 Constitution sets clear qualifications for the Ombudsman:
- Natural-born Filipino
- At least 40 years old
- Member of the Philippine Bar
- At least 10 years of experience as a judge or lawyer
- Recognized integrity
Notably, the Constitution does not disqualify someone because of a pending case or political affiliation. Pending cases, even serious ones, do not constitute a legal barrier. Likewise, prior service as a Cabinet member or ally of the appointing President does not automatically disqualify a candidate.
The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) screened applications, deliberated on qualifications, and included Remulla on the shortlist. Following this process, the President legally appointed him. From a purely procedural standpoint, the rules were followed.
Why Public Concerns Remain
While legal, the appointment raises legitimate questions about independence and public trust:
- Pending family cases: Remulla’s son is reportedly involved in a serious drug case. Although this does not legally affect his appointment, it raises concerns about perception and potential conflicts of interest.
- Political affiliations: Remulla has held multiple political offices and is considered an ally of the current administration. Critics argue this could influence his decisions, especially when prosecuting powerful figures connected to the government.
- Integrity vs. perception: The Ombudsman’s role is not just to be independent, but to be seen as independent. Even lawful appointments can erode public confidence if the appearance of impartiality is in doubt.
The Structural Challenge
This case illustrates a broader issue: the system allows legal appointments that may undermine public confidence. The Constitution prioritizes legal qualifications but does not explicitly address pending cases or political ties. The JBC has discretion but no explicit mandate to reject candidates based solely on perceived conflicts or ongoing investigations.
This gap leaves citizens with little recourse except public scrutiny, media oversight, and civil society pressure to ensure accountability.
Conclusion
The appointment of Jesus Crispin Remulla as Ombudsman is constitutionally sound, but it also exposes weaknesses in the system designed to protect integrity and independence. Legal validity does not automatically translate to public trust. For an office tasked with investigating and prosecuting public officials, perception of independence is just as crucial as legal qualification.
The conversation this appointment has sparked is a reminder: democracy relies not only on laws but also on public vigilance and ethical governance.
